May 24, 2012

Michael Jackson's Doctor, Other Convicted Felons, Still Listed as Medicare Providers

Senators' letter highlights program's inability to weed out bad actors

Michael Jackson’s private physician, Dr. Conrad Murray, was sentenced to four years in jail Tuesday for his role in the singer’s 2009 death, but so far he hasn’t been pushed out of the Medicare program.

Dr. Conrad Murray Kevork Djansezian/AP                                                                              Dr. Conrad Murray Kevork Djansezian/AP

According to a letter two senior Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee sent to Medicare’s administrator on Tuesday, Murray and other convicted felons and unlicensed physicians are still listed as legitimate physicians on the health plan’s provider database, pointing to a serious vulnerability that leaves the program open to fraud and could put seniors at risk.

Conrad’s case “illustrates Medicare’s failure to act in the best interest of seniors,” wrote Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Tom Coburn, R-Okla, in the letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. A spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had no immediate comment.

Murray’s case is a high profile example of Medicare’s failure to remove convicted felons and doctors who have lost their medical licenses from the program, an issue highlighted earlier this year by iWatch News. In Murray’s case, California suspended his medical license in January. In November, Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Yet Murray is still listed as a Medicare provider in the CMS internal database. “Despite the national media coverage of Dr. Murray’s conviction, he remains a legitimate Medicare provider,” Hatch and Coburn wrote in the letter.

Jackson’s doctor is not an isolated case. In the letter to Sebelius, the senators reference an Ohio physician who continues to have a valid Medicare provider number despite a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder, as well as physicians who have been convicted of tax evasion, health care fraud, drug distribution and “lewd and lascivious behavior.” The letter does not name the physicians.

Tuesday’s letter is not the first time the senators have sounded the alarm about felons in Medicare. In September, the senators sent a letter to Dr. Donald Berwick, CMS’s outgoing administrator, listing 34 doctors and other providers who were convicted of a felony or pleaded guilty but retained their Medicare privileges. In November, Berwick responded by letter, and said in many of the cases, Medicare lacks authority to exclude the providers because they were convicted on non-excludable offenses, including felony drunk driving charges and hunting violations.

In response Tuesday, the senators called Berwick’s response troubling, since he pointed to the exceptions. Lack of communication between CMS and federal law enforcement agencies may be one cause of the felon problem. In Tuesday’s letter to Sebelius, the senators expressed exasperation that CMS does not have data sharing agreement to share felony indictment and conviction data with the Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service, state agencies, and even with its own Office of Inspector General.

“In a time of increased technological capability,” they wrote, “it appears CMS is disconnected. Without data sharing agreements with its law enforcement partners, we fear CMS will remain in the dark and Medicare beneficiaries will be placed at risk.”

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Staff Writer

Before he joined the Center’s staff in 2008, Joe Eaton was a staff writer at Washington City Paper and a reporter at The Roanoke Times. He has written for Salon.com, USA Today, and The (Baltimore) Sun. Eaton graduated from the University of Michigan with a bachelor’s degree in English and earned a master’s degree in journalism from the University of Maryland.

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.