May 24, 2012

Is Ohio Moving Towards Its Own False Claims Act?

In a recent case, a Dayton-based managed health care organization, CareSource, agreed to pay $26 million to settle claims alleging CareSource defrauded the federal government. Two former employees brought whistleblower actions in 2006 accusing CareSource of failing to provide required services under the Medicaid program and submitting false claims requesting reimbursement from the federal government for unrendered services. The whistleblowers filed suit under the federal False Claims Act which allows private individuals to file suit on behalf of the federal government against people or organizations whom they know to be defrauding the government. The federal False Claims Act carries stiff penalties including reimbursement, triple damages, civil penalties of $5,500 to $11,000 per false claim, and possible exclusion from all federal health care programs. Under the law, the whistleblower may be awarded a portion of the funds recovered. From the $26 million CareSource settlement, the whistleblowers will receive $3.1 million, the state of Ohio will receive $10 million, and the federal government will receive the remainder. But Ohio wants more money from these types of suits and may get more if lawmakers act.

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine wants Ohio to have its own False Claims Act. In statements made on February 4th to the Columbus Dispatch, Attorney General DeWine said “If we had that in place, our percentage of the [CareSource] settlement would have gone up 10 percent.” According to the non-profit group, Taxpayers Against Fraud, 27 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, and Chicago have their own versions of False Claims Act with whistleblower provisions. These state laws generally allow whistleblowers to file claims against state contractors allowing the states to collect the fraudulent funds and penalties. An Ohio False Claims Act would not only bring increased funds from lawsuit settlements and penalties to the cash-strapped state, but the law also would encourage more whistleblowers to come forward and bring claims against state contractors, including health care organizations that receive state funding.

No bills proposing an Ohio False Claims Act have been reported yet in the new Ohio General Assembly session that kicked off in January. But with the large state budget shortfall and an eager General Assembly, legislation proposing an Ohio False Claims Act is likely to be popular on the heels of the CareSource settlement as a means to recover fraudulent funds taken from the Ohio treasury. Such a law would mean health care organizations would need to be extra vigilant in abiding by all federal and state laws to avoid possible penalties from both the Federal False Claims Act and the Ohio False Claims Act.

© 2012 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Partner

D. Michael Crites is a Partner in the Litigation Department. Mr. Crites focuses his practice on federal court experience in complex civil litigation and white collar criminal matters, including healthcare fraud, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance issues and Federal False Claims Act Violations. He has extensive experience in complex civil and criminal litigation, product liability defense of manufacturers and suppliers, fiduciary litigation, criminal tax and securities fraud defense, and business litigation involving contract disputes, copyright, trademark, trade secret...

614-628-6934

About the Author

Associate

Laura Hartnett is a member of the Litigation Department. She focuses her practice on general commercial litigation with an emphasis on health care and real estate law.

614-628-6930

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.