Advertisement

May 17, 2013

Senate Committee Holds Hearing on Health Care Fraud Enforcement

hearing titled Anatomy of a Fraud Bust: From Investigation to Conviction held by the Senate Committee on Finance (Committee) on April 24th allowed federal health care agencies to both tout their fraud-fighting successes, and defend their failure to implement all of the fraud-fighting initiatives created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  As a starting point, the government witnesses called to testify discussed two fraud enforcement success stories: the September 7, 2011 nationwide roundup of 91 individuals accused of health care fraud offenses in 8 cities involving approximately $295 million in false billing to federal health care programs and the ABC Home Health and Florida Home Health (ABC/Florida) case from the Southern District of Florida.  Afterwards, the government witnesses fielded questions from the Committee members about the government’s plans going forward in the health care fraud prevention and enforcement arenas.   The hearing coincided with the Government Accountability Office’s release of a report on implementation by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) of  provider screening efforts to prevent ineligible providers from fraudulently accessing Medicare and Medicaid payments. 

The Committee members, witnesses, and their testimonies, where available, were:

Members Present

Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Senators Tom Carper (D-DE), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) participated in the hearing.

Witnesses

  • The Honorable Daniel Levinson, Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.
  • The Honorable Wifredo A. Ferrer, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Miami, Florida
  • Dr. Peter Budetti, Deputy Administrator and Director of the Center for Program Integrity, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,  Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.
  • Ms. Kathleen King, Director, Health Care, United States Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C.

During the Q&A session, the Senators asked various questions about the biggest fraud-producing areas in health care and government efforts to prevent and detect rather than “pay and chase” alleged fraud.  Of note, Senator Hatch’s statement set the tone for many of the questions that leveled criticism at CMS’s failure to implement any moratoria on new providers in certain industries or surety bonds for home health agencies, and the lack of results from data analysis initiatives aimed at catching fraudsters earlier in the course of their schemes. 

Overall, the government continues to be under significant pressure to deliver results under its strengthened health care fraud enforcement powers under the ACA.  And Senator Coburn’s assertion that the government should emphasize the potential jail time providers could face if convicted of fraud may have set the stage for further fraud takedowns and longer sentences in health care fraud cases.   The attorneys in our Health Care Enforcement Defense Group (HCEDG) recently published a three-part year in review series on important trends in this area, and the first quarterly report building upon this series will be released soon.

©1994-2013 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Associate

Stephanie is an Associate in the Washington, D.C. office, practicing in the Health Law Section.

Prior to joining Mintz Levin, Stephanie was an associate counsel in the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Counsel to the Inspector General. There, her practice focused on health care enforcement matters involving the False Claims Act, the Social Security Act, the Physician Self-Referral Act, the anti-kickback statute, the EMTALA, and other administrative actions.

(202) 434-7437

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.