CIA Overpayments

Material violations of Corporate Integrity Agreements (CIAs) subject defendants to False Claims Act liability. the Justice Department has encouraged this reading of the False Claims Act (FCA) liability provisions, when it broke its silence on the issue by filing a Statement of Interest arguing that a qui tam relator can bring suit on behalf of the United States fora  material breach of a CIA.

 

CIAs are executed as part of a civil settlement between the healthcare provider and the Government to resolve cases arising under the FCA. These OIG-imposed programs are typically in effect for a period of three to five years, and have provided the OIG with a mechanism to specify practices and obligations that help ensure the healthcare provider’s compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

The OIG and healthcare providers often negotiate compliance obligations as part of the settlement. A provider consents to these obligations as part of the civil settlement and in exchange for the OIG’s agreement not to seek an exclusion of that healthcare provider from participation in Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal healthcare programs. The typical terms of a comprehensive OIG corporate integrity agreement include the requirement for the provider to retain an independent review organization to provide independent validation and verification of adherence to Medicare requirements in relevant areas where the provider has been found to be noncompliant. These reviews and audits, in and of themselves, may trigger Medicare overpayment situations.

The typical CIA obligates providers to report and remit all overpayments within thirty days of identification through the use of an Overpayment Refund Payment Form. An overpayment can occur in a myriad number of ways, and the Overpayment Refund Payment Form requires the provider to specify a reason for the overpayment such as duplicate, billed in error, or insufficient documentation. The duty, upon which a whistleblower Medicare Fraud FCA case may be based on, is the express contractual obligation on behalf of the provider to remit overpayments within thirty days of identification.

REAL PEOPLE making real change Meet Some of our Heroes

Kathleen Hawkins

Dignity Health
$37 million

Kathleen Hawkins, RN MSN, had been employed by Defendant, Catholic Healthcare West (CHW) for approximately 6 years when she decided she had had enough of trying to change the hospital system from within.

CHW, a California not-for-profit corporation that operated hospitals in California, Arizona, and Nevada, was at the time the eighth largest hospital system in the nation and the largest not-for-profit hospital provider in California.

READ MORE

Joe Strom

Johnson & Johnson
$184 Million

Joe Strom contacted us in 2005. We were very grateful that he did. We immediately formed an all-star legal team and a process to stop a very harmful pharmaceutical marketing strategy. It was this process we set into motion that ultimately returned hundreds of millions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury, and a portion of that, very well-deserved, into Joe’s bank account.

Joe told us a very troubling story about the off-label promotion of a pharmaceutical drug for patients who already suffered from chronic heart failure.

READ MORE

Bruce A. Moilan Sr.

$27 Million

Bruce Moilan was a seasoned hospital systems expert by the time he contacted our Firm. At the time he decided to file his qui tam lawsuit, he was employed by South Texas Health System as a System Director for Materials Management. In this position, he oversaw $24 million in annual purchases of supplies and equipment and helped determine budget, reduction and cost analysis throughout the contract bidding and negotiations process. His job was to insure proper implementation for purchasing, receiving and management of inventory, for McAllen Hospitals, L.P.

READ MORE

Description
Description
Description

"I collaborated with Nolan, Auerbach and White on a broad variety of cases where whistleblowers stepped forward to disclose tactics employed by large companies to influence physicians' medical decision-making in patient care. They provide ample resources to not only optimize their client cases, but in doing so consistently leverage best medical evidence to further patient safety and resource utilization.”

— Fred Polsky M.D.,, Former Medical Director, CMS Zone 7 Integrity Contractor

Any Questions?

Am I potential whistleblower that matches up well with our firm?

We only want to represent amazing people.

How much will I make?

We cannot guarantee anything, but we will deliver on this promise: we will give you feedback and a prognosis within 48 hours of your submission of all details to us. We are the first healthcare fraud qui tam law firm, and have been doing only healthcare fraud whistleblower lawsuits for decades-so you can expect as accurate a picture as is possible.

Are my communications with you confidential?

They are 100% confidential. If we do not take your case, your information becomes inaccessible. We have no interest in it. Besides, it is protected by the attorney-client privilege under our lawyer regulations, and we would lose our license if we were to disclose one iota of information about you or your potential case.

    Contact Us

    Contact Us

    The more detailed the response, the more likely it is that we will be able to evaluate and determine if your potential False Claims Act case falls within our case requirements. IF IT DOES, WE WILL RESPOND TO YOU WITHIN 24 HOURS. (Names of potential defendants are not necessary at this point, should you feel more comfortable omitting them.) By law, all communications to us are 100% confidential.

    No. of Employees at the Company?
    Please read the following statement and then click "Send Form":

    Any response to your e-mail will be solely to communicate about our possible representation of you under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act. All e-mails submitted to us, whether we take your case or not, are 100% confidential. If we do not respond to your e-mail, then you have communicated information which we cannot address because it appears to fall outside of the False Claims Act or our case requirements.