Contents
Contents
Durable medical equipment fraud involves knowingly billing for equipment or supplies patients never received, never needed, or received in a cheaper form than the claim describes. A purchased prescription, an altered chart or a refill nobody requested can keep those claims moving. If you work in billing, a call center, clinical operations or delivery, you may know where the patient’s experience stopped matching the file.
Durable medical equipment fraud turns an equipment order, delivery or referral into a false claim for government payment. It can start before the patient receives anything, with a payment for a prescription, or continue after treatment ends through recurring bills. The question runs through the whole transaction: what was ordered, what the patient needed, what arrived, what Medicare paid and who directed it.
A marketer recruits a patient, a practitioner signs an order, and a supplier submits the claim. In documented schemes, the order itself becomes something to buy and sell. The supplier holds much of the supporting paperwork, including the clinical record and proof of delivery.
The government’s complaint against AZ Diabetic Supply alleged that intermediaries converted patient leads into prescriptions for sale:
AZD purchased prescriptions from LPI in exchange for a flat fee of $400 for each DME prescription.
United States v. AZ Diabetic Supply, Inc., government’s complaint, paragraph 38
The complaint alleged that the invoice bought a prescription. That makes the payment record as important as the signed order. The Justice Department later announced a civil judgment against the company over purchased prescriptions used to bill Medicare.
Rotech Healthcare agreed to pay $9.68 million and admitted knowingly billing Medicare for portable oxygen contents patients did not use or require, regardless of whether the contents were delivered. A former billing employee brought the whistleblower case.
The equipment had reached the end of its rental payments. Rotech kept charging for oxygen without checking whether the patient needed or received it.
Durable medical equipment cases involve supplier owners, marketers, signing clinicians, telemedicine operators and manufacturers. Their roles differ: one business can acquire the patient, another produce the order, and another bill it. Referral payments and instructions can connect the companies behind an apparently ordinary claim.
Red flags include an order that contradicts the clinical encounter, signatures or dates changed inside the supplier’s office, a more expensive item on the claim than in the box, and continued billing after a patient stops using equipment. Refill shipments without a request and claims for deceased patients give billing and delivery staff other concrete discrepancies to recognize.
An unwanted package or a Medicare statement for equipment never received supplies the patient’s side of the story. Inside the company, call scripts, claim edits and shipment records may explain how that bill was produced.
Medicare says it will never call to sell anything. A script presenting an equipment sale as a call from Medicare deserves attention alongside the order and eventual claim.
Useful evidence connects the order, clinical support, referral payment, delivery and claim. Your account adds who made the decisions, when they made them and how you know. A call-center employee may know the script and promises. A biller may know who changed the code. A delivery employee may know what actually reached the patient.
Clinical and compliance staff may know when an order contradicted the encounter or management ignored an audit warning. That knowledge gives the documents their meaning.
In the Orbit Medical settlement announcement, the Justice Department alleged that sales representatives altered prescriptions and chart notes, forged signatures and added fax stamps to make documents look as though they came from physicians’ offices. The apparent source of the paperwork was part of the alleged deception in those health care claims. Two former employees brought that case.
You can discuss the part of the claim you know with our whistleblower experts. Questions about company records or your own involvement belong in that conversation too.
Start with our whistleblower experts and the conduct you know. We assess the orders, payments and decisions behind the claims, and bring in durable medical equipment fraud whistleblower lawyers with the experience your case needs.
When you contact us, we work through your account and the potential whistleblower case with you. We help connect the conduct to the government claims and the team that can pursue them. Questions about anonymity, workplace protection and reporting timing belong in that discussion.
The False Claims Act is the civil whistleblower route for knowingly false Medicare claims, including durable medical equipment claims. A qui tam case lets a private person pursue recovery on the government’s behalf. The Anti-Kickback Statute also matters when payments buy referrals or prescriptions.
Yes. The Justice Department’s Hillrom settlement addressed alleged conduct involving Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The payer behind the claim matters when we assess the conduct you know.
Yes. A person with information about false Medicare claims can bring a qui tam case under the False Claims Act. We assess how the conduct you know connects to the claims and what the case needs from whistleblower lawyers.
A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers. We assess the claims and evidence that could support that recovery.
The claims, evidence and government’s recovery determine the money available for a whistleblower reward. In the Orbit Medical case, the Justice Department announced approximately $1.5 million for the former employees who brought it. We examine the transactions behind your case and the recovery they could support.
Hospital beds, wheelchairs and oxygen equipment are familiar examples. The federal definition centers on equipment that withstands repeated use, serves a medical purpose, is generally useful because of illness or injury, and is appropriate for the home.
Medicare’s broader benefit covers durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and supplies. A brace, an oxygen concentrator and catheter supplies therefore reach payment through different coverage and billing rules.
Yes. Enrolled suppliers submit claims for covered equipment and supplies. The product and payment category determine whether the business receives a purchase payment, capped rental payments or continuing payments for supplies. That distinction explains why the first delivery can produce business long afterward.
Coverage depends on the item, the patient’s medical need and the applicable order and documentation requirements. The medical record, product and delivery have to support the billed claim. In recurring-supply businesses, the patient’s continuing need and request also matter each time a refill is sent.
Ownership depends on the payment category. A CPAP device transfers to the patient after thirteen paid rental months. Oxygen equipment remains the supplier’s property after the equipment-payment cap, with continuing obligations to furnish it while medically needed during its useful lifetime. The end of rental payments and the end of the supplier’s duties can be different dates.
The phrase can mean the oxygen equipment-payment cap or a supplier-ownership rule. They address different transactions.
Oxygen equipment payments stop after 36 months. Under the separate supplier-ownership rule, a qualifying sale within that period after initial enrollment or the last majority-ownership change requires the buyer to enroll anew and obtain a new accreditation survey, subject to ownership and restructuring exceptions. Ownership records and transaction dates show which business is behind the billing privileges.
According to court documents described in the Justice Department’s account of a criminal case, a Florida supplier operator concealed his control through nominee owners and false enrollment and bank records. The operator pleaded guilty. The ownership and banking records connected the visible suppliers to the person running them.
Selected items require prior authorization. Medicare maintains a Required Prior Authorization List separately from the Master List used to identify items that may be selected. The item and service date determine the applicable requirement, making the authorization history another part of the claim to examine.
The claim needs the applicable written order, supporting medical documentation, correct product coding and proof of delivery. The urological-supplies policy’s documentation section distinguishes an order required before claim submission from one required before delivery. Original files and transmission dates can show when the supplier obtained the order and whether someone later changed it.
The supplier needs the practitioner’s order and the supporting information required for that item. The clinical record explains why the patient needs it. Where a written order before delivery is required, receiving it afterward does not repair the payment problem. Orbit’s alleged changes to dates and fax stamps show why the sequence matters.
For refills, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires documented patient contact and confirmation of need before shipment. It prohibits automatic shipments on a predetermined schedule, even with the patient’s advance authorization.
The contact record must identify the patient, requested item, contact date and affirmative response. Contact can occur no sooner than 30 calendar days before the existing supply is expected to end, and delivery no sooner than ten calendar days before then. An automated message needs the patient’s affirmative response captured in the record. A shipment calendar cannot supply that answer.
The April 2026 urological-supplies policy lists a usual maximum of 200 per month for the specified intermittent-catheter codes and the same combined maximum for sterile intermittent-catheter kits. Payment also depends on the patient’s need and the coverage criteria for the particular product. The order, quantity shipped and refill request explain the actual claim.
For Medicare billing, the important distinction is the actual sterile kit and its coverage criteria. The urological-supplies policy distinguishes a catheter and separate lubricant from a sterile intermittent-catheter kit, which has additional clinical requirements. Components packaged separately cannot be billed as the kit. The box’s contents have to match the code.
Replacement depends on the brace code and the reason for replacing it. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ knee-orthosis policy assigns useful lifetimes of one, two or three years to listed prefabricated braces and three years to custom-fabricated braces. It covers replacement within that period for loss or irreparable damage, while denying replacement for other reasons, including irreparable wear. A repeat order therefore needs a product-specific explanation.
Yes, back braces fall within Medicare’s orthotic benefit when coverage requirements are met. The patient’s need, the prescribed product and the supporting documentation determine the claim. An age-based sales pitch leaves those questions unanswered.
Yes. Regional Home Care’s settlement resolved allegations involving respiratory care services provided by unlicensed personnel. Who actually performed the care can matter alongside the equipment order and the bill.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ telephone-contact FAQ identifies written permission, a call about an item already furnished, or a covered item furnished by that supplier within the previous 15 months. An order alone does not establish that the patient knew a supplier would call. Without that knowledge, the FAQ treats contact based solely on a physician’s order as unsolicited and potentially prohibited.
On the supplier’s first-ever contact with the patient, permission to call about a prescribed item does not permit soliciting additional covered items. A prescription for one item can become the opening for a sales pitch for several. The order, the patient’s account and the call script show what the supplier was selling.
Durable medical equipment referral kickbacks can involve benefits beyond cash. The Justice Department has alleged arrangements involving free services, discounts and supplies used to influence orders. Payment records, the services actually provided and the referral connection show what the arrangement bought.
Yes. The government alleged that Respironics gave free call-center services to suppliers that bought its sleep-apnea masks. It alleged that C.R. Bard offered discounts, excessive free samples and savings on office supplies to steer urology practices toward its prescription form. The benefit can reach the business controlling the order rather than the person signing it.
We assess the payment arrangement with whistleblower lawyers who understand durable medical equipment referrals. The contract, work performed, invoices and prescribing pattern let us examine what a payment labeled marketing, consulting or rent actually purchased.
Medicare can deny claims that lack required orders, correct coding, proof of delivery or valid refill requests. For a whistleblower case, we examine the false claim and who knew about or directed it, including any instruction to keep billing after the problem reached management.
False Claims Act liability can include triple damages and civil penalties. Rotech’s settlement contained admissions about oxygen billing. Orbit’s settlement resolved allegations of altered records. The court entered a civil judgment against AZ Diabetic Supply.
If you know who changed an order, bought a prescription or kept a recurring bill running, tell our Whistleblower Experts what happened. We build the case around that knowledge and bring in durable medical equipment fraud whistleblower lawyers who understand the payment and referral practices involved. We stay beside you through the case and the pursuit of your share of the recovery.