Contents
Laboratory fraud can involve tests never performed, orders changed to add expensive work, or payments that buy referrals. A clinician requests a basic urine test, but the laboratory bills for molecular testing and adds a diagnosis the clinician never supplied. If you know how the order became that claim, you may know the part of the business a whistleblower case needs.
Laboratory fraud involves false accounts of what was ordered, needed, performed or billed, or payments used to obtain referrals. The scheme can start on a requisition form, in a billing system or in the agreement that pays someone to send patients. Medicare and Medicaid can end up paying for work chosen to increase revenue rather than meet a patient’s needs. Taxpayers fund the claims. Patients supply the samples for a sales decision dressed as a medical one.
Genotox Laboratories admitted in its civil settlement that it offered custom profiles through which providers preselected tests for all or nearly all their patients, generally at the highest reimbursement categories. The selection happened once. The laboratory kept performing and billing the selected tests across the practice.
Laboratory cases have involved owners, executives, ordering clinicians, marketers and operators of referring facilities. Their jobs connect different parts of the transaction: finding patients, authorizing tests, performing work, submitting claims and returning money to the referral source.
A laboratory whistleblower case connects inside knowledge to false claims involving government money. Billing staff, laboratory employees, sales representatives, clinicians and competitors have brought useful information. The relevant question is what you can explain about the orders, testing, payments or instructions you encountered.
Laboratory fraud evidence connects the original requisition and clinical reason to the specimen, testing, result, claim and payment. Communications and compensation records can explain who directed the work and why it kept happening.
In the government’s complaint involving Tomoka Medical Lab, an employee allegedly compared a Medicaid claim with the order for the same patient:
When she compared this claim form with the actual requisition order for the same beneficiary, she noted that the provider ordered the basic urinalysis with culture and sensitivity. The Relator also noted that Tomoka’s Medicaid claim form included a diagnosis code that the physician did not list on the requisition order.
United States ex rel. Cushing v. Shah, government’s complaint, paragraph 81
The complaint alleged that the claim billed more expensive molecular testing in place of the ordered basic urinalysis and included an added diagnosis. The claim told a more expensive story than the clinician’s order.
The records you know may explain the order, the assay, the claim or the referral payment. A billing employee may recognize a code change. A technologist may recognize a result that conflicts with the instrument output. Tell us what you saw, how you learned it and who else can explain it. We assess the evidence with you.
Matching orders, performance records and claims can expose changes between the requested test and the billed service. Requisition controls, independent review and audit trails also reach the decisions behind the claim.
The 2010 Spectroscopy article Fat Finger, Falsification, or Fraud? emphasizes original data, documented amendments and complete records of repeat analyses. Its point about laboratory information systems is direct:
In any laboratory this integration needs to include effective audit trails to help maintain data integrity and monitor changes to data.
The final report shows the released result. The audit trail can show who changed the data behind it.
Preselected test menus, diagnoses added by the laboratory, repeated broad testing and compensation tied to referrals are health care fraud red flags in a laboratory.
Certification under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments addresses laboratory testing quality. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services describes its purpose as accurate, reliable and timely results. The order, medical justification and claim answer the separate billing questions.
Yes. A 2021 clinical review in The Journal of Family Practice, Urine Drug Screening: A Guide to Monitoring Tx With Controlled Substances, explains how antibody cross-reactivity can produce false-positive and false-negative screening results. For a concern about deliberate alteration, the original output, released report and history of changes give us different parts of the account.
Deliberate changes to laboratory data can conceal what the testing actually showed. The Spectroscopy article describes falsification through intentionally deceptive entries and explains why amendments should identify the person, date and reason for the change. An insider who knows how a result was altered can help connect those records to the decision behind it.
The Medicare genetic-testing scheme described in the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General’s fraud alert uses offers of free cheek swabs or screenings to obtain Medicare information and bill for unnecessary or unordered tests. Recruitment can happen through phone calls, health fairs, public events or door-to-door visits. A marketer may know how beneficiaries were recruited while a laboratory employee sees which orders accompanied their samples.
The treating clinician holds the medical reason for a diagnostic test, while the laboratory performs the work and submits the claim. That separation explains why the most useful evidence often sits in more than one office.
Bring the unsolicited result and ordering history to us for assessment with laboratory fraud whistleblower counsel. The treating clinician’s documented intent and the actual requisition help establish who requested the work. We address your own role in the same conversation.
Yes. Reference laboratories perform send-out tests for other laboratories, including specialized work requiring different equipment or expertise. Medicare permits a referring laboratory to bill under specified exceptions.
Pass-through billing can use that separation to collect a higher rate. In criminal charges involving rural hospitals, the government alleged that operators billed through the hospitals for laboratory work performed elsewhere on patients never treated there. According to the charges, the hospital supplied its provider number and higher negotiated rate.
Covered Medicare clinical laboratory fee-schedule services accepted on assignment have no deductible or coinsurance. We assess commercial out-of-network waivers with you and laboratory fraud whistleblower counsel, including whether promised waivers helped obtain referrals.
The clinician keeps the patient-specific justification, while the laboratory must retain the information it received and show that its claim reflects it. Under Medicare’s documentation rule, a missing response from the ordering clinician can cause the laboratory’s claim to be denied. The biller depends on a record held elsewhere.
When all components of a recognized panel are performed, Medicare’s claims-processing rules require the panel billing treatment rather than separate component claims. The actual tests, applicable codes and service date establish what belongs in the panel. An added test needs its own ordering and medical justification.
We address consent concerns with you and laboratory fraud whistleblower counsel against the particular test and circumstances. For the billing inquiry, we examine the clinician’s order, documented intent and the service charged to the payer.
An excessive-charge concern becomes specific when the bill includes unperformed tests, substituted services or repeated work unsupported by the patient’s needs.
Yes. Physician-office laboratories are an established part of clinical testing. Physician ownership connects the ordering decision to the business paid for testing, which makes test selection and financial relationships relevant to a suspected scheme.
Diagnostic testing addresses a patient’s medical problem. Medicare also has separately authorized screening benefits. The reason for the test and the applicable benefit determine the coverage inquiry. A diagnosis added by the laboratory to secure payment can change the claim’s account of why testing occurred.
Pathology separates technical preparation, including processing and staining, from the pathologist’s professional interpretation. We examine which work the payment purchased, who billed for it and whether money also bought referrals.
Unnecessary toxicology tests can come from broad standing profiles or automatic confirmation without an individualized clinical reason. The Journal of Family Practice review recommends a risk-based approach to testing frequency.
A whistleblower complaint involving Blue Waters Assessment & Testing Services alleged that all new intakes automatically received confirmation testing without an individualized assessment. It also alleged automatic monthly confirmation regardless of positive screens. The testing schedule followed the intake process rather than the patient’s clinical needs, according to the complaint.
Medicare does not separately pay for specimen validity testing performed as quality control with urine drug testing. The purpose matters: creatinine or pH testing used to assess the specimen belongs with that drug-testing service.
Yes. In a criminal trial involving a sober home’s medical director, evidence described by the Justice Department showed that the doctor supplied standing urine-testing orders in exchange for a monthly fee. Other laboratory cases have involved alleged processing fees, consulting payments and free services used to obtain referrals. The payment’s label can hide what it bought.
Start with our whistleblower experts and the laboratory work you know. We assess the false claims, the payer and the decisions behind them, then bring in laboratory fraud whistleblower lawyers with the expertise your case needs. Questions about records, earlier disclosures or your own participation belong in that conversation.
A False Claims Act whistleblower case, also called a qui tam case, seeks a government recovery for false claims. Laboratory cases can concern Medicare or Medicaid payments for unnecessary, unordered or unperformed tests. We help connect your account to the claims and the people responsible for them.
The False Claims Act is central to cases seeking recovery of government money. Payments for referrals bring the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act into the picture, including private health insurance under the latter. Ownership and compensation relationships also raise questions under the physician self-referral law. We assess those arrangements with laboratory fraud whistleblower counsel.
Discuss anonymity and confidentiality with our whistleblower experts at the outset. We address those concerns with you and the laboratory fraud whistleblower counsel your case needs, including questions about your own role in the conduct.
Tell our whistleblower experts what happened to the specimens and what the laboratory reported or billed. We examine the quality records, released results and claims together, and assess the appropriate response with you.
Start with our whistleblower experts. We help develop the case around the testing and payment facts, find laboratory fraud whistleblower lawyers for the scheme involved, and stay beside you through the process.
A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers. We assess the claims and evidence behind your potential recovery with you.
Laboratory whistleblower cases have exposed referral payments and billing for unnecessary or unperformed tests. The examples below show what the insider could connect to the claim.
Health Diagnostic Laboratory agreed to a $47 million civil settlement over alleged referral fees, routine copayment waivers and unnecessary testing. The Justice Department described processing and handling payments tied to blood-test referrals.
The Physicians Toxicology Laboratory case ended in a $4,425,000 settlement over alleged unnecessary drug testing.
Princeton Pathology Services settled False Claims Act allegations for $2.4 million. In the whistleblower’s complaint, a physician alleged that his own emergency-room visit produced charges for tests his treating physician had not ordered and that he had not undergone. The physician became the patient, then found work on his bill that he said never happened.
Yes. In its case against Precision Toxicology, the Justice Department alleged that custom profiles generated large numbers of urine drug tests without an individualized assessment of each patient’s needs.
The False Claims Act provides triple damages and civil penalties for false claims. The order forms, repeated testing and billing instructions matter because the same decision can affect claims across a practice.
If you recognize the added test, rewritten diagnosis or referral payment, speak with our whistleblower experts about the laboratory practice you know. We work with laboratory fraud whistleblower lawyers to build your strongest case, and stand with you in pursuing the government’s recovery and your share.