Contents
Contents
Medicaid fraud turns on what Medicaid paid for, what the health care provider or plan represented, and what actually happened. A nurse may know the billed visit never took place. A plan employee may know that a completed assessment exists only in the reporting system. If you can explain that difference, you may hold the part of the story the government cannot see.
Medicaid fraud involves knowing deception connected to Medicaid money or benefits. In provider fraud, the falsehood can concern the service, its necessity, its documentation or the qualifications of the person who supplied it. A managed-care case can instead concern the plan’s enrollment, spending reports or promised services.
Billing for care never delivered, using false supporting records and knowingly keeping money owed back to Medicaid can support a fraud case. We connect the false statement to the payment and to the people who knew what was happening. That connection is the center of a Medicaid False Claims Act case.
Examples include false personal-care hours, fictitious transportation, unnecessary treatment, duplicate billing, upcoding and unbundling. Payments for patient referrals can feed those claims, while false cost or eligibility information can affect a different part of the payment. Medical identity theft can put someone else’s identity on a Medicaid claim.
Knowingly false claims involving Medicare and Medicaid can lead to False Claims Act cases. For a facility serving both programs, we identify which program paid for the service and which records supported that payment. The payer matters as much as the name on the building.
Medicaid fraud can lead to federal criminal prosecution, including cases against individual workers. In a District of Columbia personal-care case, the Justice Department’s account of a worker’s guilty plea described false timesheets contradicted by law-school attendance, key-card and telephone-location records. The claimed hours could be checked against where the worker actually was.
Yes. Medicaid managed-care fraud can involve false service data or financial representations by the plan itself. Under capitation, the state pays a fixed periodic amount for each enrolled member, so the payment is tied to enrollment. A provider’s bill to that plan is a separate transaction.
The 1999 Health Care Financing Administration seminar report, Controlling Fraud and Abuse in Medicaid: Innovations and Obstacles, found that agencies confused fraud against plans with fraud by plans. That distinction gives an insider a useful starting point: who received the money, and whose account of the care was false?
CareSource agreed to pay $26 million to resolve allegations that it failed to provide required screening, assessments and case management, then sent Ohio false data to retain incentives and avoid penalties. The whistleblowers’ complaint alleged that some supposed refusals of care concealed something very different:
The enrollees did not refuse Case Management Services. In fact, CareSource never notified them that they were entitled to receive the Baseline Assessment and Case Management services which CareSource promised to provide.
We see a convenient fiction in that allegation: a recorded refusal puts the missing care on the patient. The employee who knows what families were actually offered can explain why the record says otherwise.
Useful evidence connects the claim or payment report to the underlying service and the decisions behind it. We compare dates, claimed units, authorizations, care notes, schedules, payroll and the identity of the worker. For a plan, encounter data reports that a service occurred. The clinical record gives that report something to answer to.
Sola, a residential group-home operator, paid $2 million to resolve allegations that its Medicaid nursing units exceeded the hours nurses worked. The Justice Department based that comparison on payroll and time records. The question for someone inside is concrete: how did the billing show more nursing than the nurses’ own hours?
Your account of what happened, how you learned it, who was involved and which records support it gives us a place to begin. A billing instruction, an email about an internal review or a service record you know to be false can connect the payment to a decision inside the business. We work through those connections with you, including who else saw the same practice.
The strongest evidence often makes the contradiction specific: the billed hours against payroll, or the completed assessment against the nurse’s actual work. What management knew belongs beside that comparison. We assess the records and the explanation together so that your knowledge of the operation has its proper place in the case.
Start with our whistleblower experts and the provider, hospital or plan conduct you know. We evaluate the payment, the evidence and the whistleblower case it may support, and find Medicaid fraud whistleblower lawyers with the relevant experience.
Talk with us about anonymity and confidentiality at the outset. We address those concerns with you as part of assessing the case and bringing in the right whistleblower lawyers.
Talk with us about the claims and what you saw inside the organization. If you have concerns about retaliation or your own part in the billing, we handle those questions with you and Medicaid fraud whistleblower counsel.
Start with us and the facility, service and Medicaid program involved. We assess those facts with you, including where the care occurred and which program paid, to identify the whistleblower team the matter needs.
A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers. A Medicaid whistleblower reward is a share of the recovery, so the payment and the case behind it matter.
In the CareCore National case, the court approved a $9 million whistleblower award. The whistleblower had worked as a clinical reviewer and supervisor. CareCore admitted approving requests without the required physician review, giving someone inside the review process a direct view of the conduct.
A whistleblower’s payout depends on the government’s recovery and the share awarded in that case. We assess those figures with you against the Medicaid payments and evidence behind your case.
We discuss proposed fees and expenses with you and the whistleblower lawyers considered for your matter. Those terms belong in the conversation about the team and case, alongside your questions about the payment records and your role.
Referrals and analysis of claims data can start a Medicaid fraud investigation. The people reviewing those signals need the underlying records and an explanation of the practice. An insider can supply the instruction or operational detail behind an unusual billing pattern.
A 2012 Journal of Information Systems Applied Research study, Applying Business Intelligence Concepts to Medicaid Claim Fraud Detection, tested a method on Nevada Medicaid suppliers. State reviewers considered three of the six flagged suppliers potentially fraudulent.
A Medicaid Fraud Control Unit investigates and prosecutes provider fraud and patient abuse or neglect. It operates separately from the state Medicaid agency that administers payments. The Justice Department also brings federal civil and criminal cases, while the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General oversees the state units and conducts audits.
Yes. Referral of potential fraud is a required term of Medicaid managed-care contracts. For a plan employee, the referral history, internal reviews and staffing assignments can help explain what the plan identified and what it passed along. The Inspector General’s fiscal year 2024 report recorded 4,650 managed-care fraud referrals and 1,078 cases opened from those referrals.
Provider screening, claims reviews, audits and checks of service records are among Medicaid’s controls. In managed care, an independent review can compare plan encounter data with providers’ medical records. For an employee, the useful question is what happened when one of those checks identified a problem.
Repayment duties depend on who received the money and the payment involved. With Medicaid overpayments left unreturned, we examine the internal finding, who received it and what happened to the money. Community Options admitted that its own reviews identified day-habilitation overpayments that it failed to report and return to New York Medicaid.
An improper-payment percentage cannot tell you the Medicaid fraud rate. In managed care, the federal review checks the state’s capitation payment, while the plan’s payments to providers sit outside that review. An employee who knows a reported visit never happened can expose what that payment check misses.
State Medicaid Fraud Control Units reported $407 million in civil recoveries for fiscal year 2024. They also reported 493 civil settlements and judgments.
Taxpayers lose money intended for care, and patients can lose the care itself. The CareSource allegations describe families who never learned about services the plan had promised to provide. For an employee who knows those families, the reporting problem has a human consequence.
The record comparison changes with the service and its payment rules. A home-care visit, a nursing-facility claim and a school counseling claim each make a different assertion about what Medicaid bought.
A record falsely certifying care can support a Medicaid fraud case when it is used to obtain payment. For home and personal care, we connect the signed hours to the visit, worker and payroll. Your knowledge of what the client was asked to confirm belongs beside the record itself.
Tell us about the service claimed, the care delivered and the payer involved. In nursing-home billing, Medicare and Medicaid can cover different services, so the resident’s chart, service dates and payment records need to be read together. Concerns about abuse or neglect belong in the conversation too, with the harm to the resident clearly described.
Using a false patient record to support payment can be part of Medicaid fraud. We examine whose treatment the record describes, whose identity appears on the claim and what Medicaid paid. Dental billing concerns can also involve unnecessary treatment and pressure to increase production.
Tell us which services the company claimed and who actually delivered them. The Inspector General’s applied behavior analysis audits identify concrete issues involving session notes, practitioner credentials and authorization review. The treatment record and the billed practitioner’s role give us a specific comparison to examine with you.
We examine the services behind the billing: attendance, service records and the sessions required for the claimed payment. In a New York City school case, the Justice Department alleged that monthly counseling claims went through without the required qualifying sessions. The issue was the care the monthly claim represented.
School claims have also produced a major civil resolution. New York State and New York City agreed to a $540 million settlement in 2009 over alleged improper school-based speech and transportation claims. Public entities can sit on the receiving end of a Medicaid false-claims case too.
We bring in Medicaid fraud whistleblower lawyers to assess the payment allegation and address patient-record questions with you. If your concern involves HIPAA or the medical information connected to the billing, raise it in that conversation so the team understands both parts of the problem.
If the visit, assessment or billing instruction here resembles what you see at work, speak with our whistleblower experts about the Medicaid payments behind it. We shape your strongest Medicaid whistleblower case around what you know, bring in Medicaid fraud whistleblower lawyers for the provider or plan involved, and stay beside you through the work ahead.