Contents
In the Veni Express laboratory settlement, Veni-Express and its owners agreed to pay at least $135,000 to resolve allegations of false mobile phlebotomy claims, nonpayable travel mileage and marketer kickbacks. The alleged billing reached into the home visit itself: Medicare received claims for blood draws the government said never happened, along with mileage it said Medicare did not owe.
The California company provided mobile phlebotomy services. The Department of Justice announced the civil resolution on October 22, 2024.
The United States alleged that, from 2015 to 2019, Veni-Express and its owners knowingly caused false claims for mobile phlebotomy services and associated travel mileage. Its account identified venipuncture, the blood draw, as a procedure the company billed without actually performing it during visits to homebound patients.
Those alleged claims sought taxpayer money meant for the health care of homebound patients.
The government alleged that the owners oversaw and approved the false claims.
The government also alleged that mileage associated with those homebound visits was not reimbursable by Medicare. The draw and the travel appeared together in the case, but each concerned a separate payment.
Medicare’s collection rules effective in 2023 limit the specimen collection fee to a homebound patient or a non-hospital inpatient where qualified collection personnel are unavailable, and to blood collected by venipuncture or urine collected by catheter.
The Veni-Express allegations reach beyond whether a laboratory eventually produced a result. They reach back to the service Medicare was asked to pay for at the patient’s door.
The United States alleged that Veni-Express paid a percentage of company revenue to Altera Laboratories, also known as Med2U Healthcare LLC, to market its services. The alleged payments ran from July 2014 to June 2015. The government described them as unlawful kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute.
The alleged kickback recipient was a business marketing the mobile service. The government’s account put the referral arrangement alongside the false service claims: how the company obtained business, as well as what it billed afterward.
A marketing agreement can describe the compensation formula, while the payments show how the arrangement worked in practice. We examine that connection with the person who knows the business, alongside what the company billed for its mobile services.
Veni-Express agreed to pay $100,000, with additional amounts based on sales of company property. One owner agreed to pay $25,000, and the other agreed to pay $10,000. According to the Justice Department, the size of the settlements reflected what the company and its owners could afford.
The claims came through two qui tam cases under the False Claims Act. One whistleblower was a former phlebotomist for another California provider. The other was a technical director at a Texas laboratory.
A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers.
The whistleblower complaint against Elite Lab Services alleged billing for whole routes that were not driven. BestCare Laboratory Services faced a fraud judgment over inflated mileage-based travel fees.
If you know which blood draws happened, which routes were driven or how a mobile laboratory paid its marketer, talk with our whistleblower experts about what you saw. We work beside you to build your strongest laboratory fraud whistleblower case and bring in laboratory fraud whistleblower lawyers who understand Medicare collection and travel claims. We remain your partners through the case, connecting what you know about the work to the decisions and payments behind it.