Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to prioritize health care anti-fraud enforcement through the aggressive use of different statutes and investigative methods. Although the prosecutions and recoveries vary, between October 2016 and March 2017, “Strike Force” team efforts led to charges against 49 individuals or entities, 152 criminal actions, and more than $266.8 million in investigative receivables. Semiannual Report to Congress, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Services: Office of Inspector General: Oct. 1, 2016 to Mar. 31, 2017, http://bit.ly/2jaG6VP. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently reaffirmed his interest in keeping health care fraud as a priority, and followed up those comments with the largest ever DOJ national health care fraud takedown, involving charges against 412 persons, including physicians.
Health care anti-fraud enforcement initiatives traditionally focus on cases involving Medicare and Medicaid fraud. The reason is clear: recovery of government-funded money. More than half of the estimated expenditures in health care fraud overall are against public health care programs. For that other half, there has been another approach to combat health care fraud in which the government often uses the federal mail and wire fraud statutes; one of HIPAA’s specialized mail and wire fraud provisions tailored to health care fraud; or 18 U.S.C. § 1347, which makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully execute a scheme to defraud a health care benefit program, whether that program be public or private.
Recently, a new tactic has emerged. The government is putting a 60-year-old tool to a new use. It is using the federal Travel Act to pursue criminal charges against health care entities in connection with health care bribery/kickback schemes. The courts have yet to rule on the viability of such charges. This article discusses these recent actions and the potential ramifications of the expansion of the scope of the Travel Act.
The Origins of the Travel Act
Enacted in 1961, the Travel Act was the centerpiece of then Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy’s war on organized crime. Its original purpose was to stem the clandestine flow of profits from organized crime and to assist states in combating criminal activities that crossed state lines. U.S. v Nardello, 393 U.S. 286, 292 (1969). The Travel Act targeted persons who lived in one state while operating or managing illegal activities located in another. Rewis v. U.S., 401 U.S. 808, 811 (1971).
The Travel Act provides that:
(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to—
(1) distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity; or
(2) commit any crime of violence to further any unlawful activity; or
(3) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity.
*May exclude premium content
By Steve Sozio, Rebecca Martin, Rajeev Muttreja and Mark Rotatori
There will likely be some fraud in connection with the pandemic-related programs that should be pursued by the DOJ and the Inspectors General, who have said they will keep close eyes on these programs. They will have no shortage of targets, given the many recipients of government funds, and the breadth of the requisite certifications.
By Harry Sandick and Devon Hercher
In recent years, we have seen the DOJ expand its international focus, as it looks to punish foreign nationals, often for conduct that occurred almost entirely outside of the territorial borders of the United States. DOJ’s eagerness, however, has not been matched by judicial enthusiasm concerning the extraterritorial application of U.S. law.
By Marjorie Peerce and Justin Kerner
Storage and Hauling Companies Take Note
Imagine that it’s Spring 2020 and you run a warehousing company and you discover that your warehouse contains containers of goods that could help combat the spread of the COVID-19 virus — masks, medical gowns, gloves or other personal protective equipment (PPE). Or imagine you own a trucking company and learn that your drivers are delivering pallets of hand sanitizer and disinfectants to a residential address. What, if any, liability might you have if it turns out a customer is hoarding PPE?
By James D. Gatta, Andrew Kim and Emily M. Notini
Although the court stressed that, by vacating certain of former NY State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver’s counts of conviction, it was clarifying and not altering the “as opportunities arise” theory, it nevertheless emphasized that this theory requires particularity with respect to the “question or matter” that is the subject of the bribe payor and recipient’s corrupt agreement.