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.
By Jonathan S. Feld and Katie J. Welch
Despite the historical trend of reduced government involvement in qui tam actions, the government is sending “mixed messages” regarding its view of FCA relators.
By Johanna Fricano
Following the Delaware Chancery Court’s ruling in In re Trulia, Inc. that effectively closed the door to 14(a) disclosure-based settlements in Delaware state court, federal courts saw an influx of 14(a) “merger objection” litigation. More often than not, these suits are quickly dismissed following the company’s issuance of a supplemental proxy with additional disclosures and the parties negotiate a mootness fee. The transaction closes and all parties move on — or so we thought. An emerging trend suggests that exposure to 14(a) claims may coming back from the near dead.
By Robert J. Anello and Richard F. Albert
The significance of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), which is intended to guarantee crime victims a role in federal criminal proceedings, has been highlighted in the case of Jeffrey E. Epstein, the financier accused of sexually trafficking underage girls. Because the government’s noncompliance with the CVRA in negotiating Epstein’s plea deal in 2008 led to Alexander R. Acosta losing his cabinet position as Secretary of Labor, practitioners can expect prosecutors and judges to be more focused on the CVRA going forward.
By Juliet Gunev
Microsoft and Hungarian Subsidiary Agree to Pay $25 Million to Resolve FCPA Investigations in Hungary, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Thailand