Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] 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 Ross Benson and Robert N. Driscoll
Given the rapid expansion of interest and participation in cryptocurrency transactions, it’s not a matter of whether you have an interest in crypto, think it’s all a bizarre techno-bubble, the eventual replacement for fiat currency, or somewhere in between. The fact of the matter is your clients, and future clients, are more likely than ever to have a connection to this market, and a brief review of the headlines can make this prospect seem terrifying.
By Jacqueline C. Wolff and Michael Herrmann
The prevalent view is that telehealth will remain an integral part of our healthcare system post-PHE and may even continue to expand. And that means criminal and civil enforcement focused on fraud committed using, or furthered by the use of, telehealth will be expanding as well, particularly when one looks at the dollars that a regulator can bring in for fraud or noncompliance.
By Carolyn H. Kendall and Abraham J. Rein
Hillary Clinton's 2015 statement about the possibility of incarceration for employment-related failures was, to many, an alarming prospect. Since that time, this movement has grown, and has recently gained momentum. Today, prosecutors across the country increasingly seek criminal fines and jail time for what were previously seen as non-criminal labor violations.
By Elkan Abramowitz and Jonathan S. Sack
This article describes pending federal prosecutions, which level corruption charges against high-level officials, considers how the theories of prosecution in these cases might be viewed in light of court decisions in other public corruption cases, and concludes with some observations about the outer limits of federal public corruption prosecutions.