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 Telemachus P. Kasulis
For a moment there, it really looked like it was going to happen. After a long and winding road, insider trading reform had reached the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote. The Insider Trading Prohibition Act (ITPA) had support on both sides of the aisle and on Dec. 5, 2019, the House voted to pass the ITPA. Then the bill went to the Senate and vanished. We should take this opportunity to learn what lessons we can from the successes and failures of the ITPA as a bill with an eye toward fashioning the best possible legislation next time — whenever that may be.
By Nekia Hackworth Jones
The government appears to be fulfilling its commitment to rooting out PPP fraud, even when the amount at issue falls below the $2 million threshold. No matter the size of the loan, a company that obtained PPP funds is not immune from a possible government investigation or audit. Borrowers have already started to submit loan forgiveness applications, and many more will be submitted in the weeks ahead, and both lenders and the government will be scouring these submissions for red flags.
By Rebecca Kirk Fair, Peter Hess and Vendela Fehrm
This article draws on a review of over 300 U.S. court rulings in cases involving surveys, including over 150 Daubert motions, and provides suggestions for getting survey evidence admitted for consideration in court. Our recommendations fall under two broad categories: relevance and reliability.
By Scott Pink and John Dermody
COVID-19 Contact Tracing v. Protecting Personal Privacy
As states roll back stay-at-home orders, contact tracing has quickly emerged as an essential tool to manage the spread of the coronavirus and allow the country to return to work safely. But innovative contact tracing methods raise a host of privacy concerns, forcing a reckoning with how we balance privacy and public health.