Physician Partners of America LLC (PPOA), headquartered in Tampa, Florida, its founder, Rodolfo Gari, and its former chief medical officer, Dr. Abraham Rivera, have agreed to pay $24.5 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by billing federal healthcare programs for unnecessary medical testing and services, paying unlawful remuneration to its physician employees and making a false statement in connection with a loan obtained through the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Certain PPOA affiliated entities are jointly and severally liable for the settlement amount, including the Florida Pain Relief Group, the Texas Pain Relief Group, Physician Partners of America CRNA Holdings LLC, Medical Tox Labs LLC and Medical DNA Labs LLC.
The United States alleged that PPOA caused the submission of claims for medically unnecessary urine drug testing (UDT), by requiring its physician employees to order multiple tests at the same time without determining whether any testing was reasonable and necessary, or even reviewing the results of initial testing (presumptive UDT) to determine whether additional testing (definitive UDT) was warranted. PPOA’s affiliated toxicology lab then billed federal healthcare programs for the highest-level UDT. In addition, PPOA incentivized its physician employees to order presumptive UDT by paying them 40% of the profits from such testing in violation of the Stark Law, which prohibits physicians from referring patients to receive “designated health services” payable to Medicare or Medicaid from entities with which the physician or an immediate family member has a financial relationship, unless an exception applies.
The United States further alleged that PPOA required patients to submit to genetic and psychological testing before the patients were seen by physicians, without making any determination as to whether the testing was reasonable and necessary, and then billed federal healthcare programs for the tests.
The United States further alleged that when Florida suspended all non-emergency medical procedures to reduce transmission of COVID-19 in March 2020, PPOA sought to compensate for lost revenue by requiring its physician employees to schedule unnecessary evaluation and management (E/M) appointments with patients every 14 days, instead of every month as had been PPOA’s prior practice. PPOA then instructed its physicians to bill these E/M visits using inappropriate high-level procedure codes. Moreover, the United States alleged that at the same time PPOA was engaged in this unlawful overbilling, PPOA falsely represented to the SBA that it was not engaged in unlawful activity in order to obtain a $5.9 million loan through the PPP. The settlement announced today resolves liability under the False Claims Act and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) arising from the false claims submitted to federal healthcare programs for the E/M visits as well for PPOA’s false statement in connection with its PPP loan.
“Billing federal healthcare programs for services that providers know are unnecessary or unreasonable undermines the quality of care that patients receive and increases the costs of these taxpayer-funded programs,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “The department is committed to ensuring that healthcare providers base their treatment decisions on their patients’ needs rather than their own financial interests.”
“Holding healthcare providers accountable for inflated claims and false statements helps ensure the integrity of the healthcare system as a whole,” said U.S. Attorney Roger B. Handberg for the Middle District of Florida. “Settlements like this one are an important step in that direction.”
“Since the beginning of the pandemic, the SBA has been focused on providing relief swiftly, equitably and efficiently to millions of struggling small business owners – ensuring that relief has been distributed with the utmost integrity has been central to that mission under Administrator Guzman,” said General Counsel Peggy Delinois Hamilton for the SBA. “The SBA takes fraud seriously and will continue to make it our priority to work alongside the Office of the Inspector General to identify and address any potential fraud to ensure sound administration of relief programs.”
In connection with the settlement, PPOA also entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). Under the CIA, PPOA agreed to undertake significant compliance efforts, including: maintain a compliance department, medical director and oversight board; retain a compliance expert; provide management certifications; maintain written standards, training and education; obtain multiple annual claims reviews by an Independent Review Organization; establish a risk assessment and internal review process; and implement monitoring of testing referrals.
“When health care providers bill taxpayer-funded health care programs for medically unnecessary services, they divert government funds designed to assist business owners during this pandemic,” said Special Agent in Charge Omar Pérez Aybar of HHS-OIG. “Our agency will work with our law enforcement partners to thoroughly investigate health care fraud schemes.”
“This settlement allows OWCP to recover medical bill payments under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act and return those funds to the Employees’ Compensation Fund,” said Director Christopher Godfrey of the Department of Labor (DOL) Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). “The Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General, as well as various other agencies’ offices of inspector general (OIG), devote significant investigative resources to detecting cases of possible abuse within the FECA program, and this settlement demonstrates the commitment of the DOL and its OIG in helping to ensure that funds issued through the program are paid appropriately.”
“When actors within our health care system are focused on profit rather than patient care, it undermines the integrity of the medical decision-making process,” said Special Agent in Charge Cynthia A. Bruce of the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), Southeast Field Office. “DCIS will continue to work with our investigative partners to protect the funding entrusted to the Defense Health Agency that serves our military members and their families.”
“Veterans Affairs’ Community Care programs provide veterans and their families the ability to obtain critical healthcare services from providers within their own communities,” said Special Agent in Charge David Spilker of the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General’s (VA OIG) Southeast Field Office. “This civil settlement reinforces the VA OIG’s commitment to safeguarding the integrity of VA’s healthcare programs and operations and preserving taxpayer funds.”
“When providers submit false claims for medically unnecessary tests, they are not only violating their patients’ trust but also compromising the integrity of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP),” said Special Agent in Charge Amy K. Parker of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Office of the Inspector General (OPM OIG). “This settlement demonstrates the OPM OIG’s commitment to protecting patients from tests that are not medically reasonable or necessary and safeguarding the FEHBP from fraudulent claims.”
The civil settlement includes the resolution of claims brought under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act by Donald Haight, Dawn Baker, Dr. Harold Cho, Dr. Venus Dookwah-Roberts and Dr. Michael Lupi, who are current or former employees of PPOA or its affiliated entities. Under those provisions, a private party can file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of any recovery. The qui tam cases are captioned United States ex rel. Haight v. Physician Partners of Am.; United States ex rel. Baker v. Physician Partners of Am LLC; United States ex rel. Lupi v. Physician Partners of Am. LLC; and United States ex rel. Dookwah-Roberts v. Physician Partners of Am. LLC.
The resolution obtained in this matter was the result of a coordinated effort between the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Section; the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida; HHS-OIG; VA OIG; DCIS; DOL OIG; and OPM OIG.
The investigation and resolution of this matter illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Tips and complaints from all sources about potential fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement can be reported to the Department of Health and Human Services at 800-HHS-TIPS (800-447-8477).
On May 17, 2021, the Attorney General established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force to marshal the resources of the Department of Justice in partnership with agencies across government to enhance efforts to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud. The task force bolsters efforts to prevent fraud by, among other methods, augmenting and incorporating existing coordination mechanisms, identifying resources and techniques to uncover fraudulent actors and their schemes, and sharing and harnessing information and insights gained from prior enforcement efforts. For more information on the department’s response to the pandemic, please visit https://www.justice.gov/coronavirus. Tips and complaints from all sources about potential fraud affecting COVID-19 government relief programs can be reported by visiting the webpage of the Civil Division’s Fraud Section, which can be found here. Anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID-19 can also report it by calling the Department of Justice’s National Center for Disaster Fraud (NCDF) Hotline at 866-720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint Form at: https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf-disaster-complaint-form.
The matter was handled by Senior Trial Counsel David W. Tyler of the Civil Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Lindsay Saxe Griffin for the Middle District of Florida.
The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only and there has been no determination of liability.
- Department of Justice Files Statement of Interest Supporting Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s Efforts to Practice its Faith During COVID-19
October 2, 2020The Justice Department today filed a statement of interest in federal district court in Washington, D.C., arguing the Constitution and federal law require the District of Columbia to accommodate Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s effort to hold worship services outdoors, at least to the same extent the District of Columbia allows other forms of outdoor First Amendment activity, such as peaceful protests.
- Couple Pleads Guilty to $1.1 Million COVID-Relief Fraud After Falsely Claiming to Be Farmers
March 8, 2021A Florida couple pleaded guilty for their participation in a scheme to file four fraudulent loan applications seeking more than $1.1 million in forgivable Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
- Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio Before Their Meeting
October 6, 2021Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
- Justice Department Files Complaint against Jeffrey Lowe and Tiger King LLC for Violations of the Endangered Species Act and the Animal Welfare Act
November 19, 2020Today, the Department of Justice filed a civil complaint against Jeffrey and Lauren Lowe, Greater Wynnewood Exotic Animal Park LLC, and Tiger King LLC, to address recurring inhumane treatment and improper handling of animals protected by the Endangered Species Act.
- New York Plumbing Contractor Sentenced to 20 Months in Prison for Employment Tax Fraud
June 7, 2021A New York man was sentenced today to 20 months in prison for failing to collect and pay over to the IRS $732,462 in employment taxes.
- Justice Department Continues Efforts to Stop Fraudulent Tax Preparers
April 6, 2022The Department of Justice urges taxpayers to choose their return preparers wisely as the April 18th federal tax filing deadline approaches. Return preparer fraud is one of the IRS’ Dirty Dozen Tax Scams. Unscrupulous preparers who include errors or false information on a tax return could leave a taxpayer open to liability for unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest.
- U.S. Taxpayer in Panama Papers Investigation Sentenced to Prison
September 21, 2020A former U.S. resident and taxpayer was sentenced in the Southern District of New York to four years in prison for wire fraud, tax fraud, money laundering, false statements, and other charges.
- Mississippi Pharmacist and Louisiana Marketer Plead Guilty to More Than $180 Million Health Care Fraud Scheme
August 25, 2021A Mississippi pharmacist pleaded guilty today and a Louisiana marketer pleaded guilty on Aug. 12 in the Southern District of Mississippi for their roles in a multi-million-dollar scheme to defraud TRICARE and private insurance companies by paying kickbacks to distributors for the referral of medically unnecessary prescriptions. The conduct allegedly resulted in more than $180 million in fraudulent billings, including more than $50 million paid by federal health care programs.
- Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Martha Raddatz of ABC This Week
August 29, 2021Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
- Seattle Software Developer Pleads Guilty to Wire Fraud for COVID-Relief Fraud Scheme
October 22, 2020A Seattle man pleaded guilty today to one count of wire fraud for carrying out a scheme to defraud several COVID-19 relief programs.
- NASA Establishes Board to Initially Review Mars Sample Return Plans
September 26, 2020The board will assist [Read More…]
- Department Press Briefing – December 28, 2021
December 28, 2021Ned Price, Department [Read More…]
- Cabo Verde Travel Advisory
September 26, 2020Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
- Workplace Sexual Harassment: Experts Suggest Expanding Data Collection to Improve Understanding of Prevalence and Costs
October 16, 2020Limited nationwide data hinder a comprehensive understanding of the prevalence and costs of workplace sexual harassment. According to GAO’s analysis of available federal data and literature review, the few reliable nationwide estimates of sexual harassment’s prevalence vary substantially due to differences in methodology, including the question structure and time period the survey used. Moreover, the likelihood of experiencing workplace sexual harassment can vary based on an individual’s demographic characteristics—such as gender, race, and age—and whether the workplace is male- or female-dominated. For example, women, younger workers, and women in male-dominated workplaces were more likely to say they experienced harassment. GAO did not find any recent cost estimates of workplace sexual harassment, but identified four broad categories of costs: health, productivity, career, and reporting and legal costs (see figure). Examples of Costs Associated with Workplace Sexual Harassment The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), as part of its mission to prevent and remedy unlawful employment discrimination, maintains data on sexual harassment and retaliation charges filed against employers, but cannot systematically analyze the relationship between the two for all charges filed nationwide. After filing sexual harassment charges or engaging in other protected activity, employees may experience retaliation, such as firing or demotion, and EEOC data show that retaliation charges constitute a growing portion of its workload. EEOC’s planning documents highlight its intention to address retaliation and use charge data to inform its outreach to employers. However, while EEOC can review electronic copies of individual charges for details, such as whether a previously filed sexual harassment charge led to a retaliation charge, its data system cannot aggregate this information across all charges. Without the capacity to fully analyze trends in the relationship between sexual harassment and retaliation charges, EEOC may miss opportunities to refine its work with employers to prevent and address retaliation. Experts at GAO’s roundtable said nationally representative surveys would help to improve available information on workplace sexual harassment. Expert recommendations focused on three main areas: (1) survey administration and resources, including advantages and disadvantages to various federal roles; (2) methods to collect data, such as using stand-alone surveys or adding questions to existing surveys; and (3) content of data to be collected, including employee and employer characteristics and specific costs. While many workers in the United States experience workplace sexual harassment—resulting in substantial costs to them and their employers—the extent of sexual harassment and the magnitude of its effects are not fully understood. GAO was asked to examine the extent to which reliable information is available on workplace sexual harassment’s prevalence and costs. This report examines (1) what is known about the prevalence and costs of U.S. workplace sexual harassment, including the federal workforce, (2) the extent to which EEOC collects sexual harassment data, and (3) data collection approaches experts recommend to improve available information. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed EEOC data and survey data from other federal agencies, interviewed officials and reviewed documentation from multiple federal agencies, and interviewed experts on sexual harassment. GAO also convened a 2-day roundtable of experts, with assistance from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and conducted a literature review. GAO recommends that EEOC assess the feasibility of systematically analyzing its data on retaliation charges and the associated protected activities, including those related to sexual harassment. EEOC did not state whether or not it concurred with GAO’s recommendation. GAO continues to believe this recommendation is appropriate, as discussed in the report. For more information, contact Cindy S. Brown Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Secretary Pompeo’s Call with Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Al Sabah
October 8, 2020Office of the [Read More…]
- Statement of Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on the Life of Judge Robert Katzmann
June 10, 2021U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland made the following statement on the passing of Judge Robert Katzmann:
- Federal Court Permanently Shuts Down Chicago Tax Preparer
August 20, 2021A federal court in the Northern District of Illinois has permanently enjoined a Chicago, Illinois, tax return preparer from preparing returns for others and from owning or operating any tax return preparation business in the future.
- Airport Funding: Information on Grandfathered Revenue Diversion and Potential Implications of Repeal
September 8, 2020According to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) data for fiscal years 1995 through 2018, nine airport owners—also known as “airport sponsors”—lawfully diverted airport revenue amounts ranging from $0 to over $840 million by a sponsor in 1 year. These “grandfathered” airport sponsors are currently exempt from federal requirements to use all airport revenue solely for airport purposes (see figure). Together, these sponsors own 32 airports serving millions of passengers a year. Five of these sponsors are city or state governments, which regularly diverted airport revenue into their general funds for government programs and services. Four of these sponsors are transportation authorities, which diverted varying amounts for various transportation-related purposes, such as supporting maritime ports or transit systems. Three of the transportation authorities also secured bonds using revenue from their various activities, including airport revenue, to finance airport and non-airport assets. Airport Sponsors That Have Reported Grandfathered Revenue Diversion, as of 2018 According to selected stakeholders, a repeal of grandfathered revenue diversion would have complex legal and financial implications for transportation authorities. Transportation authority officials said that a repeal would inherently reduce their flexibility to use revenues across their assets and could lead to a default of their outstanding bonds if airport revenues could no longer be used to service debt; exempting outstanding bonds could alleviate some financial concerns. For city and state government sponsors, a loss in general fund revenue could result in reduced government services, though they said a phased-in repeal could help in planning for lost revenue. In 1982, a federal law was enacted that imposed constraints on the use of airport revenue (e.g., concessions, parking fees, and airlines’ landing fees), prohibiting “diversion” for non-airport purposes in order to ensure use on airport investment and improvement. However, the law exempted “grandfathered” airport sponsors—those with state or local laws providing for such diversion—from this prohibition. Viewpoints vary on whether these airport sponsors should be allowed to continue to lawfully divert revenue. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 provides for GAO to examine grandfathered airport revenue diversion. This report examines: (1) how much revenue has been diverted annually by grandfathered airport sponsors and how these revenues have been used, and (2) selected stakeholders’ perspectives on potential implications of repealing the law allowing revenue diversion. GAO analyzed FAA financial data on grandfathered airports’ revenue diversion for fiscal years 1995 through 2018, all years such data were available. GAO also analyzed relevant documents such as state and local laws, and airport sponsors’ bond documents. GAO interviewed FAA officials and relevant stakeholders, including officials from nine grandfathered airport sponsors and representatives from bond-rating agencies, airline and airport associations, and airlines that serve grandfathered airports that were selected based on those with the greatest passenger traffic. For more information, contact Heather Krause at (202) 512-2834 or email@example.com.
- Firearm Injuries: Health Care Service Needs and Costs
July 15, 2021What GAO Found There is no complete information on the health care costs of firearm injuries. National data allow for estimates of the costs of initial hospital treatment and some first-year costs, but less is known about costs the more time passes from the injury. Examining available data and information, GAO found the following: Initial hospital costs: Using hospital data from 2016 and 2017—the most recent that were available—GAO estimated that the initial hospital costs of firearm injuries were just over $1 billion annually. However, physician costs not captured in the data could add around 20 percent to that total. GAO also found that each year there were about 30,000 inpatient stays and about 50,000 emergency department visits to initially treat firearm injuries, and that patients with Medicaid and other public coverage accounted for over 60 percent of the costs of this care. First-year costs: Findings from studies on health care costs within the first year of hospital discharge after a firearm injury suggest that those costs can be significant. For example, studies estimating first-year hospital readmissions costs found that up to 16 percent of firearm injury survivors with an initial inpatient stay were readmitted at least once for their injury, with average costs of $8,000 to $11,000 per patient. Long-term costs: Less is known about the costs of health care for firearm injuries beyond the first year after hospital discharge. GAO identified studies that estimated lifetime costs of these injuries, but the estimates relied on data from over 20 years ago, making them no longer a reliable indicator of costs. Clinical experts GAO met with described a wide range in both physical and behavioral health care needs for firearm injury survivors after hospital discharge, with some survivors needing lifelong care. These experts also told GAO that survivors often face barriers to receiving needed care, such as being denied care when it is not covered by their insurance. While not receiving needed services may minimize costs initially, the consequences of unmet health needs for firearm injury survivors may ultimately result in greater costs. Range of Physical Health Care Needs for Firearm Injuries after Hospital Discharge Why GAO Did This Study In 2019, close to 40,000 people died from a firearm injury in the U.S., and around twice that number sustained non-fatal injuries. Over 100 organizations representing health care providers consider the number of firearm injuries that occur each day to be a public health epidemic. Health care costs associated with firearm injuries—both those for services provided during initial hospital treatment and those for services provided long-term—are paid for, at least in part, by public payers, such as Medicaid and Medicare. GAO was asked to review the health care costs of firearm injuries. This report describes the initial hospital costs of firearm injuries in the U.S. and what is known about the costs of subsequent care, as well as the post-discharge services that may be needed to treat these injuries. GAO analyzed hospital data for 2016 and 2017 collected by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality related to the initial costs of treating firearm injuries, and conducted a literature review on the health care costs of these injuries following discharge. In addition, GAO moderated meetings with 12 experts, representing clinicians, economists, and others—selected with assistance from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine—to discuss the post-discharge health care service needs and costs of firearm injuries. The Department of Health and Human Services provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. For more information, contact Carolyn L. Yocom at (202) 512-7114 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Michigan Man Sentenced for COVID-19 Relief Fraud
September 14, 2021A Michigan man was sentenced today to 32 months in federal prison for fraudulently seeking nearly $1 million in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.