January 22, 2022

News

News Network

Home Health Agency and Former Owner to Pay $5.8 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations

13 min read
<div>Doctor’s Choice Home Care, Inc. and its former owners, Timothy Beach and Stuart Christensen, have agreed to pay $5.15 million to resolve allegations that the home health agency provided improper financial inducements to referring physicians through sham medical director agreements and bonuses to physicians’ spouses who were Doctor’s Choice employees, the Department of Justice announced today. </div>

Doctor’s Choice Home Care, Inc. and its former owners, Timothy Beach and Stuart Christensen, have agreed to pay $5.15 million to resolve allegations that the home health agency provided improper financial inducements to referring physicians through sham medical director agreements and bonuses to physicians’ spouses who were Doctor’s Choice employees, the Department of Justice announced today. 

Timothy Beach and Stuart Christensen founded Doctor’s Choice and formerly served as its top executives.  Doctor’s Choice is a home health agency based in Sarasota, Florida, with branches throughout the state. 

Doctor’s Choice will pay $3,856,000 to settle these allegations and Beach and Christensen will each pay $647,000.  Doctor’s Choice will pay an additional $675,000 to resolve separate allegations that employees pressured clinical personnel to increase the number of home visits for Medicare patients to avoid the Medicare Low Utilization Payment Adjustment that would have decreased the reimbursement Doctor’s Choice received from Medicare in the absence of these unnecessary services.

“The Department of Justice will continue to hold companies and individuals accountable for the payment of illegal remuneration in any form,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark of the Department of Justice’s Civil Division.  “Improper inducements have no place in our federal healthcare system, which relies on healthcare providers making decisions based on the healthcare needs of their patients and rather than their personal financial interests.” 

“Operating an illegal referral scheme and providing medically unnecessary services places patients at risk and jeopardizes millions of taxpayer dollars,” said Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Tampa Division Michael McPherson.  “This settlement highlights the FBI’s commitment to protect the integrity of the federally funded healthcare system.”

The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits the offering or payment of remuneration to induce or reward referrals for services paid for by federal healthcare programs.  The Stark Law forbids certain medical providers, including home health agencies, from submitting claims to Medicare for services provided to patients who were referred by a physician with whom the provider has a prohibited financial relationship, unless that relationship falls within an applicable exception.

This settlement resolves allegations that Doctor’s Choice, Beach, and Christensen violated the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law by entering into sham medical director agreements with physicians as a means of providing remuneration for referrals, and also violated the Stark Law by providing bonuses to employees based on referrals to Doctor’s Choice by the employees’ physician spouses.  In addition, the agreement resolves allegations that Doctor’s Choice provided unnecessary services to Medicare patients in order to increase the number of skilled services provided during a home health visit to avoid the Low Utilization Payment Adjustment which otherwise would have decreased Doctor’s Choice Medicare reimbursement.  This adjustment is triggered when a home health patient has a treatment episode consisting of less than five skilled service visits and results in the provider receiving a standardized per visit payment rather than the higher payment for a full home health episode. 

The allegations resolved in this settlement were originally brought in two lawsuits filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act; one case was filed by Corina Herbold and the second case was filed by Sara Billings, Misty Sykes, and Marina Eschoyez-Quiroga, all of whom are former employees of Doctor’s Choice.  The Act permits private parties to sue on behalf of the government for false claims for government funds and to receive a share of any recovery.  Billings, Sykes, and Eschoyez-Quiroga will jointly receive a share of approximately $145,000 arising from the government’s recovery for the Low Utilization Payment Adjustment allegations.  Herbold’s share has not yet been determined.

The government’s intervention in these matters illustrates its emphasis on combating health care 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).

The settlement was the result of a coordinated effort by the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the FBI. 

The cases are captioned United States ex rel. Herbold v. Doctor’s Choice Home Care Inc., et al., No. 8:15- cv-01044 (M.D. Fla.) and United States ex rel. Billings, Sykes, and Eschoyez-Quiroga v. Doctor’s Choice Home Care Inc., No. 8:16-cv-3112 (M.D. Fla.).

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability.

News Network

  • Briefing with Special Envoy for the Northern Triangle Ricardo Zuniga on Ongoing Diplomatic Efforts to Address the Root Causes of Irregular Migration from Central America
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Ricardo Zuniga, Special [Read More…]
  • Hypersonic Weapons: DOD Should Clarify Roles and Responsibilities to Ensure Coordination across Development Efforts
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found GAO identified 70 efforts to develop hypersonic weapons and related technologies that are estimated to cost almost $15 billion from fiscal years 2015 through 2024 (see figure). These efforts are widespread across the Department of Defense (DOD) in collaboration with the Department of Energy (DOE) and, in the case of hypersonic technology development, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). DOD accounts for nearly all of this amount. Hypersonic Weapon-related and Technology Development Total Reported Funding by Type of Effort from Fiscal Years 2015 through 2024, in Billions of Then-Year Dollars The majority of this funding is for product development and potential fielding of prototype offensive hypersonic weapons. Additionally, it includes substantial investments in developing technologies for next generation hypersonic weapons and a smaller proportion aimed at countering hypersonic threats. Hypersonic weapon systems are technically complex, and DOD has taken several steps to mitigate some of the challenges to developing them. For example, DOD has attempted to address challenges posed by immature technologies and aggressive schedules by pursuing multiple potential technological solutions so that it has options. Other challenges DOD is addressing relate to industrial base and human capital workforce investments needed to support large-scale production and the availability of wind tunnels and open-air flight test ranges needed to test hypersonic weapons. DOE and NASA have agreements with DOD on supporting roles, but DOD itself has not documented the roles, responsibilities, and authorities of the multitude of its organizations, including the military services, that are working on hypersonic weapon development. Such governing documentation would provide for a level of continuity when leadership and organizational priorities inevitably change, especially as hypersonic weapon development efforts are expected to continue over at least the next decade. Without clear leadership roles, responsibilities, and authorities, DOD is at risk of impeding its progress toward delivering hypersonic weapon capabilities and opening up the potential for conflict and wasted resources as decisions over larger investments are made in the future. Why GAO Did This Study Hypersonic missiles, which are an important part of building hypersonic weapon systems, move at least five times the speed of sound, have unpredictable flight paths, and are expected to be capable of evading today's defensive systems. DOD has begun multiple efforts to develop offensive hypersonic weapons as well as technologies to improve its ability to track and defend against them. NASA and DOE are also conducting research into hypersonic technologies. The investments for these efforts are significant. This report identifies: (1) U.S. government efforts to develop hypersonic systems that are underway and their costs, (2) challenges these efforts face and what is being done to address them, and (3) the extent to which the U.S. government is effectively coordinating these efforts. This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in January 2021. Information that DOD deemed to be sensitive has been omitted. GAO collected and reviewed information from DOD, DOE, and NASA to identify hypersonic weapons development efforts from fiscal years 2015 through 2024. GAO also analyzed agency documentation and interviewed agency officials.
    [Read More…]
  • Statement by Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on Earth Day
    In Crime News
    On April 22, 1970, millions of people across America came together and sparked a movement that led to the enactment of many of our nation’s foundational environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    [Read More…]
  • Military Operations: DOD Needs to Address Contract Oversight and Quality Assurance Issues for Contracts Used to Support Contingency Operations
    In U.S GAO News
    The Department of Defense (DOD) uses contractors to meet many of its logistical and operational support needs. With the global war on terrorism, there has been a significant increase in deployment of contractor personnel to areas such as Iraq and Afghanistan. In its fiscal year 2007 report, the House Appropriations Committee directed GAO to examine the link between the growth in DOD's operation and maintenance costs and DOD's increased reliance on service contracts. GAO determined (1) the extent to which costs for selected contracts increased and the factors causing the increases, (2) the extent to which DOD provided oversight for selected contracts, and (3) the reasons for DOD's use of contractors to support contingency operations. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed a nonprobability sample of seven DOD contracts for services that provide vital support to contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. GAO reviewed contract requirements, funding documents and DOD guidance for these contracts and interviewed DOD and contractor personnel.Costs for six of the seven contracts GAO reviewed increased from an initial estimate of $783 million to about $3.8 billion, and one consistent and primary factor driving the growth was increased requirements associated with continued military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, the Army awarded a $218.2 million task order for equipment maintenance and supply services in Kuwait in October 2004. Since then, approximately $154 million of additional work was added to this task order for vehicle refurbishment, tire assembly and repair, and resetting of prepositioned equipment. Other factors that increased individual contract costs include the use of short-term contract extensions and the government's inability to provide contractually required equipment and services. For example, in three of the contracts GAO reviewed, short-term contract extensions (3 to 6 months) increased costs because the contractor felt it was too risky to obtain long-term leases for vehicles and housing. The actual cost of one contract we reviewed did not exceed the estimated cost for reasons such as lower than projected labor rates. GAO has frequently reported that inadequate staffing contributed to contract management challenges. For some contracts GAO reviewed, DOD's oversight was inadequate because it had a shortage of qualified personnel and it did not maintain some contract files in accordance with applicable guidance. For five contracts, DOD had inadequate management and oversight personnel. In one case, the office responsible for overseeing two contracts was short 6 of 18 key positions, all of which needed specialized training and certifications. In addition, for two other contracts, proper accounting of government owned equipment was not performed because the property administrator position was vacant. Second, DOD did not always follow guidance for maintaining contract files or its quality assurance principles. For four contracts, complete contract files documenting administration and oversight actions taken were not kept and incoming personnel were unable to determine how contract management and oversight had been performed and if the contractor had performed satisfactorily prior to their arrival. In addition, oversight was not always performed by qualified personnel. For example, quality assurance officials for the linguist contract were unable to speak the language so they could not judge the quality of the contractor's work. Without adequate levels of qualified oversight personnel, proper maintenance of contract files, and consistent implementation of quality assurance principles, DOD may not be able to determine whether contractors are meeting their contract requirements, which raises the potential for waste. DOD used contractors to support contingency operations for several reasons, including the need to compensate for a decrease in force size and a lack of capability within the military services. For example, an Army contract for linguist services had a requirement for more than 11,000 linguists because DOD did not have the needed linguists. According to Army officials, the Army phased out many interpreter positions years ago and did not anticipate a large need for Arabic speakers.
    [Read More…]
  • Former Managers at Major Property Management Firm Plead Guilty to Defrauding U.S. Air Force
    In Crime News
    An Arizona man and a Texas woman have pleaded guilty to major fraud against the United States, and conspiracy to commit wire fraud, respectively, for their roles in a scheme to defraud the U.S. Air Force in connection with privatized military housing contracts between approximately 2013 and 2016.
    [Read More…]
  • How NASA’s Mars Helicopter Will Reach the Red Planet’s Surface
    In Space
    The small craft will [Read More…]
  • Veterans Community Care Program: VA Should Strengthen Its Ability to Identify Ineligible Health Care Providers
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found GAO found vulnerabilities in the controls used by the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and its contractors to identify health care providers who are not eligible to participate in the Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP), resulting in the inclusion of potentially ineligible providers. Examples of Requirements of and Restrictions on Veterans Community Care Program Provider Eligibility Of over 800,000 providers assessed, GAO identified approximately 1,600 VCCP providers who were deceased, were ineligible to work with the federal government, or had revoked or suspended medical licenses. VHA and its contractors had controls in place to identify such providers. However, the existing controls missed some providers who could have been identified with enhanced controls and more consistent implementation of standard operating procedures. For example, GAO found the following: One provider had an expired nursing license in April 2016 and was arrested for assault in October 2018. This provider was excluded from working in federally funded health care programs. The provider was convicted of patient abuse and neglect in July 2019. The provider entered the VCCP in November 2019. VHA officials stated that this provider was uploaded into the system in error. One provider was eligible for referrals in the VHA system, but his medical license had been revoked in 2019. Licensing documents stated that the provider posed a clear and immediate danger to public health and safety. GAO also identified weaknesses in oversight of provider address data. Some VCCP providers used commercial mail receiving addresses as their only service address. Such addresses have been disguised as business addresses in the past by individuals intending to commit fraud. VHA has not assessed the fraud risk that invalid address data pose to the program. These vulnerabilities potentially put veterans at risk of receiving care from unqualified providers. Additionally, VHA is at risk of fraudulent activity, as some of the providers GAO identified had previous convictions of health-care fraud. VA has an opportunity to address these limitations as it continues to refine the controls, policies, and procedures for this 2-year old program. Why GAO Did This Study The VHA allows eligible veterans to receive care from community providers through VA's VCCP when veterans face challenges accessing care at VA medical facilities. VHA is responsible for ensuring VCCP providers are qualified and competent to provide safe care to veterans based on the eligibility requirements and restrictions. GAO was asked to examine the extent to which vulnerabilities in VCCP provider eligibility controls contributed to potentially ineligible providers participating in the program. GAO reviewed VHA and contractor standard operating procedures, policies, and guidance. GAO also interviewed knowledgeable officials. To identify potentially ineligible providers, GAO compared data from VHA's Office of Community Care to data sources related to actions that may exclude providers from participating in the VCCP.
    [Read More…]
  • Central and Southwest Asian Countries: Trends in U.S. Assistance and Key Economic, Governance, and Demographic Characteristics
    In U.S GAO News
    Following the terrorist attacks of September 2001, prosecuting the global war on terrorism became the United States' primary foreign policy priority. The United States focused its initial efforts on Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom because the country harbored elements of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. As a result, countries in the region--Pakistan and the five Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan--became frontline states in the war on terrorism, raising the profile of U.S. relations with these countries.Since the attacks of September 2001, the United States has broadened its priorities and increased its assistance and presence in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the five Central Asian republics--countries with significant political and economic challenges that may affect the United States' priorities and programs in the region. While not specific to all countries in the region, the United States continues to focus on priorities that were in place prior to September 2001: political and economic reform, nonproliferation, energy development, counternarcotics, and trafficking. However, since that time, the United States has emphasized enhanced security and counterterrorism relationships accompanied by increased military and economic assistance and U.S. military presence. For example, in fiscal year 2001 the United States provided about $342 million in assistance to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the five Central Asian republics. In fiscal year 2002, the United States planned to provide about $1.9 billion in assistance for these countries, primarily for Afghanistan and Pakistan.1 Further, since September 2001, the United States has deployed forces to a number of military facilities in the region to support U.S. operations in Afghanistan. These expanded activities and investments occur in an environment generally marked by authoritarian regimes, poor economic outlooks, and large youth populations vulnerable to the appeal of radical movements.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken with Judy Woodruff of PBS NewsHour
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • The Department of Justice Files Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Owner of Rental Properties in Elizabeth, New Jersey
    In Crime News
    The Department of Justice announced today that it has filed a lawsuit alleging that the owner of rental properties in Elizabeth, New Jersey violated the Fair Housing Act by subjecting tenants to sexual harassment. 
    [Read More…]
  • Cyprus Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • Rewards for Justice – Reward Offer for Information on the Murder of Avijit Roy and Attack on Rafida Bonya Ahmed
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Call with Portuguese Foreign Minister Santos Silva
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Peter Fay, One of Three Judges in Florida Who Served 50 Years, Dies at 92
    In U.S Courts
    Peter T. Fay, one of three federal judges from Florida who each served more than 50 years after being confirmed the same day in 1970, died Sunday in Miami at the age of 92.
    [Read More…]
  • The Election of Gay McDougall to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken Opening Remarks at D-ISIS Meeting Opening Session
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken and President of Palau Surangel Whipps, Jr. Before Their Meeting
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Arkansas Housing Authority
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department announced Thursday that the White River Regional Housing Authority in Melbourne, Arkansas, has agreed to pay $70,000 to resolve a lawsuit alleging that it and its former employee, Duane Johnson, violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) when Johnson sexually harassed an applicant who sought a Housing Choice Voucher from the Housing Authority. 
    [Read More…]
  • Pipeline Company to Pay $35 Million in Criminal Fines and Civil Penalties for Largest-Ever Inland Spill of Produced Water from Oil Drilling
    In Crime News
    The Department of Justice today filed criminal charges under the Clean Water Act against Summit Midstream Partners LLC, a North Dakota pipeline company that discharged 29 million gallons of produced water from its pipeline near Williston, North Dakota, over the course of nearly five months in 2014-2015.
    [Read More…]
  • Office for Victims of Crime Awards Nearly $4 Million to Support Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Programs
    In Crime News
    The Office of Justice [Read More…]

Crime

Network News © 2005 Area.Control.Network™ All rights reserved.