United States: Does OFCCP Have Jurisdiction Over TRICARE Participants? Stay Tuned. The Answer Lies Years In The Future

Last Updated: May 14 2014
Article by David J. Goldstein

Over the past several years, we have written repeatedly about the efforts of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (the OFCCP) to gain jurisdiction over health care providers based solely on providers' participation in TRICARE – the federal program that provides health care services to members of the military and their families.

On May 7, 2014, the OFCCP issued a directive placing a moratorium on TRICARE-related audits. Some commentators have described this event as a victory for health care providers. To the contrary, as explained in this article, this directive is bad news for providers and promises years of further uncertainty and litigation.

In asserting jurisdiction over health care providers based on TRICARE, the OFCCP was not only taking a very aggressive position, but actually acting in apparent disregard of Congressional intent. The OFCCP's position was being challenged in ongoing litigation – the Florida Hospital of Orlando case, and by proposed legislation – the Protecting Health Care Providers from Increased Administrative Burdens Act (H.R. 3633). In the view of many practitioners, going into 2014 it was only a matter of time before the agency's arguments in support of TRICARE jurisdiction were conclusively rejected and providers could finally agree to provide medical care to members of the military and their families without any fear of becoming subject to OFCCP's burdensome regulations.

By issuing the moratorium, however, the OFCCP has effectively preserved its ability to claim jurisdiction over health providers into the foreseeable future and postponed for many years a final determination as to the validity of its claims of TRICARE jurisdiction. This event has significant implications not only for health care providers, but also for the military, which has been having difficulties arranging adequate health care for service members and their families. This event is also another example of how the current Administration has flouted the will of Congress when the laws it enacts are at odds with the policies administrative agencies seek to impose.

TRICARE and the OFCCP's Argument for Jurisdiction

The OFCCP is the federal agency charged with enforcing the government's rules imposing affirmative action obligations on federal contractors and subcontractors.

Among other obligations, the OFCCP's affirmative action regulations: (1) require the preparation of annual affirmative action plans for women and minorities, certain veteran categories, and individuals with disabilities; (2) impose extensive and complicated recordkeeping obligations for applicants and hires; and (3) require all non-executive vacancies being filled with external candidates to be listed with state workforce agencies. The OFCCP also conducts random compliance audits of covered government contractors, which can often take several years to complete.

TRICARE is the Department of Defense (DoD) program that pays for the medical benefits of active duty and retired military personnel and their families. The DoD has three direct contractors that administer the TRICARE program: (1) Humana Military Healthcare Services; (2) TriWest; and (3) Health Net. These three contractors, in turn, enter into contracts with hospitals and other medical providers to provide medical care and supplies to military personnel and their family members covered by TRICARE.

Not long after President Obama took office, the OFCCP began to argue that it had jurisdiction over health care providers that participate in the TRICARE program based on the theory that they qualify as federal government subcontractors required to comply with the agency's regulations.

Pursuant to this argument, the OFCCP attempted to conduct an audit of the Florida Hospital of Orlando, a health care provider that had agreed to provide care to military members and accept reimbursement through a TRICARE administrator and direct contractor, Humana Military Healthcare Services (HMHS).

When the hospital resisted the OFCCP's efforts to initiate an audit, claiming it was not a covered government contractor, the OFCCP commenced enforcement proceedings and the matter ultimately came before a Department of Labor (DOL) administrative law judge (ALJ).

The issues before the ALJ were:

  • Whether the hospital's contract with HMHS under the TRICARE program was a federal subcontract, thereby subjecting it to OFCCP jurisdiction, because the hospital's contract (1) was necessary to the performance of HMHS's direct contract with TRICARE, or (2) required the hospital to perform any portion of HMHS's obligation under its direct contract with TRICARE; and
  • Whether the DoD's assertion that TRICARE payments were federal financial assistance (not contract payments) trumped the DOL's opinion that the payments were pursuant to a federal contract.

The ALJ concluded that Florida Hospital, through its participation in the TRICARE program, was performing a portion of HMHS's obligations to the DoD under its contract, thus making Florida Hospital a subcontractor under the HMHS-DoD prime contract. The ALJ also concluded that TRICARE payments were not federal financial assistance and therefore were subject to regulatory obligations applicable to federal contracts and subcontracts.

Florida Hospital appealed the ALJ's decision to the DOL's Administrative Review Board (ARB).

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and the First ARB Decision

On December 31, 2011, while Florida Hospital was still pending before the ARB, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Action for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). The NDAA included a provision under Section 715 that specifically addressed the OFCCP's jurisdiction over TRICARE providers:

(3) In establishing rates and procedure for reimbursement of providers and other administrative requirements, including those contained in provider network agreements, the Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, maintain adequate networks of providers, including institutional, professional, and pharmacy. For the purpose of determining whether network providers under such provider network agreements are subcontractors for purposes of the Federal Acquisition Regulation or any other law, a TRICARE managed care support contract that includes the requirement to establish, manage, or maintain a network of providers may not be considered to be a contract for the performance of health care services or supplies on the basis of such requirement. (Emphasis added.)

Although Section 715 was widely viewed as foreclosing further assertions of OFCCP jurisdiction based solely on TRICARE, the OFCCP refused to give up. Indeed, shortly after the legislation was signed, the agency's director, Patricia Shiu, declared that "this is not over yet," and the agency continued to pursue its claims against Florida Hospital, arguing that the Congressional action had not divested the agency of its jurisdiction.

When the ARB ruled in favor of Florida Hospital in October 2012, objective observers generally agreed that the ARB had reached the correct result and assumed that the matter had been finally resolved as the OFCCP is not permitted to appeal an adverse determination by the ARB. Nevertheless, the OFCCP once again refused to accept defeat, filing a highly unusual (if not unprecedented) motion asking the ARB to reconsider its decision and stating in its brief that notwithstanding the ARB's decision in Florida Hospital, the OFCCP "intends to continue to schedule and attempt to review hospitals because they are TRICARE network providers."

In an even more unusual move, the ARB granted the OFCCP's request for reconsideration and then issued a new opinion on July 22, 2013, holding by a three-to-two vote that the NDAA did not foreclose all of the OFCCP's arguments for jurisdiction. The case was then remanded back to an ALJ for further proceedings.

Congressional Oversight

Concerned over the OFCCP's aggressive regulatory and enforcement agenda and disturbed by the agency's position regarding TRICARE, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce began to take a more active interest in the OFCCP's activities. In April 2012, the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions held a hearing to consider the increasing burdens that the OFCCP was placing on federal contractors.

Continuing concerns led to the introduction in the House, initially with bi-partisan support, of the Protecting Health Care Providers from Increased Administrative Burdens Act.

This legislation would prevent the OFCCP from asserting jurisdiction over health care providers based on their federal health program participation. Specifically, this bill provides:

A State, a local government, or other recipient that receives a payment from the Federal Government, directly or indirectly and regardless of reimbursement methodology, related to the delivery of health care services to individuals, whether or not such individuals are or have been employed by the Federal Government, shall not be treated as a Federal contractor or subcontractor by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs based on the work performed or actions taken by such individuals that resulted in the receipt of such payments.

Subcommittee Chair Tim Walberg (R-MI) described the bill an attempt to "rein in executive overreach," and "prevent an administrative nightmare for health care providers" and those needing access to care. The subcommittee scheduled a hearing for March 13, 2014, to receive testimony on this proposed legislation.1

In response to this proposed legislation and the impending hearing, Labor Secretary Thomas Perez sent a letter to House leaders on March 11, 2014 offering a "compromise." According to Perez,

I believe that . . . in lieu of legislative action, we can come to a workable administrative solution that addresses your concerns and provides greater clarity to the TRICARE subcontractor community while maintaining important civil rights protections . . . The Department can achieve those goals by having OFCCP exercise prosecutorial discretion over the next five years to limit its enforcement activities with regard to TRICARE subcontractors while it engages in extensive outreach and technical assistance to inform TRICARE participants of their responsibilities and works with other Federal agencies to clarify coverage of health care providers under Federal statutes applicable to contractors and subcontractors.

In other words, the agency offered a five-year moratorium on OFCCP audits of health care institutions, during which time the OFCCP would embark on a campaign of compliance assistance to such hospitals and medical institutions in an effort to teach them about subcontractor jurisdiction and their compliance obligations. This, however, was not a compromise that would definitively settle the OFCCP jurisdictional issue, nor would it comply with Congress's intent established by the NDAA. To the extent the DOL's proposal would not end the Florida Hospital litigation and does not represent a commitment by the OFCCP to relinquish its claims of jurisdiction over TRICARE participants in non-audit contexts (such as complaint investigations), nothing is really being resolved. Moreover, accepting this proposal would reinforce a very disturbing trend that contractors have seen at the OFCCP in the context of compliance reviews: indifference by the agency to the letter of the law when, in its judgment, the letter of the law is inconsistent with the agency's goals.

At the hearing, both Republican and Democrat members of the subcommittee acknowledged that it had been the intent of the Congress in enacting the NDAA to clearly establish that OFCCP had no jurisdiction over TRICARE providers. Nevertheless, the Ranking Member of the Committee, Joe Courtney (D-CT), indicated satisfaction with the Secretary's proposal in that it would delay enforcement for five years and by then the issue would resolve itself, as there would be a new president and labor secretary.

OFCCP Lives to Fight Another Day

Less than a week after the March 13, 2014, hearing before Congress, the OFCCP notified Florida Hospital that it was dropping its case. Thus, after five years of litigation and great expense, the issues in dispute in the Florida Hospital case remain unresolved.2 As a result, if (or more likely when) the OFCCP again attempts to assert jurisdiction over health care providers based on TRICARE participation, the next subject of the OFCCP's attention will have to litigate the issue from the very beginning. Based on the Florida Hospital experience, it could be a decade or more before a final decision on this issue is obtained in the courts.

Also in accordance with the Labor Secretary's March 12, 2014, letter to Congress, the OFCCP issued a directive on May 7, 2014, purporting to establish:

a five-year moratorium on enforcement of the affirmative obligations required of all TRICARE subcontractors. During the moratorium period, OFCCP will engage in outreach and technical assistance to provide greater clarity for the TRICARE subcontractor community about their obligations under the laws administered by OFCCP.

The directive is described herein as only "purporting" to establish a five-year moratorium because this directive is not binding on subsequent administrations (indeed, the moratorium is not even binding on the current administration). Therefore, even assuming the present administration intends to keep its word regarding the moratorium, the OFCCP would still be free to attempt to audit providers based on TRICARE participation beginning in January 2017, when the next president is sworn into office. Since an audit involves a review of the contractor's employment-related activities over the prior year, a provider would have to begin complying with OFCCP's rules in 2016 in order to be able to respond satisfactorily to an OFCCP audit in 2017.

Moreover, the directive makes it clear that the OFCCP is still maintaining that it has jurisdiction over TRICARE providers. Indeed, the directive makes it clear that even if the agency will not audit providers during the moratorium, it will still investigate any discrimination complaints that it receives regarding TRICARE providers – something it cannot do unless it has jurisdiction.

Thus, the directive does not represent a concession to the plainly expressed will of Congress, but merely a temporary strategic withdrawal from the field of battle. Had the OFCCP litigated the Florida Hospital case to conclusion, the issue of its jurisdiction would have been settled once and for all. A judgment against the OFCCP would have ended its ability to claim or attempt to exercise jurisdiction over TRICARE providers. By dismissing the case and laying low for a while under the guise of a moratorium, the OFCCP is now able to avoid an adverse judicial ruling. This move can also be seen as a way to sidetrack the Protecting Health Care Providers from Increased Administrative Burdens Act. Instead of knowing with certainty whether TRICARE participation would subject them to OFCCP's regulations, this issue will now remain unresolved for the foreseeable future. Providers that were standing on the sidelines waiting for the resolution of this issue before deciding whether to participate in TRICARE will now likely remain on the sidelines. And because providers will remain reluctant to participate in TRICARE, service members and their families will continue to enjoy fewer health care options than the general public.

The one silver lining for providers is that the OFCCP has promised to close all currently pending audits where the agency's claim of jurisdiction was based solely on TRICARE, many of which have been on hold for years pending resolution of the Florida Hospital case.

Beware of Government Agents Bearing Gifts

In early May 2014, health care providers began receiving emails from the OFCCP providing notice of the moratorium and including the following statement:

If you are a subcontractor under the TRICARE program, please e-mail us at OFCCP-Public@dol.gov to ensure that you receive notifications about technical assistance and training events. In addition, you are encouraged to visit OFCCP's website at www.dol.gov/ofccp for additional information about our agency, the laws we enforce, technical assistance programs and upcoming events.

It is hard to view this message as anything other than an attempt by the OFCCP to compile a database of TRICARE participants which may later be used by the agency to identify providers for audits. TRICARE providers have no obligation to respond to these emails and nothing to gain from doing so.

Action Items for Health Care Providers

For providers that were unwilling to enter into TRICARE agreements without an assurance that they would not be required to comply with OFCCP's regulations, nothing has changed. Such providers should not participate in TRICARE unless they are now willing to either comply with the regulations or accept the risk of litigation.

In light of the agency's commitment to close all pending TRICARE audits, it is recommended that every health care provider with a pending OFCCP audit promptly review the basis upon which OFCCP has based its assertion of jurisdiction. If the provider understands that the audit was commenced based on TRICARE, the provider should be asking the agency to now close the audit, even if there has already been a significant amount of activity in connection with the audit. If the basis of jurisdiction is not clear, the provider should ask the OFCCP to state its basis for claiming to have jurisdiction and then take appropriate action depending upon the agency's response. Remember that the OFCCP bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Contractors are not required to guess.

Providers should also keep in mind that if they were previously selected for an audit based on TRICARE participation, the OFCCP may again seek to audit on that basis in the future. Accordingly, such providers that want to avoid the risk of a future audit should use the moratorium as an opportunity to end their TRICARE relationships.

At the same time, however, providers should not assume that they are now completely off the hook for the next few years. The OFCCP continues to have jurisdiction over providers that have covered contracts with, for example, the Federal Bureau of Prisons to treat federal inmates, HMO's and other networks that are participating in FEHBP, and the Veterans Department.

Therefore, providers that do not want to become subject to the government's affirmative action requirements should continue to review new contracts and relationships in order determine whether they involve covered government contracts.


The validity of the OFCCP's claim that it has jurisdiction over TRICARE participants remains doubtful. Nevertheless, absent a change in policy, it seems likely that sometime in the next few years, the OFCCP will resume its attempts to compel TRICARE providers to comply with its regulations. Accordingly, providers that agree to participate in TRICARE must either comply with the OFCCP's regulations or be prepared for a fight. Providers that do not want to incur the costs and burdens associated with federal contracting, and that are not willing to litigate the issue, should decline to participate in the TRICARE program.


1 The author of this article had the privilege of being called as one of the witnesses at the subcommittee hearing. See Ilyse Schuman and Michael J. Lotito, Littler Shareholder David Goldstein Explains Attempts at OFCCP Healthcare Overreach During House Subcommittee Hearing, Workplace Policy Update (March 13, 2014), available at http://www.littler.com/workplace-policy-update/littler-shareholder-david-goldstein-explains-attempts-ofccp-healthcare-overr.

2 In a federal court action, the OFCCP would not have been permitted to dismiss its action without the defendant's agreement or the court's approval. Because the case was still in administrative proceedings, however, the OFCCP was able to simply dismiss the matter without having to obtain permission and with no liability to Florida Hospital for its costs or fees.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

David J. Goldstein
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions