United States: DOJ Settlement With Home Health Providers Underscores Strategic Considerations For Self-Disclosure

Eventually, any health care organization with an effective compliance program is very likely to discover an issue that raises potential liability and requires disclosure to a government entity. While we largely discuss False Claims Act (FCA) litigation and defense issues on this blog, a complementary issue is how to address matters that raise potential liability risks for an organization proactively.

On August 11, 2017, a group of affiliated home health providers in Tennessee (referred to collectively as "Home Health Providers") entered into an FCA settlement agreement with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) for $1.8 million to resolve self-disclosed, potential violations of the Stark Law, the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute, and a failure to meet certain Medicare coverage and payment requirements for home health services. This settlement agreement underscores the strategic considerations that providers must weigh as they face self-disclosing potential violations to the US government.


The $1.8 million settlement results from a voluntary disclosure by Home Health Providers to the US Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Eastern District of Tennessee in November 2010 relating to potential violations of the Stark Law that were identified during an ongoing internal audit. Home Health Providers supplemented the self-disclosure over the ensuing years as its internal investigation identified additional potential violations.

Almost seven years after the initial disclosure, the settlement agreement resolves Home Health Providers' potential False Claims Act (FCA) liability from several categories of alleged violations, including submission of claims for home health services that lacked sufficient face-to-face encounter documentation, claims with false or invalid certifications, and violations of the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback statute based on allegedly improper compensation arrangements with physicians. The Stark and Anti-Kickback allegations relate to compensation in the form of marketing expenditures, payments to a restaurant owned by immediate family members of a referring physician, the provision of free equipment and staff services to a referring physician's practice, medical director and lease provisions with physicians that were not properly memorialized in writing, and insufficient documentation of other financial arrangements. Home Health Providers did not admit any liability under the terms of the settlement agreement.

Key Considerations for Self-Disclosure

The Home Health Providers settlement with DOJ and OIG highlights the importance of self-disclosure and underscores strategic considerations a provider must weigh when contemplating self disclosure.

As a practical matter, in light of the overpayment refund obligations established by Section 6402 of the Affordable Care Act—the "60 Day Rule"—providers who have identified an overpayment have little discretion with respect to whether or not to self-disclose. Overpayments retained after they have been identified, and not returned in a timely manner, may give rise to FCA liability for "knowingly concealing or knowingly or improperly avoiding or decreasing" an obligation to the government pursuant to the FCA's reverse false claims provision. Providers who fail to refund may also face monetary penalties and/or exclusion from participation in federal health care programs. Considerable analysis is often required to determine whether an overpayment exists as a legal and factual matter. Given the complex health care regulatory environment, determining whether as a legal matter an overpayment actually exists can be a judgment call and risk tolerance determination for the organization. Further, the facts surrounding a particular situation often cannot be conclusively established due to the passage of time, changes in personnel, loss of documents and changes in billing systems. Ultimately, organizations must decide whether there is a reasonable position that there is or is not an overpayment. If the decision is the former, then the question providers must wrestle with is not whether to disclose, but rather to whom the disclosure should be made.

The first possible disclosure avenue is via making a refund to the contractor. This option does not provide a release of potential liabilities, but does remove the possibility of being accused of improperly retaining an overpayment. If the dollar amount is not significant to the organization, and there is little risk of potential liability under fraud statutes, then refunding the overpayment can be a reasonable and cost-effective pathway.

If a provider has discovered a potential overpayment that might involve possible liability risks under fraud statutes, the provider is generally faced with the choice of disclosure to the OIG, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and/or the relevant state Medicaid entity, or DOJ. There are several factors that can inform a provider's choice of agency for a self-disclosure, including, among others: (1) the nature of the potential violation; (2) the amount and nature of potential damages; (3) the risk of a potential whistleblower; and (4) the extent of the release the provider wishes to obtain. Although the point of entry does matter, it is important to recognize that these agencies will coordinate and consult with one another regarding any self-disclosure.

OIG Self-Disclosure Protocol

The OIG has a Provider Self-Disclosure Protocol (OIG SDP), which is accessible here. The OIG SDP is available for providers who have identified potential violations relating to the federal criminal, civil or administrative laws for which OIG may impose a civil monetary penalty (CMP). For example, providers can use the OIG SDP to disclose potential violations of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute, false billing issues or the employment of (or contracting with) an individual or entity who appears on OIG's List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (LEIE). Note that the OIG SDP is not a vehicle for disclosing potential Stark Law violations unless the provider has also identified at least a colorable violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. Self-disclosures limited to Stark Law violations can be made through CMS's Voluntary Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol.

The OIG SDP provides that the agency will generally require a minimum multiplier of 1.5 times the single damages, and will presumptively not require a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) in exchange for the release of OIG's exclusion authorities. Providers that self-disclose must be in a position to provide an estimate of damages within ninety (90) days of the date of the submission. Thus, providers are cautioned to time their self-disclosure to the OIG with this obligation in mind. For self-disclosures relating to the Anti-Kickback Statute (which may also include potential violations of the Stark Law), the OIG may enter into a settlement based on the amount of the improper remuneration, rather than the amount of the overpayment by the federal health care program. Depending on the nature of the violation, this approach has the potential to offer providers a substantial decrease in the settlement amount.

While the OIG coordinates with the DOJ when resolving self-disclosures, if the OIG is the only agency that participates in the settlement, the release that the provider can obtain is limited to matters subject to OIG's civil monetary penalty (CMP) and exclusion authorities. The OIG alone cannot provide a release from potential FCA liability. However, an OIG settlement can provide some protection against future relator claims under the FCA's public disclosure bar. In addition, OIG coordinates with the DOJ in resolving OIG SDP matters. Thus, if OIG offers to resolve the matter under its CMP and exclusion authorities, it is likely that this resolution would satisfy the DOJ, who ultimately serves the interests of the client agency. Depending on the facts, it can be in the provider's interest to ensure the DOJ is at the table to obtain the FCA release. However, that broader release from DOJ may ultimately increase the size of the settlement owed to the government.

CMS Voluntary Self-Referral Disclosure Protocol

The Affordable Care Act required the establishment of a voluntary self-referral disclosure protocol (SRDP). CMS established the SRDP in 2010 and has subsequently updated the protocol. The SRDP can be used by providers to disclose potential violations of the Stark Law.

Settlements under the SRDP are based on a percentage of the overpayment—i.e., the amount of the claims submitted in violation of the Stark Law's billing prohibition. While there is no published formula, experience suggests that CMS may be willing to resolve Stark issues for a percentage of the overpayment amount. CMS considers a variety of factors in determining the settlement amount, including: (1) the nature and extent of the improper or illegal practice; (2) the timeliness of the self-disclosure; and (3) the cooperation in providing additional information related to the disclosure. Under the SRDP, CMS releases the provider from liability under section 1877(g)(1), which prohibits payment for designated health services furnished pursuant to a prohibited referral. CMS does not have the authority to provide a broader release for providers.

Disclosure to DOJ

Providers may elect to self-disclose directly to the DOJ. Unlike the OIG and CMS, the DOJ does not have a formal self-disclosure protocol. Generally, the pathway is to disclose to the USAO in the district where the provider is located.

One of the advantages of disclosure to the DOJ is the potential to obtain a release from potential FCA liability. This release often comes at a price for providers, as the DOJ may apply a larger multiplier than the OIG for its settlements. When making the decision to disclose to the DOJ, providers should consider the strength of the entity's or counsel's relationship with the USAO, the potential monetary value of the conduct, the thoroughness of the internal investigation and to what extent the facts developed in the investigation create potential FCA risk. Disclosure to DOJ is typically reserved for situations involving complex or extensive conduct where having an FCA release provides the most comfort to the organization. For providers seeking a resolution that fully and completely addresses a particular issue, the DOJ's full release may be worth it. Notably, OIG's typical practice in DOJ self-disclosures is to release its exclusion authorities without requiring a CIA, similar to the OIG SDP.


Self-disclosure has become a critical component of effective compliance programs, as providers who identify overpayments face an affirmative legal obligation to return the overpayment to the government. Making this decision is complicated and requires an organization to decide based on the legal and factual results of the investigation and the risk tolerance-comfort level disposition of the management team and board. Providers should carefully consider self-disclosure options to assess the optimal pathway for resolution. Regardless of which disclosure pathway a provider selects, certain best practices apply to position the organization for the best possible outcome. First, ensure the disclosure is complete and accurate to the best of the provider's ability. Government lawyers expect that the factual representations are accurate and made in good faith so that they can be comfortable relying on those representations in resolving the conduct without doing an independent investigation. Nonetheless, it is not uncommon for the government to pressure test certain aspects of the disclosure. Second, providers should be prepared. Once the decision is made to disclose and to whom to disclose, the provider should take steps necessary to prepare a complete submission and be ready to engage with the government. In some situations, a submission may need to include questions to the government on how they would like the provider to proceed with certain issues to complete the submission. Being prepared also entails timely responses to additional information requests. Finally, cooperation is key. Effective cooperation with the government's review process helps ensure a smooth resolution.

DOJ Settlement with Home Health Providers Underscores Strategic Considerations for Self-Disclosure

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.

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