May 02, 2022

DOJ Demonstrates Commitment to COVID-19-Related Healthcare Enforcement with New Criminal Charges

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Subscribe now to get unlimited access to all OnPractice content. Your subscription is free.
Subscribe Now

On April 20, 2022, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a nationwide coordinated law enforcement action focused on COVID-19-related healthcare fraud. In total, DOJ brought criminal charges against 21 individuals, including physicians and healthcare executives, in connection with alleged fraud schemes resulting in almost $150 million in improper government claims. These new criminal charges, as well as recent civil and administrative actions, come on the heels of DOJ statements reaffirming its commitment to aggressively pursuing COVID-19-related healthcare frauds, and provide further evidence that DOJ's enforcement efforts in this area are likely to continue for the foreseeable future.


The specific charges brought during the April 2022 enforcement action are consistent with DOJ's longstanding COVID-19-related healthcare fraud priorities and are similar to charges pursued during a May 2021 COVID-19 healthcare fraud enforcement action. These new charges focus on the following COVID-19-related enforcement priorities:

  • Telehealth. In recent years, DOJ and the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) have consistently prioritized prosecuting fraudulent telehealth schemes. The April 2022 enforcement action follow this trend. For example, at least one medical professional was charged in connection with his role in a kickback scheme that involved billing for sham telemedicine encounters and agreeing to order unnecessary genetic testing in exchange for access to telehealth patients.
  • Provider Relief Fund. The April 2022 enforcement action also reflects DOJ's continued focus on fraud in connection with the Provider Relief Fund (PRF), which was created as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act to provide direct payments to "eligible health care providers for health care-related expenses [and] lost revenues that are attributable to coronavirus." Two defendants were charged with misappropriating PRF monies. Although the PRF cases to date all focus on blatant instances of fraud and abuse in connection with the PRF, more complex PRF cases are expected to follow, both in the criminal and civil space.
  • Improper Billing Schemes. DOJ and HHS-OIG continue to target improper billing schemes that involve COVID-19 services. Several cases in the April 2022 enforcement action involve defendants who allegedly offered COVID-19 testing, then used beneficiary information to submit false and fraudulent claims for other services that were either medically unnecessary or never provided.

In announcing these new charges, DOJ Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite, Jr., emphasized DOJ's "commitment to using all available tools to hold accountable medical professionals, corporate executives, and others who have placed greed above care during an unprecedented public health emergency." HHS Inspector General Christi A. Grimm also highlighted HHS-OIG's commitment to pursuing COVID-19-related fraud, stating that the "attempt to profit from the COVID-19 pandemic by targeting beneficiaries and stealing from federal health programs is unconscionable."

DOJ and HHS-OIG's civil and administrative enforcement activity also appears to be picking up steam. For example, in early April 2022, DOJ settled a False Claims Act and Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act case involving a COVID-19-related improper billing scheme for almost $25 million. Among other things, DOJ alleged that a Florida healthcare provider attempted to compensate for lower revenues during the pandemic by requiring physicians to schedule unnecessary evaluation and management appointments and ordering medically unnecessary testing services. The provider also falsely claimed that it was not engaged in illegal activity when it applied for and obtained a $5.9 million Paycheck Protection Program loan.

In connection with the April 2022 enforcement action, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Center for Program Integrity announced that it had taken administrative actions against 28 providers for their alleged involvement in fraud, waste and abuse schemes related to the delivery of care for COVID-19, as well as other schemes that capitalized upon the public health emergency.

Although the United States appears to be finally emerging from the pandemic, the federal government's COVID-19-related healthcare enforcement activity shows no signs of slowing down. DOJ, HHS-OIG, and other federal and state agencies continue to aggressively pursue pandemic-related criminal, civil and administrative healthcare enforcement actions. Healthcare companies, hospital systems and providers should prepare for this increased scrutiny by taking proactive steps to minimize their enforcement risk. For specific practice pointers on how to mitigative these risks and improve existing compliance programs, please see McDermott's recent Healthcare Enforcement Quarterly.

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From McDermott Will & Emery

New York City's Wage Transparency Law to Take Effect November 1, 2022

By Christina S. Dumitrescu McDermott Will & Emery May 06 , 2022

On January 15, 2022, the New York City Council enacted Local Law 32 of 2022 (Wage Transparency Law or Law) to amend the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) to require that most employers include compensation data in their job advertisements. The Law was supposed to take effect on May 15, 2022, however, it faced criticism over a number of ambiguities, including undefined penalties. In response, on April 28, 2022, the New York City Council passed an amendment to the Wage Transparency Law. Among the biggest changes is that employers now have until November 1, 2022—more than six months—to ensure compliance with the Law’s requirements. If Mayor Eric Adams signs the Law, which he is expected to do, New York City will become the second jurisdiction in the country (the first being Colorado) to require employers to include minimum and maximum potential salary amounts for open positions in job postings.

NAIC Continues to Refine Multiyear Work Plan to Expand Scrutiny of Holding Company Act Filings

By Andrea T. Best McDermott Will & Emery May 05 , 2022

In our report published on April 26, 2022, we discussed the New York Department of Financial Services’ (NYDFS) Circular Letter No. 5 in which it reminded the industry that acquiring less than 10% of an insurer’s voting securities does not necessarily mean that the acquirer (1) is not a “controller” and (2) does not have to submit a Form A application to the insurer’s home state or domestic regulator seeking approval for the change of control. This topic is one of several related matters that various committees, task forces and working groups of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) are studying and will continue to study over a multiyear period (the Project).

European Union, United Kingdom Propose New Sanctions Against Russia, Including Ban on Certain Services

By Raminta Dereskeviciute McDermott Will & Emery May 04 , 2022

As Russia continues to escalate its military operations in Ukraine, the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) unveiled details of new sanctions against Russia. This alert summarises the proposed restrictions.

More From Health Care

Fifth Circuit Decision Could Undermine Constitutionality of HHS Civil Money Penalty Laws

By Robert P. Charrow Greenberg Traurig May 20 , 2022

On May 18, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Jarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Comm’n, in which it examined the constitutionality of an agency civil money penalty enforcement proceeding.

Employers, Employees, & HIPAA, Oh My!

By Emma Trivax Dickinson Wright PLLC May 16 , 2022

Oftentimes, healthcare entities’ employees are also patients of the healthcare entity, creating a dual role as employer and employee as well as doctor and patient. But what can an employer do when they need to access an employee’s medical records? Are these medical records treated differently than non-employee patients? Throughout the last few years, we have seen an increasing number of healthcare entities with these exact questions.

OIG Permits FQHC to Loan Smartphones to Patients to Receive Telehealth Services

By Samantha R. Gross Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr May 06 , 2022

On April 28, 2022, the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) published Advisory Opinion 22-08 in which the OIG declined to impose sanctions against a federally qualified health center (“Requestor”).

Featured Stories