The false claims act and the eroding scienter in healthcare fraud litigation.

Annals of health law Pub Date : 2011-01-01
Richard Doan
{"title":"The false claims act and the eroding scienter in healthcare fraud litigation.","authors":"Richard Doan","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article addresses the federal government's expansive methods in tackling healthcare fraud, particularly in misapplying the False Claims Act. Although tasked with the obligation to curtail the fraudulent submission of Medicare & Medicaid claims, the U.S. government must rein in the current trend to utilize the False Claims Act against smaller medical providers. As the Act's original focus has ebbed in significance, the government has increasingly applied the False Claims Act to circumstances that do not evince actual fraud. In doing so, federal courts have effectively eroded the statute's critical scienter requirement. The federal common-law doctrines of \"payment by mistake\" and \"unjust enrichment\" adequately address the payment of non-fraudulent, albeit false, Medicare & Medicaid claims. Yet the federal government pursues these appropriate remedies only rarely and in the alternative, essentially when the government fails under the False Claims Act. Thus, this article argues for reform, calling for a clearer delineation between remedial and punitive measures. In cases involving smaller medical providers, courts should strictly limit the False Claims Act to those instances where fraud is clearly manifest.</p>","PeriodicalId":79788,"journal":{"name":"Annals of health law","volume":"20 1","pages":"49-76, 8 p preceding 1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of health law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article addresses the federal government's expansive methods in tackling healthcare fraud, particularly in misapplying the False Claims Act. Although tasked with the obligation to curtail the fraudulent submission of Medicare & Medicaid claims, the U.S. government must rein in the current trend to utilize the False Claims Act against smaller medical providers. As the Act's original focus has ebbed in significance, the government has increasingly applied the False Claims Act to circumstances that do not evince actual fraud. In doing so, federal courts have effectively eroded the statute's critical scienter requirement. The federal common-law doctrines of "payment by mistake" and "unjust enrichment" adequately address the payment of non-fraudulent, albeit false, Medicare & Medicaid claims. Yet the federal government pursues these appropriate remedies only rarely and in the alternative, essentially when the government fails under the False Claims Act. Thus, this article argues for reform, calling for a clearer delineation between remedial and punitive measures. In cases involving smaller medical providers, courts should strictly limit the False Claims Act to those instances where fraud is clearly manifest.

虚假索赔法与医疗欺诈诉讼中的侵蚀科学。
本文讨论了联邦政府在处理医疗保健欺诈方面的广泛方法,特别是在错误应用《虚假申报法》方面。尽管美国政府有义务减少医疗保险和医疗补助申请的欺诈性提交,但它必须控制目前利用《虚假申报法》打击小型医疗服务提供者的趋势。随着《虚假申报法》最初关注的重点逐渐失去重要性,政府越来越多地将《虚假申报法》应用于不能证明存在实际欺诈的情况。在这样做的过程中,联邦法院有效地削弱了法规的关键科学要求。联邦普通法的“错误支付”和“不当得利”原则充分解决了医疗保险和医疗补助索赔的非欺诈性支付问题,尽管这些索赔是虚假的。然而,联邦政府很少寻求这些适当的补救措施,主要是在政府违反《虚假申报法》的情况下。因此,本文主张改革,呼吁更明确地界定补救措施和惩罚措施。在涉及规模较小的医疗服务提供者的案件中,法院应严格将《虚假申报法》限制在欺诈明显存在的情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信