Detroit Medical Center pays $30 million to settle False Claims Act allegations
Compliance Monitor, January 5, 2011
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
Detroit Medical Center agreed to pay the United States $30 million to settle allegations that it violated the False Claims Act, the anti-kickback statute, and the Stark Law by engaging in improper financial relationships with referring physicians, according to a Department of Justice (DOJ) press release.
Most of the relationships involved office lease agreements and independent contractor relationships that were either inconsistent with fair market value or not memorialized in writing, according to the DOJ.
Detroit Medical Center discovered the improper financial relationships with a number of physicians as it prepared for the sale to Vanguard Health Systems Inc., and voluntarily disclosed the violations to the government.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
Related Products
-
Emergency Management Coordinator's Handbook for Hospitals
This book and CD-ROM is an affordable, easy-to-read reference that outlines the fundamental processes of emergency...
-
Emergency Management Compliance Manual
This binder and CD-ROM set helps you cut through the confusion related to the new emergency management chapter of the...
-
The Compliance Officer's Handbook, 2nd Edition
This revised edition is packed with even more practical tools, case studies, tips and tools, sample audits, and sample...
-
2012 OIG Work Plan for Hospitals: Top Issues for Auditing
During this 90-minute audio conference, our expert panel walks you through this year's compliance hot-spots, offers...
-
Stark Law, 2nd edition: A user's guide to achieving compliance
This updated version of HCPro's Stark Law best seller, first published in 2005—and now co-authored by former CMS Stark...
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- Q/A: Coding infusions to correct low potassium levels
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- Q&A: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- Understand the spine to code back procedures correctly
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q/A. One injection code or two?
- Searched