Government unseals whistleblower fraud suits against Louisville firm
Compliance Monitor, April 27, 2005
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
The federal government unsealed three whistleblower suits against Louisville, KY-based HealthEssentials Solutions just a few weeks after the provider filed for bankruptcy, reported The Courier-Journal of Louisville, KY, on April 20.
The suits allege that the company billed Medicare for more expensive services than its nurse practitioners performed, The Courier-Journal reported. One of the suits claims that HealthEssentials Solutions billed Medicare for house calls when in fact staff visited patients at assisted-living facilities. Medicare reimburses at a higher rate for house calls. Two former employees filed this particular suit, claiming that they had documented more than $2 million in overbilling since 2000.
Two other lawsuits allege that the company engaged in other unspecified upcoding to receive reimbursement to which it wasn't entitled, The Courier-Journal reported. If the company is found guilty, the whistleblowers filing the corresponding suits will be entitled to 15% to 30% of any funds the government recovers.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
Related Products
-
Strategies for Health Care Compliance
News and real-life examples to increase the effectiveness of your compliance program. Strategies for Health Care Compliance...
-
Compliance Monitor
This HTML e-mail newsletter delivers news on Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse, as well as recent documents and targets...
-
Medicare Weekly Update
Each issue of Medicare Weekly Update includes the latest CMS proposed and final rules, CMS manual revisions, and...
-
Medicare Update for Physician Services
Medicare Update for Physician Services is a free, monthly e-zine that delivers news and information to help physician...
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
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Q&A: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- 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?
- Do not code 57288 with 52000
- Searched