OIG Exclusion and State Exclusion Lists: Which Exclusion Lists Need to Be Screened? What Is the Difference Between Them?

oig exclusion list

There are two federal databases that list persons and entities that have been excluded from participating in federal health care programs or receiving federal contracts. Checking and verifying individuals on the OIG Exclusion List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (LEIE) and the GSA System for Award Management (SAM) should be part of any compliance exclusion screening program. The LEIE is maintained and updated by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS-OIG), and the SAM consolidates several procurement based databases. 

Many states (41 as of today) also have their own individual databases which list individuals and entities that have been excluded from participating in their State Programs (such as Medicaid) or receiving any State contracts. We’ll briefly discuss the difference between these exclusion lists and explain why each should be screened. 

I.  OIG Exclusion List (LEIE)

oig exclusion list

The OIG exclusion list, LEIE, is maintained specifically for the purpose of listing all persons and entities that have been excluded from participating in the Medicare program. It is comprised of all persons currently excluded from the program by the OIG and is updated monthly. The list contains the name of the excluded individual or entity at the time of the exclusion, the provider type, the authority under which the individual was excluded, and the state where the excluded individual resided at the time of the exclusion. The LEIE can be accessed on the OIG’s website and up to five names can be searched at a time. It can also be downloaded for searching purposes. Matches can then be verified individually by Social Security Number.

It is important to remember that the LEIE is prepared and maintained by HHS for the specific purpose of identifying persons or entities that have been excluded from the Medicare Program by its Inspector General. Therefore, it will not contain persons or entities on other exclusion lists if, for instance, the information was never forwarded to it, or if the basis of that exclusion was insufficient to support one from the LEIE.[1]

II.  GSA-SAM

oig exclusion list

The SAM is an attempt by the federal government to consolidate several pre-existing procurement systems and combine them with the Catalog of Federal Domestic assistance. It is being done in phases. The first phase combined the functionality of the systems that listed persons or entities that were debarred, sanctioned, or excluded for contract or other fraud into a single searchable exclusion database. These were the Central Contractor Registry (CCR), Federal Agency Registration (FedReg), Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA), and the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS).

The SAM uses four exclusion classifications: Firm, Individual, Vessel, and Special Entity Designation. It also uses four exclusion types: Ineligible (Proceedings Pending), Ineligible (Proceedings Completed), Prohibition/Restriction, and Voluntary Exclusion.[2] There is significant overlap between the SAM and the LEIE. However, they were both created by several different agencies, and each has its own specific administrative process. It is not surprising that there are large gaps between them, and that they are ultimately very different in composition.

III.  State Medicaid Exclusion Lists

In addition to the HHS OIG Exclusion List of Excluded Individuals and Entities ( LEIE ) and the GSA SAM, several states (plus the District of Columbia) have their own Medicaid Exclusion Lists. These states are identified in red in the map to the left. In addition to being excluded from the specific states in which a person or entity is listed, Section 6501 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandates that if a provider or entity is excluded under any state Medicaid database, then that provider or entity should be excluded from participating in all states.[3] State lists typically contain exclusions based upon licensing issues and many of these exclusions are not found on the LEIE, SAM or other state Lists. This occasionally occurs because the exclusion is based on a violation of a particular state statute. It also occurs because many states have inadequate processes to communicate exclusions to either the Federal Databases or their sister states.

 

AlabamaIdahoMichiganNorth Dakota
AlaskaIllinoisMinnesotaOhio
ArizonaIndianaMississippiPennsylvania
ArkansasIowaMissouriSouth Carolina
CaliforniaKansasMontanaTennessee
ColoradoKentuckyNebraskaTexas
ConnecticutLouisianaNevadaWashington
FloridaMaineNew JerseyWashington DC
GeorgiaMarylandNew YorkWest Virginia
HawaiiMassachusettsNorth CarolinaWyoming

IV. Conclusion

The OIG exclusion list LEIE, (GSA) SAM, and State Medicaid databases were all created by different entities for different reasons. They have different exclusion criteria and though they address concerns that may be similar in nature, the information is often agency specific. Ultimately, the lists often contain different entities and persons. Considering these differences and the severity of the risk of employing excluded persons, we strongly recommend conducting monthly searches of all of these databases. Contact the exclusion experts at Exclusion Screening, LLCSM by calling 1-800-294-0952 or fill out our online service form.

Ashley Hudson

Ashley Hudson, Associate Attorney at Liles Parker, LLP and former Chief Operating Officer for Exclusion Screening, LLC, is the author of this article. 


[1] For more information see other discussions within our site on the effects of exclusion and the publication by the U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs. Office of the Inspector Gen., Special Advisory Bulletin on the Effect of Exclusion from Participation in Federal Health Care Programs, 13 (May 8, 2013).

[2] When EPLS was consolidated into SAM in July 2012 Cause and Treatment (CT) codes were eliminated. For more information on the transformation see Changes from EPLS to SAM on the SAM website at https://www.sam.gov/sam/transcript/Quick_Guide_for_Changes_From_EPLS.pdf.

[3] 42 U.S.C. 1396(a) (2012). Whether an exclusion by one state actually “excludes” an individual from all states or makes him “excludable” from all states is an open question at present, but why take the chance of hiring a person who has been excluded in another State if you don’t have to?

Concealing Information Regarding an Excluded Party and Lying on a Medicare CMS-855a Enrollment Application Will Swiftly Make a Bad Situation Even Worse!

CMS-855a Enrollment Application(January 8, 2019): Since first being enacted in 1965, Congress has enacted a number of measures to safeguard the financial integrity of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Medicare-Medicaid Anti-violations Fraud and Abuse Amendments of 1977 (Public Law 95-142) are among the most significant. In addition to making of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute a felony, the legislation also mandated that physicians and other practitioners convicted of program-related crimes be excluded from participating in Medicare and Medicaid.  Since 1977, the scope of mandatory and permissive bases that can result in program exclusion has expanded significantly. Exclusion actions are the proverbial “kryptonite” of administrative sanctions that may be imposed on health care providers and suppliers.  As the exclusion statute now stands, if a health care provider or supplier is excluded from participation in Medicare, Medicaid or other Federal health care benefit plans, no payment can be made for any of the services or items “furnished, ordered, or prescribed by an excluded individual or entity.”[1]

From a practical standpoint an excluded individual or entity cannot bill or work for any practice or entity that bills Federal health care benefit programs. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Inspector General (OIG), is the agency responsible for imposing Federal exclusion actions[2] that are mandated[3] under the law. At its discretion, the OIG may also choose to pursue an exclusion action against individuals and entities that have been subjected to a number of other adverse actions.[4] Although both mandatory and permissive exclusion actions are administrative in nature, the seriousness of an exclusion action cannot be understated. This article examines a recent case where the failure to disclose the ownership of a home health agency by excluded individuals resulted in the indictment and conviction of the agency’s owners and two members of the agency’s staff.

 I. The Medicare Enrollment Process is the First Line of Defense to Prevent Program Fraud:

Among its many responsibilities, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is responsible for administering the Medicare, Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) health care benefits programs. To serve as a participating provider or supplier in the Medicare program, an enrollment application must first be completed.[5]  The specific enrollment application form to be completed, varies depending on the type of provider or supplier entity. For example, home health agencies are required to complete enrollment application CMS-855A.[6] 

A number of items in the enrollment application are specifically intended to identify various adverse actions that may have been imposed against an entity, its owners or managers.  For example, applicants must disclose whether the provider or supplier has a history of any final adverse actions, such as convictions, exclusion actions, revocation actions, or suspensions. Administrative adverse legal actions that must be reported are listed on page 16 of the CMS-855a.  As the application states, the following administrative adverse actions must be disclosed:


If the applicant has a history of one or more final adverse legal actions (either a qualifying conviction or one of the administrative actions listed above), the actions must be detailed in SECTION 3 of the CMS-855a.



Finally, SECTION 15 of the CMS-855a requires that applicants attest to the following: 
SECTION 15, further requires that applicants certify that all of the information contained in CMS-855a is “true, correct and complete. . .”

 II. What’s the Best Way to Make an Administrative Exclusion Action Even Worse? Lie About it:

A recent criminal prosecution out of the Northern District of Texas provides a real-life example of how a health care provider can make things go from bad to worse.  In that case, the concealment of an administrative exclusion action, along with the falsification of Medicare and Medicaid enrollment and re-validation paperwork, resulted in the criminal prosecution and conviction of four individuals associated with this north Texas home health agency.  A chronology of the case is set out below:
  • April 2001. A north Texas-based home health agency (referred to as “NTHHA”) was incorporated as a Texas limited liability company with a business address in Garland, Texas. After being incorporated, NTHAA applied to become a participating home health provider in the Medicare program. The agency also applied to provide Personal Assistance Services (PAS) to Medicaid beneficiaries. The home health agency was owned by Defendant #1 (who also served as Administrator and Director of the agency), and his wife, Defendant #4. 
  • April 2010. The owner of NTHAA (Defendant #1) and one of the agency’s management officials who served as an Administrator / Director of the agency (Defendant #2) were facing state felony charges associated with the delivery of a health care item under the Medicaid program. More specifically, the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) of the Texas Attorney General’s Office conducted an investigation of the defendants in connection with defendants both played roles in the wrongful billing of
  • November 2011. Defendant #3 (an Administrator and Registered Nurse for NTHHA), signed and submitted a Medicare re-validation application for NTHHA. The government alleged that the application submitted by Defendant #3 concealed and failed to disclose that Defendant #1 was an owner of the home health agency and that Defendant #2 was a manager at the same agency. Moreover, Defendant #3 failed to disclose that both Defendant #1 and Defendant #2 had been indicted on felony charges associated with the delivery of a health care item.
  • March 2012. Defendant #1 filed a Texas Franchise Tax Public Information Report for NTHAA and failed to identify himself as an officer, director or member of the home health agency.
  • June 2012. Defendants #1 and #2 pled guilty Texas State District Court to a Class A Misdemeanor Offense of Attempted Theft, in violation of PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03, related to their 2010 indictment. The defendants were placed on community supervision for one year and an Order of Deferred Adjudication was entered by the District Court. In approximately December 2012, the defendants were granted early discharge from their community service obligations the District Court dismissed all of the proceedings, including the indictments against the defendants.
  • January 2013. The OIG notified Defendants #1 and #2 that they were being excluded from participation from Medicare, Medicaid and all Federal health care benefit programs for a period of 5 years pursuant to Section 1128(a)(1) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(a)(1). Both defendants appealed the exclusion, but the 5-year period of administrative exclusion was upheld by the Administrative Law Judge assigned to hear their respective cases. 
  • April 2013. Defendant #1 signed and filed a Texas Franchise Tax Public Information Report for NTHAA which listed himself as an Administrator and Director of NTHHA.
  • May 2013. Defendant #3 signed and submitted a contract re enrollment application with the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS). The re-enrollment application falsely certified that no persons with an ownership interest or managerial role at NTHHA had been convicted of a crime relating to a Federal health care program.  During this time period, Defendant #3 also falsely certified that none of the principals, including officers, directors, owners, partners, or person’s having a primarily management or supervisory responsibility in NTHHA were presently excluded from participation in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.
  • May 2014. Defendant #1 signed and filed a Texas Franchise Tax Public Information Report for NTHAA which listed himself as an Administrator and Director of NTHHA.
  • May 2015. Defendant #1 signed and filed a Texas Franchise Tax Public Information Report for NTHAA which listed himself as an Administrator and Director of NTHHA.
  • September 2015. Defendant #1 opened a bank account under the name of the home health agency, NTHHA. 
  • October 2015. Defendant #3 signed and submitted a Medicaid Advantage Plan provider application for NTHHA which falsely certified that no employees of the agency had been, or were currently excluded, from participation in a government program such as Medicare or Medicaid. The Medicaid Advantage Plan provider application submitted also falsely certified that no representatives of NTHAA had pled guilty to any legal action. Finally, Defendant #3 concealed and failed to disclose that Defendants #1 and #2 had no ownership interests and managerial roles in NTHAA.
  • October 2015. Defendant signed and submitted a provider application to a second Medicaid Advantage Plan, certifying that NTHHA had not been excluded under its current or former name or business identity from any Federal or State health care program.
  • January 2013 – May 2016. Despite their exclusion in January 2015, Defendant #1 and Defendant #2, continued to submit home health and PAS claims to Medicare and Medicaid for payment through May 2016. More than $4 million was billed to the Medicare and Medicaid during this period and Defendant #1 paid himself approximately $346,000 from NTHHA’s bank accounts.   Moreover, during this period, Defendant #1 paid Defendant #2 approximately $77,000 from NTHHA bank accounts.
  • June 2016. In June 2016, a Federal Grand Jury in the Northern District of Texas indicted Defendant #1, Defendant #2, and Defendant #3 (an Administrator and Registered Nurse for NTHHA) for “Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud.”  (Violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349) and (18 U.S.C. 1347).  The government alleged that from approximately April 2010 through May 2016, the three defendants conspired to defraud the Medicare and Medicaid program by making materially false and fraudulent representation and promises in connection with the delivery of services billed to the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
  • December 2017. A Superseding Indictment by a Federal Grand Jury was issued in this case, charging Defendant #1 and Defendant #3 with additional counts of “False Statements in Health Care Matters.” (Violation of 18 U.S.C. 1035). Two unindicted physician co-conspirators were also named in the Superseding Indictment. Additionally, an additional defendant was added to the indictment. Defendant #4 (the wife of Defendant #1) was indicted for one count of “Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud” for her role in the concealment of and falsification of ownership interests in NTHAA.

  • October 2018. After a six-day trial, a Federal jury found that: (A) Defendant #1 was guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud and of making a False Statement for his role in concealing his ownership interest in NTHAA; (B) Defendant #2 was guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud for his role in concealing his ownership interest in NTHAA; and (C) Defendant #3 was guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud and of making a False Statement for her role in concealing the ownership interests of Defendant #1 and Defendant #2.  Defendant #3 was also found to have falsely certified that no one associated with home health agency was excluded.  Moreover, she supposedly indicated that another party owned NTHAA, when in fact, Defendant #1 and Defendant #2 were both excluded parties and had an ownership interest in the agency. 

 III.  How Did a State Class A Misdemeanor That Was Ultimately Dismissed Lead to an OIG Exclusion Action?

 In the case discussed above, the OIG excluded Defendants #1 and #2 from participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs for 5 years, citing the mandatory exclusion requirements of Social Security Act, 1128(a)(1).
Let this sink in for a moment . . . the defendants pled guilty to a state Class A Misdemeanor in Texas District Court, and the charges, including the indictment, were later dismissed pursuant to an Order of Deferred Adjudication by the Texas State District Court.  Nevertheless, the OIG really had no choice but to exclude the defendants. 
The mandatory exclusions of Defendant 1# and Defendant #2 were brought under Section 1128(a)(1) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(a)(1). This provision of the Act requires the exclusion of any individual or entity convicted of a criminal offense related to the delivery of an item or service under the Medicare or Medicaid programs.[7] Importantly, this mandatory exclusion provision is not limited to only felony convictions.  It also covers misdemeanor convictions. Additionally, it is important to note that the Social Security Act defines “conviction” as including a number of situations.  A summary of actions that qualify as a conviction is set out below:

Social Security Act § 1128(i)(1): When a judgment of conviction has been entered against the individual by a Federal, State, or local court.

Social Security Act § 1128(i)(2): When there has been a finding of guilt against the individual by a Federal, State, or local court. 

Social Security Act § 1128(i)(3): When a plea of guilty or nolo contendere by the individual has been accepted by a Federal, State, or local court.

Social Security Act § 1128(i)(4): When the individual has entered into participation in a first offender, deferred adjudication, or other arrangement or program where judgment of conviction has been withheld

Simply put, the OIG was required by law to exclude Defendant #1 and Defendant #2 from the Medicare program for 5 years, despite the fact that the conviction was a state misdemeanor that was ultimately discussed pursuant to an Order of Deferred Adjudication.

 IV. Lessons Learned:

Lesson #1. Always consider the administrative ramifications of accepting a plea agreement. Even if the charges are later dismissed under a deferred adjudication agreement. pleading guilty to a Class A misdemeanor will lead to an individual’s mandatory exclusion from participating in the Medicare program if the underlying criminal offense was related to the delivery of an item or service under the Medicare or Medicaid programs.  In this case, the OIG had no choice but to exclude these individuals from the Medicare program for 5 years under Section 1128(a)(1) of the Social Security Act.  

Lesson #2.  Medicare and Medicaid providers need to exercise caution when completing Medicare and Medicaid program enrollment applications.  As this case reflects, Federal prosecutors won’t hesitate to pursue false or deceitful conduct that has been taken to hide an excluded party’s ownership interest or involvement with a health care entity. Although an exclusion action is only an administrative sanction, if you are excluded from participation in the Medicare program and attempt to set up a “straw owner” in an effort to hide your ownership interest in a health care entity, you risk turning an administrative sanction into a criminal case.

 V. Concluding Remarks:

In this case, the defendants’ worst enemies were, in fact, themselves.  After being excluded form participation in the Medicare program. The defendants failed to properly divest and dissociate themselves from the home health agency.  Instead, they essentially doubled-down and took steps to conceal their ownership and involvement with the home health agency. This false and deceitful conduct ultimately led to their indictment on federal criminal charges.  Additionally, their actions led to the criminal involvement of another home health agency management official (Defendant #3), and the agency owner’s wife (Defendant #4).  Ultimately, all four individuals were convicted of “Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud,” making a“False Statement,” or both counts. All of the defendants are currently awaiting sentencing.

As a participating provider or supplier in the Medicare, Medicaid or other Federal health care program, you have an affirmative obligation to ensure that no owners, employees, agents or contractors have been excluded from participation in one or more of these programs.  The folks at Exclusion Screening can greatly assist you in meeting those obligations. They can be reached at:  1 (800) 294-0952.

[2]States also have the ability to exclude individual and entities from participating the state’s Medicaid program.
[3]Mandatory exclusion actions must be imposed by the OIG if an individual or entity is convicted of a number of felony criminal health care related statutes or convictions related to fraud, theft of other financial misconduct.  A list of mandatory exclusion bases can be found in the following article.
[4]Permissive exclusion actions are not required by law but may be pursued at the option of the OIG.  A list of permissive exclusion bases can be found in the following article.  
[5]After successfully enrolling in the Medicare program, 42 CFR §424.515 requires that in order to maintain Medicare billing privileges, a provider or supplier (other than a DMEPOS supplier) must resubmit and recertify the accuracy of its enrollment information generally every 5 years. DMEPOS Suppliers must revalidate at least every three years.
[6]A copy of CMS-855A can be found here.
[7]See, Tamara Brown, DAB No. 2195 (2008); Thelma Walley, DAB No. 1367; Boris Lipovsky, M.D., DAB No. 1363 (1992); Lyle Kai, R.Ph., DAB CR1262 (2004), rev’d on other grounds, DAB No. 1979 (2005); see also Russell Mark Posner, DAB No. 2033, at 5-6 (2006).

OIG Exclusion Case Study: The Impact of a False Claims Act Judgment.

OIG Exclusion Case Study(August 23, 2018): In 2008, after learning that a Texas-based laboratory services company was submitting false claims to the Medicare program, a private citizen filed suit, on behalf of the United States, against the laboratory services company under the qui tam provisions of the civil False Claims Act. The qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 – 3733) allow private parties, commonly referred to as “whistleblowers” or “relators” to sue individuals and entities on behalf of the government if the defendants have “knowingly” submitted false claims to the government for payment.[1] In this case, the United States intervened in the case against the laboratory services company in 2011. In April 2018, the U.S. District Judge hearing the case ruled against the laboratory and its physician owner and awarded the United States $30.5 million for violations of the False Claims Act. Although there are a number of lessons (especially with respect to individual liability) to be learned from the underlying case, the purpose of this article to examine the collateral administrative actions that were taken against the physician owner and the laboratory services company.

I. Parallel Administrative Action — OIG Exclusion Action Overview: 

In a letter dated August 21, 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (OIG) proposed to exclude the laboratory services company, and its owner, from participation in Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal health programs under 1128(b)(7)[2] of the Social Security Act, for a period of 15 years. The OIG based its proposed exclusion action on the submission of claims from August 2009 to January 2010, that the laboratory and its owner (referred to as Petitioners in the administrative case), “ knew or should have known were not provided as claims and were false or fraudulent.”
[3]

II. Why Did the OIG Exercise its Exclusion Authority Under 1128(b)(7)? 

More often than not, when dealing with allegations of the civil False Claims Act, the OIG will choose to exercise its permissive discretion to exclude an individual or entity under Section 1128(b)(7) of the Social Security Act.[4] In this particular case, the OIG did, in fact, exercise its authority to exclude the Petitioners for 15 years.

III. Petitioners’ Appeal of the OIG’s Exclusion Decision: 

In response to the proposed OIG exclusion action, in October 2015, the Petitioners filed a timely request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Additionally, due to the unavailability of the ALJ first assigned to hear the case, a different ALJ was appointed to handle the hearing on June 2017. Throughout this period (from late 2015 to early March 2018), both sides actively engaged in discovery and a lively exchange of motions ensued. Finally, in late March 2018, the substitute ALJ assigned to take over the case conducted an in-person hearing on the exclusion action.

IV. Issues Considered by the Administrative Law Judge:  

Simply stated, the ALJ hearing the case was required to consider two issues:
ISSUE #1: Did the OIG have a basis to exclude the Petitioners from participating in Medicare, Medicaid and all other federal care programs for 15 years under 42 U.S.C. §1320a-7(b)(7)? As set out under 42 U.S.C. §1320a-7(b)(7), the Secretary may exclude individuals and entities from participation in any federal health care program (as defined in section 1320a-7(b)(f)[5]) if the Secretary determines that individual or entity has committed fraud, kickbacks and / or other prohibited activities.[6]
As the ALJ’s opinion notes, after conducting the administrative hearing in this case, a U.S. District Court with jurisdiction over the parallel civil qui tam case issued a summary judgment decision against the Petitioners, finding the liable for violations of the False Claims Act. Despite the fact that the elements considered by the U.S. District Court were essentially the same as those to be considered by the ALJ when addressing the exclusion action, the ALJ chose not to broadly apply judicial estoppel in this case. This decision appears to have been primarily based on the fact that the time frames considered by the two forums were different. The ALJ also noted that he was charged to conduct a de novo review of the evidence when assessing the exclusion decision by the OIG. The ALJ therefore ruled that it was more appropriate for him to issue a decision based on the merits. Upon consideration of the evidence in this case, the ALJ found that:

(1) Petitioners presented or caused to be presented to an agency of the United States the claims at issue in this case.
(2) The claims Petitioners presented or caused to be presented to Medicare were false.
(3) Petitioners should have known that the claims for services they presented or caused to be presented to Medicare were false. 
(4) Petitioners’ equitable defenses do not serve to undermine the OIG’s basis for excluding them. 
(5) The statute of limitations is not implicated by discussion of Petitioners’ conduct preceding the six-year timeframe that forms the basis of the proposed exclusion.[7]

In light of these findings, after conducting a de novo review of the evidence, the ALJ found that the OIG did, in fact, have a basis for excluding the Petitioners based solely on the claims they submitted within the six-year statute of limitations.
ISSUE #2: Was the 15-year exclusion period reasonable? Therefore, when deciding whether the period of exclusion imposed by the OIG was “reasonable,” the ALJ assessed the following five criteria outlined under 42 C.F.R. §1001.901(b)(1)-(5): [8]

(1) The nature and circumstances surrounding the actions that are the basis for liability, including the period of time over which the acts occurred, the number of acts, whether there is evidence of a pattern and the amount claimed; As the ALJ noted when reviewing the conduct at issue, during the period of time examined by the U.S. District Court, the Petitioners submitted more than 26,000 claims that resulted in more than $10 million in losses to the government. Even if the ALJ limited his review to the relevant conduct during the six-year period covered during this administrative hearing, the Petitioners still submitted 571 improper claims to Medicare. Additionally, despite the Petitioners’ assertions to the contrary, the ALJ found that the Petitioners’ conduct did, in fact, represent a pattern of improper behavior.

(2) The degree of culpability; When considering the Petitioners’ degree of culpability, the ALJ found that the physician owner and the lab were “highly culpable.The ALJ further found that the Petitioners were not victims of careless billing by others. Rather, he ruled that the physician owner was closely involved in the lab’s operations and exercised significant control over the organization’s billing staff. As the ALJ wrote: “There is nothing in the record to suggest Petitioners were simply absentee landlords who had no agency concerning their billing scheme. . . “

(3) Whether the individual or entity has a documented history of criminal, civil or administrative wrongdoing (The lack of any prior record is to be considered neutral);  Although the recent U.S. District Court ruling against the Petitioners for more than $30 million squarely fits within this regulatory factor, the judgment could not have been considered at the time of the exclusion action by the OIG because it had not been rendered at that time. As a result, there was no prior history of wrongdoing that the OIG could have considered. Having said that, there is nothing in the regulation that limits the OIG’s consideration of improper wrongdoing to only actions that have resulted in a judgment. Therefore, the ALJ held that it was proper for the OIG to consider the Petitioners documented conduct when it assessed the 15-year period of exclusion.  

(4) The individual or entity has been the subject of any other adverse action by any Federal, State or local government agency or board, if the adverse action is based on the same set of circumstances that serves as the basis for the imposition of the exclusion; Although the ALJ in this case declined to consider the U.S. District Court ruling as res judicata, the OIG still argued that the ALJ consider the ruling on the False Claims Act constituted an “adverse action.” After considering the positions advanced by the parties, the ALJ held that the requirements set out under 42 C.F.R. §1001.901(b)(4)[9] had not been met, primarily because the ALJ was not persuaded that a ruling by a Federal U.S. District Court could be considered an adverse action by a “agency or board.” Based on this assessment, the ALJ chose not to consider this factor in his analysis of the reasonableness of a “15-year” exclusion.

(5) Other Matters as Justice May Require. Several points were advanced by the Petitioners when addressing this factor. First, Petitioners argued that the Medicare program need no protection from them. Noting that they had improperly billed the Medicare program for millions of dollars, the ALJ concluded that should not be trusted to access program funds. The Petitioners also argued that if they excluded from participation, it would negatively impact patient access to lab care. The ALJ noted that the Petitioners failed to show that there was lack of laboratory facilities in the Houston area. Therefore, Petitioners absence would not negatively impact patients. In fact, the ALJ concluded that the Medicare “will undoubtedly be better off without them.” After considering the evidence, the ALJ found that an exclusion period of 15 years was reasonable in this case. Notably, the ALJ stated that the “circumstances surrounding Petitioners’ billing scheme indicate Petitioners are highly untrustworthy.” The ALJ further found that the mitigating evidence presented by the Petitioners kept the period of exclusion from be much lengthier than the 15-year period of excluded assessed by the OIG.

V. Points Learned from this Exclusion Case: 

Point #1.  Impact of a False Claims Act Judgment. The administrative collateral risks associated with violations of the False Claims Act cannot be underestimated. In this case, where the False Claims Act violations went to trial and resulted in a judgment, the OIG had no reason to waive its permissive exclusion authority. How could this have been avoided? It is important to keep in mind that the vast majority of cases brought by whistleblowers / relators under the civil False Claims Act are not intervened by the government and result in the dismissal of the case. Of the False Claims Act cases that are intervened, most result in a settlement with the government. When settling a False Claims Act case, defense counsel will often seek to wrap-up any outstanding administrative risks (such as exclusion) as well. In order to waive its permissive exclusion authority, the OIG typically requires that health care providers and entities enter into a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) as part of the settlement. In this case, for whatever reason, the False Claims Act case was not settled and went to trial, resulting in a significant judgment and the imposition of a 15-year exclusion.  

Point #2: Issue Preclusion is a Real Possibility. As you will recall, the U.S. District Court in the associated False Claims Act case granted the OIG’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In asserting its arguments in the administrative hearing, the OIG urged the ALJ to narrowly apply estoppel and rely on the District Court’s finding that the claims submitted by the Petitioners were false. The ALJ cited several reasons for not adopting the District Court’s holding in this regard. Nevertheless, it isn’t much of a stretch to imagine a slightly different set of facts, where issue preclusion may have been granted. For instance, if the judgment was final and the time period of the claims at issue were the same, the ALJ may have been persuaded to apply estoppel in this case.

Point #3: ALJs will Give Broad Deference to the OIG When Assessing the Reasonableness of an Exclusion Action. It is important to remember that when making this type of determination, an ALJ is limited to a significant extent and cannot substitute his judgment for that of the OIG. Instead, the ALJ can only consider whether the period of exclusion was within a “reasonable range.”[10] As discussed in the Federal Register more than 25 years ago:

The OIG’s broad discretion is also reflected in the language of § 1001.2007(a)(2), restricting the ALI’s authority to review the length of an exclusion imposed by the OIG. Under that section, the ALI’s authority is limited to reviewing whether the length is unreasonable. So long as the amount of time chosen by the OIG is within a reasonable range, based on demonstrated criteria, the ALI has no authority to change it under this rule. We believe that the deference § 1001.2007(a)(2) grants to the OIG is appropriate, given the OIG’s vast experience in implementing exclusions under these authorities.[11]

VI. Conclusion: 

This case illustrates the collateral impact of a False Claims Act judgment on the participation status of a health care provider. While the judgment itself is serious, being excluded from participation in federal health care programs is as serious, if not more serious, than the judgment. As excluded parties, the physician owner and the lab are effectively out of business. Moreover, the physician owner may find it difficult to obtain employment from another provider due to his exclusion status. Unfortunately, there is a very real chance that these actions are merely the proverbial “tip of the iceberg” in terms of what lies ahead for the physician owner and the lab. The exclusion action qualifies as an adverse action and will be reported to the National Practitioner Databank (if it has not already been reported). Additionally, to the extent that the physician owner and the lab are participating providers in any private payor insurance programs, it is very likely that they have an affirmative obligation to notify the plans of both the False Claims Act judgment and the exclusion action (depending on how their participation agreement is worded). This can result in both private payor audits of similar claims and in termination of a provider’s participation in the payor’s plan.  
How should you react if faced with a similar situation? Contact your health lawyer and make sure that you are prepared to address the various collateral administrative adverse actions that may flow from a False Claims Act judgment and / or an being excluded from participation in federal health care programs. Considering your options at the initiation of a False Claims Act investigation may help you avoid some of the consequences discussed above.

 

OIG ExclusionRobert W. Liles serves as Managing Partner at the health law firm, Liles Parker, Attorneys and Counselors at Law. Liles Parker attorneys represent health care providers and suppliers around the country in connection with UPIC audits, ZPIC audits, OIG investigations and Medicare exclusion actions. Is your practice facing alleged violations of the False Claims Act? We can help. For a free initial consultation regarding your situation, call Robert at: 1 (800) 475-1906.

 

[1] Under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, whistleblowers can are entitled to receive 15% to 25% of any recovery if the United States intervenes in the case, or 25% to 30% if the government declines to intervene in the case that the whistleblower has brought. Defendants who violate the civil False Claims Act are liable for three times the government’s damages plus significant civil penalties for each false claim that was improperly submitted for payment.

[2] Section 1128(b)(7) of the Social Security Act

[3] ALJ decision, citing Petitioner’s Request for Hearing, Ex. A at 2.

[4] In those cases where the OIG concludes that exclusion is not necessary in order to protect the integrity of the Medicare program, it will typically require that the individual and / or entity enter into a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA). The purpose of the CIA is to strengthen the provider’s compliance program and reduce the level of risk to the Medicare program.

[5] Under 42 U.S.C. §1320a-7(b)(f), “Federal health care program” is defined as:

(1) any plan or program that provides health benefits, whether directly, through insurance, or otherwise, which is funded directly, in whole or in part, by the United States Government (other than the health insurance program under Chapter 89 of Title 5); or

(2) any State health care program, as defined in section 1320a-7(h).

[6] The Secretary has delegated the authority to impose an exclusion to the OIG, pursuant to: 42 C.F.R. §1001.901(a).

[7] 42 C.F.R. §1001.901(b)(1)-(5).

[8] An abbreviated set of these five criteria were set out in the OIG’s Final Rule, ”Medicare and State Health Care Programs: Fraud and Abuse; Revisions to the Office of Inspector General’s Civil Monetary Penalty Rule.” See 81 Fed. Reg. 88,334 (Dec. 7, 2016). The full regulatory language of 42 C.F.R. §1001.901(b)(1)-(5) reads as follows:

“(b) Length of exclusion. In determining the length of an exclusion imposed in accordance with this section, the OIG will consider the following factors—

(1) The nature and circumstances surrounding the actions that are the basis for liability, including the period of time over which the acts occurred, the number of acts, whether there is evidence of a pattern and the amount claimed;

(2) The degree of culpability;

(3) Whether the individual or entity has a documented history of criminal, civil or administrative wrongdoing (The lack of any prior record is to be considered neutral);

(4) The individual or entity has been the subject of any other adverse action by any Federal, State or local government agency or board, if the adverse action is based on the same set of circumstances that serves as the basis for the imposition of the exclusion; or

(5) Other matters as justice may require.”

[9] Under 42 C.F.R. §1001.901(b)(4), an “individual or entity has been the subject of any other adverse action by any Federal, State or local government agency or board, if the adverse action is based on the same set of circumstances that serves as the basis for the imposition of the exclusion.”

[10] Craig Richard Wilder, DAB No. 2416 at 8.

[11] Federal Register Final Rule, “Health Care Programs; Fraud and Abuse; Amendments to OIG Exclusion and CMP Authorities Resulting from Public Law 100-93. 57 Fed. Reg. 3298, 3321 (January 29, 1992).

Health Care Providers Should Consider the Ramifications of “Taking a Plea” in a Criminal Case or Agreeing to a Licensure Action. It May Trigger a Mandatory or Permissive OIG Exclusion Action.

(July 16, 2018):  Perhaps the most severe administrative sanction available under the Social Security Act stems from the authority of the Secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to exclude individuals and entities from participating in Federal and State health benefits programs.[1]  The Secretary has delegated[2] this authority to the HHS, Office of Inspector General (OIG)[3]. As a recent comprehensive, first-of-its-kind study by ExclusionScreening.com found that during the period 2013 to 2017, approximately 90% of the permissive OIG exclusion actions taken were based on an adverse administrative action taken against a healthcare provider’s license.  This article examines a decision issued earlier this year by the HHS Departmental Appeals Board (DAB or Board) where the Board examined a licensure-related exclusion action in considerable detail.  

 I.  Brief Overview of OIG Licensure-Related Exclusion Actions: 

With the passage of the Medicare-Medicaid Anti-Fraud and Abuse Amendments[4] in 1977, mandatory OIG exclusion became mandated in cases where a physician and other practitioner has been convicted of program-related crimes. (now codified at section 1128 of the Social Security Act).  Since that time, various additional bases for both mandatory[5] and permissive[6] exclusion have been enacted. Collectively assessed, the most frequent statutory basis relied on by the OIG when seeking to exclude an individual from participation in Federal and State health care programs is “42 USC §1320a-7(b)(4) License Revocation or Suspension.[7]”  As this provision set out:

“Any individual or entity—
(A) whose license to provide health care has been revoked or suspended by any State licensing authority, or who otherwise lost such a license or the right to apply for or renew such a license, for reasons bearing on the individual’s or entity’s professional competence, professional performance, or financial integrity, or
 
(B) who surrendered such a license while a formal disciplinary proceeding was pending before such an authority and the proceeding concerned the individual’s or entity’s professional competence, professional performance, or financial integrity.”

   OIG Exclusion Check

 II.  Case Study: DAB ALJ Decision No. CR4985
[8]; DAB Appellate Div. Decision #2848.[9] 

In this case, a Virginia-licensed Chiropractor pled guilty in 2016 to one count of manufacturing marijuana, a felony. He was sentenced by the Court to 5 years of incarceration (4 years and 11 months suspended) and ordered him to pay a $2,500.  Based on this felony conviction, the Virginia Board of Medicine suspended the individual’s license to practice chiropractic indefinitely.[10]
  • The OIG excluded the individual under 42 USC §1320a-7(b)(4).
The OIG based its exclusion on the indefinite suspension, which links reinstatement to the term of the licensure suspension. The OIG cited 42 USC §1320a-7(b)(4) as its basis for exclusion. 
  • ALJ review of the OIG’s exclusion action.
The Chiropractor (Petitioner) subsequently filed a timely request for review by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).  Both the OIG and the Petitioner subsequently filed arguments and related documentation in support of their position.  Notably, the Petitioner’s submissions included (but were not limited to) a copy of his North Carolina chiropractic license and certificates showing his successful completion of chiropractic training courses.  As the ALJ’s decision reflects, after the record had closed, the Petitioner submitted additional documentation, including a letter attesting to his competence and a copy of his active North Carolina chiropractic license.  The ALJ refused to admit the additional materials into record based on the fact that were not submitted in a timely fashion and were irrelevant.  
Further complicating the case was the fact while the matter was pending before the ALJ, the OIG issued a second exclusion notice, advising the Petitioner that pursuant to section 1128(a)(4) of the Social Security Act (as codified at 42 USC §1320a-7(a)(4)), he was being mandatorily excluded from program participation for five years. As set out under 42 USC §1320a-7(a) Mandatory exclusion

 
“The Secretary shall exclude the following individuals and entities from participation in any Federal health care program (as defined in section 1320a-7b(f) of this title). . . ”
Since this mandatory exclusion action was based on the Petitioner’s felony conviction of a criminal offense related to the manufacture, distribution, prescription, or dispensing of a controlled substance, it fell under the following exclusion provision:
 
“(4) Felony conviction relating to controlled substances:
 
Any individual or entity that has been convicted for an offense which occurred after August 21, 1996, under Federal or State law, of a criminal offense consisting of a felony relating to the unlawful manufacture, distribution, prescription, or dispensing of a controlled substance.”

Notably the Petitioner does not appear to have appealed the five-year exclusion action. 
Upon consideration of the facts and the evidence, the ALJ sustained the OIG’s decision to exclude the Petitioner from participating in Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs.
  • Appellate review of the ALJ’s decision.
The Petitioner appealed the ALJ’s decision sustaining the OIG’s decision to exclude him from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and all Federal health care programs. As the ALJ’s ruling reflects, the Petitioner was to be excluded as least until he regained his Virginia chiropractic license. On appeal, the Petitioner raised several issues that were addressed by the Appellate Board:

Petitioner Issue #1:  First, the Petitioner argued that the time frame for exclusion was not adequately addressed by the judge.  The Petitioner further stated that he “did not agree with the length of exclusion because it was excessive and unjust.”

Board Response to #1: As the Board noted in its appellate ruling, in situations where the OIG has excluded an individual’s health care license is revoked or suspended for reasons bearing on the individual’s professional competence, professional performance or financial integrity, the Social Security Act does not delegate an ALJ the discretion to set the length of the exclusion for less than the period during which the individual’s license is suspended. (See, Social Security Act Act § 1128(c)(3)(E); 42 C.F.R. § 1001.501(b)). 

Petitioner Issue #2:  Petitioner argued that the ALJ failed to consider letters from patients and colleagues attesting to the Petitioner’s professional competence and good character in support of a reduction in the length of Petitioner’s exclusion.
 
Board Response to #2: As the Board noted in its decision, neither it nor the ALJ has the authority to consider the letters from the Petitioner’s patients and colleagues attesting to his professional competence and good character for the purpose of reducing the length of Petitioner’s exclusion.  Simply put, equitable arguments and evidence submitted in an effort to obtain a reduction in the length of exclusion cannot be considered.

Petitioner Issue #3:  The Petitioner’s appeal also raised the imposition of a second and separate OIG five-year exclusion action (based on 1128(a)(4) of the Social Security Act; 42 USC §1320a-7(a)) that was imposed while the Petitioner’s appeal was pending before the ALJ.  In the Board proceeding, the Petitioner argued that he was “appealing the five-year exclusion because it is excessive and unreasonable in [his] case.”  He further stated that he was “requesting that [his] exclusion remain as originally reported: three years or until I regain my Virginia license because that would support my position for Inclusion.”

Board Response to #3:  As the Board noted in its decision, the Petitioner only appealed the initial permissive exclusion action under 1128(b)(4), 42 USC §1320a-7(b)(4).  There was no evidence that the Petitioner had requested an ALJ hearing to contest the OIG’s second exclusion action brought under 1128(a)(4) of the Social Security Act; 42 USC §1320a-7(a).  As a result, the Board could not consider the second exclusion action.
  • Lessons to be learned from this case.
Both the ALJ and Board decisions in this case really highlight the lack of discretion that these adjudicators have when it comes to “adjusting” or “reducing” a health care provider’s length of exclusion for less than the period during which the individual’s license is suspended.  As the case noted, the Petitioner was also licensed in North Carolina, and presumably there were no restrictions on his North Carolina.[11]  Unfortunately, the fact that the Petitioner was fully licensed in North Carolina was irrelevant to the decisions of both the ALJ and the Board.  As 42 C.F.R. § 1001.501(b) expressly provides: 

“(b)Length of exclusion.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, an exclusion imposed in accordance with this section will not be for a period of time less than the period during which an individual’s or entity’s license is revoked, suspended, or otherwise not in effect as a result of, or in connection with, a State licensing agency action.  (Emphasis Added).

So, what should a health care provider do if he or she receives notice that the OIG is seeking to exclude him or her based on a licensure suspension action?  It is important to keep in mind that a licensure-based exclusion action is a permissive action that may or may not be pursued by the OIG.  To the extent that there is any chance to convince the OIG that the agency should decline to exercise it permissive exclusion authority, now is the time for your legal counsel to make its pitch.

Once the OIG has formally exercised its permissive exclusion authority, the restrictions set forth under 42 C.F.R. § 1001.501(b) must be applied.  Neither an ALJ nor the Board has the discretion to deviate from the time period requirements imposed by statute.  Although the OIG rarely waives its discretion to pursue a permissive licensure-based exclusion action, providers should.

This case also serves as a stark reminder that neither an ALJ nor the Board is in a position to “weigh” the equities in a licensure-based exclusion case when assessing the length of time imposed for the exclusion.  Adjudicators are required by statute to determine whether an exclusion determination made by the OIG was consistent with the law.  Equitable arguments and evidence such as those submitted by the Petitioner in this case cannot be considered in a licensure-based exclusion case.  An individual cannot have an exclusion lifted until his or her license is reinstated.  Period. 

In recent years, the number of exclusion actions imposed by the OIG has continued to grow. While there is little or no flexibility with respect to some of the bases for exclusion, every case is based on a unique set of facts, some of which may present opportunities to negotiate a more favorable period of exclusion with OIG, or even avoid exclusion all together. 

We strongly recommend that you contact experienced health law counsel at the first sign that you may be excluded from participation in Federal and State health care programs.  In terms of strategy, a health care provider’s best course of action is to engage experienced health law counsel at the earliest opportunity, preferably before an adverse action has been taken against your professional license.  A comprehensive response strategy is essential so that you possible minimize the adverse collateral effects of an adverse licensure action.  The attorneys at Liles Parker have extensive experience representing health care providers in exclusion-related proceedings. 


OIG ExclusionRobert W. Liles serves as Managing Partner at the health law firm, Liles Parker, Attorneys and Counselors at Law.  Liles Parker attorneys represent health care providers and suppliers around the country in connection with UPIC audits, OIG exclusion actions and state licensure board disciplinary proceedings.  Has an exclusion action been proposed against your license?  We can help.  For a free initial consultation regarding your situation, call Robert at:  1 (800) 475-1906.

[1] The term “Federal health care programs” is defined under Section 1128B(f) of the Social Security Act as:
(1) any plan or program that provides health benefits, whether directly, through insurance, or otherwise, which is funded directly, in whole or in part, by the United States Government (other than the health insurance program under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code); or
(2) any State health care program, as defined in section 1128(h).
42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(f) (2012).
[2]See Updated: Special Advisory Bulletin on the Effect of Exclusion from Participation in Federal Health Care Programs, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.: Office of Inspector Gen., at 2-3 (May 8, 2013) (stating that . . . the Secretary has delegated authority to OIG to exclude from participation in Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal health care programs persons that have engaged in fraud or abuse and to impose civil money penalties (CMPs) for certain misconduct related to Federal health care programs”).
[3] The OIG maintains a website containing up-to-date information on federal health care program exclusion rules, which can be found at http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/exclusions.asp.
[4] While Public Law 95-142’s “exclusion” provisions are important, the legislation is best known for its impact on the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute.  More specifically, the legislation made violations of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute a felony. It also made those who offered remuneration for referrals and those who received them, subject to various penalties.
[5] Under the government’s mandatory exclusion authority (as set out under Section 1128(a) of the Social Security Act), any individual or entity convicted of certain offenses must be excluded from participation in federal health care programs.  The length of a mandatory exclusion action taken can last a minimum of five years.
[6] Depending on the circumstances, OIG may also exercise “permissive” or discretionary authority to exclude an entity or an individual from participation in federal health care programs.
[7] Under 42 USC §1320a-7(b)(4), any individual or entity whose professional license to provide health care has been revoked or suspended, or has lost the right to apply for a license, CAN be excluded from participation, at OIG’s options.
[8] DAB ALJ Decision No. CR4985, dated December 13, 2017.
[9] DAB Appellate Div. Decision No. 2848, dated February 6, 2018.
[10] Under the Virginia Code, the Board of Medicine may suspend a license indefinitely for “acts of unprofessional conduct,” which include “knowingly and willfully” committing a felony; violating any statute or regulation relating to the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, or administration of drugs; and conviction of a felony.  See Virginia Code §§ 54.1-2915(A)(10), (17), and (20).
[11] This is an interesting point raised by the Petitioner. In some states, the revocation of a professional license is permanent and can only be reinstated upon the submission of a new application.  Even then the state board has the discretion of whether or not to consider the new application.  Theoretically, a health care provider could be licensed in 49 states and still be excluded due to a suspension action in the 50th state.
As an aside, the public record does not address whether North Carolina, like many states, normally imposes reciprocal disciplinary actions based on those taken in other jurisdictions.

Current States With Separate Exclusion Databases



I. Medicaid Exclusion

Exclusion Screening, LLC conducts monthly checks of our clients’ employees, contractors, and vendors against the OIG-LEIE, GSA-SAM, and all available State Exclusion Lists. Most providers understand that they have an obligation to check their employees, contractors, and vendors against the OIG-LEIE prior to hiring and monthly thereafter. Fewer providers are aware of their obligation to screen their individual state exclusion list, if their state maintains such a list.

CMS directed state Medicaid Directors to remind all providers that they have an obligation to search their state list whenever they search the LEIE.[1] In addition, many states require providers when they enroll or re-enroll in the Medicaid program to certify that no employee or contractor is excluded from participation in any state. This requirement echoes the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Section 6501, which states that if a provider is excluded in one state, he or she is excluded in all fifty states.[2]

II.  SAFERTM 

Exclusion Screening, LLC’s proprietary database, SAFER (State and Federal Exclusion Registry), imports the most recent exclusion data from each state list constantly. We are also in regular contact with state Medicaid and Program Integrity Offices about their lists.

III. State Exclusion Lists

The states that currently maintain a separate excluded provider list are: 

AlabamaIdahoMichiganNorth Dakota
AlaskaIllinoisMinnesotaOhio
ArizonaIndianaMississippiPennsylvania
ArkansasIowaMissouriSouth Carolina
CaliforniaKansasMontanaTennessee
ColoradoKentuckyNebraskaTexas
ConnecticutLouisianaNevadaWashington
FloridaMaineNew JerseyWashington DC
GeorgiaMarylandNew YorkWest Virginia
HawaiiMassachusettsNorth CarolinaWyoming

IV.  Some States Require Screening Extraneous Lists

In addition to these states’ excluded provider lists, many states also require providers to check other various Medicaid Exclusion databases. In Ohio, for example, providers must search the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities Abuser Registry, the Ohio Auditor of State – Finding for Recovery Database, Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities Abuser Registry, Social Security Administration’s Death Master File, The National Plan and Provider Enumeration System, in addition to the LEIE, SAM, and Ohio Exclusion List.[3] New Jersey providers must check the LEIE, New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs licensure databases, New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services licensure database, and the certified nurse aide and personal care assistant registry on a monthly basis.[4] 

For additional information visit “OIG Exclusion and State Exclusion Lists: Which Exclusion Lists Need to Be Screened? What Is the Difference Between Them?”
V.  A Simple and Affordable Solution

Without a doubt, state and federal exclusion screening requirements are incredibly burdensome for most providers. If screening your employees against each federal and state list that your state requires is not cost effective for your office to do in-house, contact Exclusion Screening, LLC today at 1-800-294-0952 or fill out our online service form. We would be happy to discuss your specific state obligations, provide a cost assessment, and help you create your employee and vendor list.

Medicaid oig Exclusion

Ashley Hudson, Associate Attorney at Liles Parker, LLP and former Chief Operating Officer for Exclusion Screening, LLC, is the author of this article.


[1] See Letter from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to State Medicaid Directors 5 (Jan. 16, 2009).

[2] See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(39) (2012), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf (codifying the termination requirements of ACA § 6501); see also Letter from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), CPI-CMS Informational Bulletin, Affordable Care Act Program Integrity Provisions – Guidance to States — Section 6501 – Termination of Provider Participation under Medicaid if Terminated under Medicare or other State Plan (Jan. 20, 2012), available at http://downloads.cms.gov/cmsgov/archived-downloads/CMCSBulletins/downloads/6501-Term.pdf.

[3] See Ohio Admin. Code § 5160-1-17.8(c)(ii); Ohio Medicaid Provider Exclusion and Suspension List, Ohio Dep’t of Medicaid, http://medicaid.ohio.gov/PROVIDERS/EnrollmentandSupport/ProviderExclusionandSuspensionList.aspx (last accessed Jan. 22, 2015).

[4] Newsletter to All Providers, from the New Jersey Dep’t of Human Servs., et al., Excluded, Unlicensed or Uncertified Individuals or Entities (Oct. 2010).

CMP Liabilities: Why Are Some Much Higher Than Others?

A quick review of the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) exclusion enforcement actions might make one wonder why the Civil Monetary Penalties (CMPs) for some entities are only $10,000 while others are closer to $2,000,000. We were curious as well, and took a look into the factors that might contribute to the vast differences in money owed.

 CMP Liabilities Higher

The easiest answer is that CMPs tend to be lower for entities that self-disclosed the exclusion violation as opposed to entities that were subject to an OIG investigation. “Tend” is the key word here. You’ll notice that the August 5, 2014 case (see “CMP Liabilities Higher” link above) was self-disclosed and has the highest CMP amount listed at $1,983,907.51.

I.  CMP Liability Depends on How Many Excluded Individuals Are Hired

Another contributing factor is the number of excluded individuals that the provider employed or contracted with. More individuals means that more claims were likely submitted for payment. Therefore, the government likely paid more money to these providers than providers who only employed or contracted with one excluded person. This is evident in the two exclusion actions which took place on August 5, 2014. The University Hospital employed one excluded individual and owed $10,000 in CMP liabilities, while the laboratory owed nearly $2,000,000 because it knew or should have known that four employees were excluded from participation in the federal health care programs. However, it’s important to note that the March 7, 2014 case which totaled $243,266.31 in CMPs only involved one excluded individual. So what is going on?

II.  CMP for Each Item or Service Provided

OIG has discretion to impose CMPs of up to $10,000 for each item or service that the excluded individual provided. Hence, the length of time and the number of items or services provided by the excluded individual directly contribute to the total CMP amount imposed on a provider. The March 7, 2014 case involved a nursing and rehabilitation center, so it is likely that a large majority of the entity’s claims were submitted to the Federal health care programs for payment. Additional information about the excluded individual is not available, but the rules governing CMPs lead us to believe that this individual was employed with the facility for a fairly substantial period of time and provided a large number of items and services that were directly or indirectly billed to the Federal health care programs.

The Federal health care program monies may not be used for activities that violate the law. Therefore, even a self-disclosing entity[1] will be subject to large CMPs if the excluded individual performed a lot of services that were billed (directly or indirectly) to the Federal health care programs.

III.  Our Take-Away

Our take-away from this closer look at CMPs confirms that it is best to identify an individual or entity that is excluded as soon as possible. This is where monthly screening comes in. You might screen your employee or contractor before hiring, but if you continue to let that employee or contractor conduct services that are billed directly or indirectly, you may be responsible for paying that money back. Finding out a person is excluded one month into a relationship with them is much better than learning about the exclusion six months or a year later because the person will not have had an opportunity to perform an extreme amount of services that will get you into hot water. 

CMP Liabilities

Paul Weidenfeld, Co-Founder and CEO of Exclusion Screening, LLC, is the author of this article. He is a longtime health care lawyer whose practice has focused on False Claims Act cases and health care fraud matters generally. Contact Paul should you have any questions at: pweidenfeld@exclusionscreening.com or 1-800-294-0952.


[1] Providers are reminded that OIG may use a lower multiplier for damages in self-disclosure cases, but it is under no obligation to do so. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs. Office of the Inspector Gen., Updated OIG’s Provider Self-Disclosure Protocol, 14 (Apr. 17, 2013).