The Division of Justice (DOJ) Tuesday launched a statement that it charged 23 Michigan residents, in two separate circumstances, for allegedly defrauding Medicare for $61.5 million. The unlawful schemes concerned paying bribes and billing Medicare for unneeded medical therapies that have been by no means supplied.
First, a quick background on how one of these Medicare works. A house well being care company, which supplies nursing providers to sufferers of their dwelling, submits a declare to Medicare for the cash wanted to deal with its sufferers. If the declare qualifies below Medicare’s coated providers, then it should pay the house well being care company the cash for the affected person’s care.
Within the first case initiated by the DOJ, US v. Jamil, et al., Walid and Jalal Jamil owned a number of dwelling well being care businesses below the guise of straw house owners. They submitted over $50 million value of fraudulent claims to Medicare for dwelling well being care providers that they by no means supplied to sufferers. Moreover, they bribed coconspirators to recruit sufferers who didn’t require, nor even qualify for, dwelling well being care providers, violating the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute. After Medicare granted the claims primarily based on false affected person info, Walid and Jalal allegedly pocketed over $43 million that they used for their very own profit.
Within the second case, US v. Malas, et al., Radwan Malas owned a house visiting doctor company the place he employed a number of medical doctors who would go to sufferers at dwelling. Malas allegedly labored in cahoots with the Jamils by having his medical doctors certify medically pointless providers for sufferers referred to him by Walid and Jalal Jamil. Malas billed Medicare $11.5 million for claims primarily based on fraudulent info. Of that, Malas allegedly obtained and pocketed $4 million.
The DOJ charged 10 different people in reference to the case, but it surely has not revealed their identities.
Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the only accountability of the creator and don’t essentially replicate the views of JURIST’s editors, employees, donors or the College of Pittsburgh.