ILNews

Feds cite Indiana Medicaid fraud unit over notices

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal agency found that the Indiana attorney general's office didn't give proper notice in nearly a quarter of the Medicaid fraud cases it helped prosecute in recent years.

A report from the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general's office found state officials didn't notify the agency within 30 days in about 25 of its 105 convictions between fiscal years 2010 and 2012. In 11 of those cases, the federal government wasn't notified at all, The Indianapolis Star reported.

Overall, the inspector general's office said Indiana is performing well, but it cited six criticisms, including a failure to document supervisor approval in about 77 percent of open cases and 18 percent of closed cases.

Matthew Whitmire, director of Indiana's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, admitted state investigators hadn't met the 30-day notification requirement in some cases. He said the delays were the result of Indiana's prosecution system, which forces the fraud office to go through county prosecutors, who sometimes don't update it on the status of cases.

"The lack of prosecution power and reliance on 91 county prosecutors makes the 30-day requirement unreasonable," Whitmire wrote in a letter to the inspector general's office. But he said the agency will try to comply.

It is unclear whether anyone convicted of fraud later received any federal payments.

Bryan Corbin, spokesman for the state attorney general's office, said investigators work closely with the Family and Social Services Administration to ensure people convicted of fraud are not paid federal funds. State officials also seek restitution for any improper payments.

The fraud unit recovered more than $110 million in civil and criminal convictions between fiscal year 2010 and 2012, according to the report.

"We made some findings, but nothing that would question their basic ability to investigate fraud and patient abuse and neglect," said Richard Stern, director of the Medicaid Fraud Policy and Oversight Division in the inspector general's office.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Stochel was opposing counsel to me in several federal cases (including a jury trial before Judge Tinder) here in SDIN. He is a very competent defense and trial lawyer who knows federal civil procedure and consumer law quite well. Bob gave us a run for our money when he appeared on a case.

  2. Awesome, Brian! Very proud of you and proud to have you as a partner!

  3. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  4. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  5. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

ADVERTISEMENT