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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT