Hospices faked patients' terminal illnesses for Medicare fraud: DOJ
Two West Covina women are facing federal charges for allegedly defrauding Medicare out of millions and paying kickbacks to those who could procure them more patients for the scheme.
Normita Sierra, the 71-year-old owner of two hospices in West Covina, allegedly 'filed more than $4.8 million in false and fraudulent claims to Medicare – which paid more than $3.8 million on those claims – for medically unnecessary services for people not terminally ill,' the U.S. Department of Justice said in a news release.
Sierra (aka 'Normie') faces nine counts of health care fraud, four counts of illegal remuneration for health care referrals and a count of conspiracy.
Additionally, 55-year-old Rowena Elegado (aka 'Weng') faces the illegal remuneration and conspiracy counts.
Prosecutors say Sierra's Golden Meadows Hospice Inc. and D'Alexandria Hospice Inc. billed Medicare for hospice services for patients who weren't terminally ill between September 2018 and October 2022.
Sierra and Elegado allegedly worked together to pay kickbacks of up to $1,300 per patient per month to recruiters who brought patients to the hospices despite 'knowing that most of those patients had not been referred by their primary care physicians for such services,' the DOJ said.
Prosecutors identified two others who've already pleaded guilty to their roles in the scheme:
Carl Bernardo, a 53-year-old Chino resident who pleaded guilty in September to one count of accepting kickbacks and who will be sentenced on Oct. 23
Relyndo Salcedo, a 60-year-old nurse practitioner from Fontana who pleaded guilty in May to one count of health care fraud and whose sentencing is set for Nov. 20
Salcedo initially assessed potential patients for the hospice and found many ineligible, but Sierra 'made the ultimate enrollment decisions.' Sierra and Bernardo put pressure on Salcedo, who 'exaggerated and falsified the patients' conditions to make them seem terminally ill,' prosecutor said.
'Hospice physicians then relied on Salcedo's records to certify the patients as hospice appropriate,' the release explained. 'Once enrolled, those patients – who were not in fact terminally ill – rarely died, and instead were often discharged at around six months at Sierra's direction, sometimes to her home health company or the other hospice company.'
Sierra and Elegado will be arraigned Tuesday afternoon in U.S. District Court in downtown Los Angeles.
If convicted, each count of health care fraud or illegal kickback carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison, while conspiracy carries a sentence of up to five years.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A conversation with Beth Shelburne on ‘Blood Money'
The cost of defending lawsuits against individual officers and larger, class-action cases against the entire department has pushed ADOC's legal spending over $57 million since 2020. In the last five years, the department has spent over $17 million on the legal defense of accused officers and lawsuit settlements, along with over $39 million litigating a handful of complex cases against ADOC, including a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice over prison conditions. (Alex Cochran for Alabama Reflector) Journalist Beth Shelburne spent over a year investigating the Alabama Department of Corrections, pulling court documents, financial records and internal documents to track settlements over excessive force and what happened to those involved. In 'Blood Money,' a four-part series that ran on the Alabama Reflector last month, Shelburne revealed the state had spent tens of millions of dollars to settle litigation alleging assaults on inmates that led to hospitalizations, brain damage or death. Most of that money went to attorneys for corrections officers. Some officers at the center of multiple allegations excessive force received promotions afterward. Shelburne discussed the series with Louisiana Illuminator Editor Greg LaRose on the Illuminator's podcast, 'The Light Switch.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
EQT Buys Majority Stake in Waga Energy for $331 Million Ahead of Potential Takeover
EQT is set to buy a majority stake in renewable natural gas producer Waga Energy ahead of a possible full takeover in a deal that values the company at 534.2 million euros ($611.4 million). EQT said Friday that it has agreed to buy 54.1% of Waga for 21.55 euros a share. Based on this price, the stake would cost around 289 million euros and represents a 27% premium to Thursday's closing price. Fight Begins Over the $500 Million Estate of Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh's Surprise Will BCG Fires Two Partners Over Gaza Aid Work Procter & Gamble to Cut 7,000 Jobs Stocks Slip, Tesla Tanks as Trump-Musk Feud Rages Three Recessions in Less Than Two Decades? A Millennial's Lament Once the transaction is complete, EQT said it would file a mandatory cash offer to buy the remaining shares at the same price and delist the company. Waga's board of directors has expressed initial unanimous support for EQT's proposals, it said. The price could rise by up to 2.15 euros a share depending on Waga's ability to monetize U.S. investment tax credits on its projects in the country, EQT said. Waga Energy produces renewable natural gas–or biomethane–from landfill gas and EQT said it hopes the tie-up would create a global leader in production. Trading of Waga Energy's shares was suspended in early morning European trading. The deal is subject to regulatory approvals and EQT expects the acquisition of the shares to complete in the second half of the year. Write to Adam Whittaker at U.S. Trade Deficit Cut in Half on Record Drop in Imports Crypto Firm Circle's Shares Soar in Stock Market Debut Humana to Back Curbs to Medicare Advantage Billing Practices Live Q&A: Deficit, Debt and Markets—We Answer Your Biggest Questions A New Shot Prevents HIV—and Breathes New Life Into a Stagnant Biotech Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
US health care is rife with high costs and deep inequities, and that's no accident – a public health historian explains how the system was shaped to serve profit and politicians
A few years ago, a student in my history of public health course asked why her mother couldn't afford insulin without insurance, despite having a full-time job. I told her what I've come to believe: The U.S. health care system was deliberately built this way. People often hear that health care in America is dysfunctional – too expensive, too complex and too inequitable. But dysfunction implies failure. What if the real problem is that the system is functioning exactly as it was designed to? Understanding this legacy is key to explaining not only why reform has failed repeatedly, but why change remains so difficult. I am a historian of public health with experience researching oral health access and health care disparities in the Deep South. My work focuses on how historical policy choices continue to shape the systems we rely on today. By tracing the roots of today's system and all its problems, it's easier to understand why American health care looks the way it does and what it will take to reform it into a system that provides high-quality, affordable care for all. Only by confronting how profit, politics and prejudice have shaped the current system can Americans imagine and demand something different. My research and that of many others show that today's high costs, deep inequities and fragmented care are predictable features developed from decades of policy choices that prioritized profit over people, entrenched racial and regional hierarchies, and treated health care as a commodity rather than a public good. Over the past century, U.S. health care developed not from a shared vision of universal care, but from compromises that prioritized private markets, protected racial hierarchies and elevated individual responsibility over collective well-being. Employer-based insurance emerged in the 1940s, not from a commitment to worker health but from a tax policy workaround during wartime wage freezes. The federal government allowed employers to offer health benefits tax-free, incentivizing coverage while sidestepping nationalized care. This decision bound health access to employment status, a structure that is still dominant today. In contrast, many other countries with employer-provided insurance pair it with robust public options, ensuring that access is not tied solely to a job. In 1965, Medicare and Medicaid programs greatly expanded public health infrastructure. Unfortunately, they also reinforced and deepened existing inequalities. Medicare, a federally administered program for people over 64, primarily benefited wealthier Americans who had access to stable, formal employment and employer-based insurance during their working years. Medicaid, designed by Congress as a joint federal-state program, is aimed at the poor, including many people with disabilities. The combination of federal and state oversight resulted in 50 different programs with widely variable eligibility, coverage and quality. Southern lawmakers, in particular, fought for this decentralization. Fearing federal oversight of public health spending and civil rights enforcement, they sought to maintain control over who received benefits. Historians have shown that these efforts were primarily designed to restrict access to health care benefits along racial lines during the Jim Crow period of time. Today, that legacy is painfully visible. States that chose not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act are overwhelmingly located in the South and include several with large Black populations. Nearly 1 in 4 uninsured Black adults are uninsured because they fall into the coverage gap – unable to access affordable health insurance – they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to receive subsidies through the Affordable Care Act's marketplace. The system's architecture also discourages care aimed at prevention. Because Medicaid's scope is limited and inconsistent, preventive care screenings, dental cleanings and chronic disease management often fall through the cracks. That leads to costlier, later-stage care that further burdens hospitals and patients alike. Meanwhile, cultural attitudes around concepts like 'rugged individualism' and 'freedom of choice' have long been deployed to resist public solutions. In the postwar decades, while European nations built national health care systems, the U.S. reinforced a market-driven approach. Publicly funded systems were increasingly portrayed by American politicians and industry leaders as threats to individual freedom – often dismissed as 'socialized medicine' or signs of creeping socialism. In 1961, for example, Ronald Reagan recorded a 10-minute LP titled 'Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine,' which was distributed by the American Medical Association as part of a national effort to block Medicare. The health care system's administrative complexity ballooned beginning in the 1960s, driven by the rise of state-run Medicaid programs, private insurers and increasingly fragmented billing systems. Patients were expected to navigate opaque billing codes, networks and formularies, all while trying to treat, manage and prevent illness. In my view, and that of other scholars, this isn't accidental but rather a form of profitable confusion built into the system to benefit insurers and intermediaries. Even well-meaning reforms have been built atop this structure. The Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, expanded access to health insurance but preserved many of the system's underlying inequities. And by subsidizing private insurers rather than creating a public option, the law reinforced the central role of private companies in the health care system. The public option – a government-run insurance plan intended to compete with private insurers and expand coverage – was ultimately stripped from the Affordable Care Act during negotiations due to political opposition from both Republicans and moderate Democrats. When the U.S. Supreme Court made it optional in 2012 for states to offer expanded Medicaid coverage to low-income adults earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level, it amplified the very inequalities that the ACA sought to reduce. These decisions have consequences. In states like Alabama, an estimated 220,000 adults remain uninsured due to the Medicaid coverage gap – the most recent year for which reliable data is available – highlighting the ongoing impact of the state's refusal to expand Medicaid. In addition, rural hospitals have closed, patients forgo care, and entire counties lack practicing OB/GYNs or dentists. And when people do get care – especially in states where many remain uninsured – they can amass medical debt that can upend their lives. All of this is compounded by chronic disinvestment in public health. Federal funding for emergency preparedness has declined for years, and local health departments are underfunded and understaffed. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed just how brittle the infrastructure is – especially in low-income and rural communities, where overwhelmed clinics, delayed testing, limited hospital capacity, and higher mortality rates exposed the deadly consequences of neglect. Change is hard not because reformers haven't tried before, but because the system serves the very interests it was designed to serve. Insurers profit from obscurity – networks that shift, formularies that confuse, billing codes that few can decipher. Providers profit from a fee-for-service model that rewards quantity over quality, procedure over prevention. Politicians reap campaign contributions and avoid blame through delegation, diffusion and plausible deniability. This is not an accidental web of dysfunction. It is a system that transforms complexity into capital, bureaucracy into barriers. Patients – especially the uninsured and underinsured – are left to make impossible choices: delay treatment or take on debt, ration medication or skip checkups, trust the health care system or go without. Meanwhile, I believe the rhetoric of choice and freedom disguises how constrained most people's options really are. Other countries show us that alternatives are possible. Systems in Germany, France and Canada vary widely in structure, but all prioritize universal access and transparency. Understanding what the U.S. health care system is designed to do – rather than assuming it is failing unintentionally – is a necessary first step toward considering meaningful change. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Zachary W. Schulz, Auburn University Read more: Buyouts can bring relief from medical debt, but they're far from a cure Public health and private equity: What the Walgreens buyout could mean for the future of pharmacy care Migrants often can't access US health care until they are critically ill – here are some of the barriers they face Zachary W. Schulz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
