US Files False-Claim Complaint Against Health Insurance Companies, Brokers
The Department of Justice filed a complaint under the False Claims Act on May 1 against three health insurance companies and three large insurance brokerage organizations, alleging that hundreds of millions of dollars in kickbacks were paid by the insurance companies to the brokers in exchange for enrollments into their Medicare Advantage plans.
The insurer defendants are Aetna Inc., and its affiliates, Humana Inc., and Elevance Health Inc. (formerly known as Anthem). The broker defendants are eHealth Inc. and one of its affiliates, GoHealth Inc., and SelectQuote Inc. According to the complaint, the kickbacks were allegedly paid out from 2016 through at least 2021.
DOJ explained in a press release that the Medicare Advantage Program beneficiaries may choose to enroll in plans offered by private insurance companies, and many of those beneficiaries rely on brokers to help them choose the best plan to meet their needs.
'Rather than acting as unbiased stewards, the defendant brokers allegedly directed Medicare beneficiaries to the plans offered by insurers that paid brokers the most in kickbacks, regardless of the suitability of the MA plans for the beneficiaries,' the DOJ stated in
'According to the complaint, the broker organizations incentivized their employees and agents to sell plans based on the insurers' kickbacks, set up teams of insurance agents who could sell only those plans, and at times refused to sell MA plans of insurers who did not pay sufficient kickbacks.'
DOJ also alleged that Humana and Aetna conspired with the brokers to discriminate against beneficiaries with disabilities deemed to be less profitable by allegedly threatening to withhold the kickbacks to the brokers.
Related Stories
4/17/2025
4/8/2025
'Health care companies that attempt to profit from kickbacks will be held accountable,' said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael Granston of the Justice Department's Civil Division. 'We are committed to rooting out illegal practices by Medicare Advantage insurers and insurance brokers that undermine the interests of federal health care programs and the patients they serve.'
The lawsuit was originally filed under whistleblower provisions under the False Claims Act, which permits the United States to intervene and take over the action.
'The alleged efforts to drive beneficiaries away specifically because their disabilities might make them less profitable to health insurance companies are even more unconscionable,' said U.S. Attorney Leah B. Foley for the District of Massachusetts. 'Profit and greed over beneficiary interest is something we will continue to investigate and prosecute aggressively. This office will continue to take decisive action to protect the rights of Medicare beneficiaries and vulnerable Americans.'
According to the
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration asks federal court not to dismiss charges against Milwaukee County judge
Protesters gather outside of the Milwaukee FBI office to speak out against the arrest of Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner) Prosecutors for the Trump administration filed a brief Monday requesting that a federal judge not dismiss the government's indictment against Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan. Dugan faces criminal charges after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, along with agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency and FBI, arrived in the Milwaukee County Courthouse April 18 to arrest 31-year-old Eduardo Flores-Ruiz for being in the country illegally. Flores-Ruiz was set to appear in Dugan's courtroom that day for a status hearing on misdemeanor charges against him. When Dugan learned that the agents were outside her courtroom, she confronted them and learned they only had an administrative warrant, which was issued by an agency official and not a judge. An administrative warrant doesn't allow agents to enter private spaces in the courthouse such as Dugan's courtroom. Later, while the agents were waiting for Flores-Ruiz in the hallway outside the main courtroom door, Dugan sent him and his attorney out a side door into the hallway. One of the agents rode down the elevator with Flores-Ruiz and he was later arrested on the street. Dugan-DOJ-Filing Dugan was charged with concealing an individual to prevent arrest, a misdemeanor, and obstruction, which is a felony. Last month, Dugan's attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case against her, arguing she was acting in her official capacity as a judge and therefore immune from prosecution for her actions and that the federal government is impinging on the state of Wisconsin's authority to operate its court system. The case drew national attention, with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and FBI Director Kash Patel both making public statements about Dugan's arrest before she'd even been indicted. Legal experts have questioned the strength of the federal government's case and accused Trump officials of grandstanding to make a political point. In the Monday filing, federal prosecutors argued that dismissing the case would ignore previously established law that allows judges to face criminal charges. 'Such a ruling would give state court judges carte blanche to interfere with valid law enforcement actions by federal agents in public hallways of a courthouse, and perhaps even beyond,' the prosecutors argued. 'Dugan's desired ruling would, in essence, say that judges are 'above the law,' and uniquely entitled to interfere with federal law enforcement.' Dugan is set to appear for trial on July 21. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
WA joins 15 states suing over deregulation of rapid-fire gun devices
This story was originally published on Washington is joining a multi-state lawsuit targeting a specific type of gun trigger. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown announced on Monday that he's joining 15 other attorneys general in suing the Trump Administration and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) over their plans to allow the sale of forced reset triggers. 'Communities are less safe with these mass-shooting devices in circulation,' Brown said in a statement. 'Essentially deregulating them is another example of this administration being driven by extreme ideology rather than commonsense.' Forced reset triggers are devices that allow semi-automatic rifles to be fired more rapidly. The suit says returning the devices to market violates federal law, arguing they turn regular guns into machine guns. The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently settled with the maker of the triggers, Rare Breed Triggers, resolving previous lawsuits brought by the Biden Administration. The agreement states Rare Breed Tiggers 'will not develop or design FRTs for use in any handgun.' It also requires the ATF to return the triggers 'that it has seized or taken as a result of a voluntary surrender.' 'This Department of Justice believes that the 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right,' Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement. 'And we are glad to end a needless cycle of litigation with a settlement that will enhance public safety.' The federal lawsuit announced on Monday was filed in the state of Maryland. Attorney General Brown is joining New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Colorado, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. Read more of Aaron Granillo's stories here.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
In memo, Trump targets health care payments that 'game the system'
BOSTON (SHNS) – As the U.S. Senate prepares to take its own crack at legislation that includes hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid, the president late last week made his thoughts on one provision clear and it could impact how Massachusetts and other states finance public health care. Late on Friday, President Donald Trump issued a memo ordering U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert Kennedy Jr. to 'eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid, including by ensuring Medicaid payments rates are not higher than Medicare.' The move targeted state directed payments, a Medicaid financing mechanism that gives states flexibility to require managed care organizations to pay providers specific rates or to implement rate increases to advance delivery system or state policy objectives, most commonly improving access to care. State directed payments came about as a result of a 2016 Medicaid reform, but they have grown significantly in popularity since then. There were 250 unique directed payment arrangements approved between July 1, 2021 and Feb. 1, 2023, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC). The commission said the number increased by almost 21% to 302 unique arrangements approved between Feb. 1, 2023 and Aug. 1, 2024. The arrangements approved as of Aug. 1, 2024 were projected to spend a total of $110.2 billion a year, a 59% increase over the $69.3 billion in projected spending identified by the commission's analysis of arrangements approved as of Feb. 1, 2023. 'This trajectory threatens the Federal Treasury and Medicaid's long-term stability, and the imbalance between Medicaid and Medicare patients threatens to jeopardize access to care for our seniors,' Trump wrote in the memo. Trump said states and health care providers have used state directed payments 'to game the system,' echoing concerns previously raised by experts. The president outlined the scheme: states charge assessments on health care providers in order to nudge up reported state spending to score higher federal reimbursements, but then send 'the same money back to them in the form of a 'Medicaid payment,' which automatically unlocked for healthcare providers an additional 'burden-sharing' payment from the Federal Government.' 'Instead of paying Medicare rates, many States that utilize these arrangements now pay the same healthcare providers almost three times the Medicare amount,' the president said. The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service has approved 63 such arrangements for Massachusetts since March 2023, according to CMS data. The budget reconciliation bill passed last month by the U.S. House and expected to be taken up this month by the U.S. Senate would, among many other things, extend Trump's first-term tax cuts and reduce Medicaid spending by nearly $700 billion to help pay for it. Officials at MassHealth, which combines Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, have said the Bay State could be in jeopardy of losing more than $1 billion annually, with hundreds of thousands of residents at risk of losing coverage. Health policy nonprofit KFF said the bill directs U.S. Health and Human Services to revise state directed payment regulations so that the total payment rate for inpatient hospital and nursing facility services is capped at 100% of the total published Medicare payment rate. The 100% limit would apply to Massachusetts and other states that have adopted the Medicaid expansion, and the limit would be 110% for the 10 states that have not adopted the expansion. But the U.S. House version of the bill would grandfather in any state directed payments submitted for approval and approved prior to the legislation's enactment. MassHealth has previously said that so-called safety net providers could sustain cuts of hundreds of millions of dollars annually if Congress or the president blocks renewal of Massachusetts's existing state directed payments. MassHealth and the Mass. Executive Office of Health and Human Services did not respond over the weekend or Monday to a request for comment on the president's memo on state directed payments. Manatt Health Senior Managing Director Patricia Boozang said in March that Massachusetts uses state directed payments 'extensively' and that the Trump administration was likely to act on its own to address them if the president's favored policies don't advance as part of the reconciliation package. The Congressional Budget Office said last month that the bill as passed by the U.S. House will mean $698 billion less in federal subsidies for Medicaid, $267 billion less in federal spending for SNAP, $64 billion less in net spending for all other purposes, and a $3.8 trillion increase in the federal deficit all over the next decade. The CBO also said it expects the reductions in federal spending to lead to about $78 billion in additional spending among the 50 states 'accounting for changes in state contributions to SNAP and Medicaid and for state tax and spending policies necessary to finance additional spending.' The office said it was still analyzing 'expectations of the states' responses to changes in federal funding.' The budget plans that House and Senate negotiators are attempting to reconcile into a final fiscal 2026 state budget assume about $15.76 billion in federal revenues, an increase over the $14.3 billion in the current budget, including $14.2 billion in federal MassHealth reimbursements alone. Most of the cuts in the U.S. House bill would hit in federal fiscal year 2027, which begins Oct. 1, 2026 (three months into Massachusetts' fiscal year 2027). Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
