January 29, 2023 · 8 min read

The False Claims Act (FCA) was established in 1863 during the Civil War to combat fraud and abuse perpetrated by suppliers of the federal government. At that time, the law was referred to as “Lincoln’s Law.”
The FCA has evolved significantly in recent years and is now one of the main tools used by the government to fight fraud. The FCA penalizes individuals or entities that submit fraudulent claims to the government, cause fraudulent claims to be submitted, or conspire to submit fraudulent claims.
One of the noteworthy provisions of the FCA is the qui tam provision, also known as the whistleblower provision. The qui tam provision allows private citizens, also referred to as “relators”, to report details of alleged fraud to the government. The whistleblower “stands in the shoes” of the government to prosecute the claim. This action benefits the government and the taxpayer as well as potentially the relator, who may receive a share of what is recovered.
The False Claims Act allows hospice agency employees, patients, families of patients, or any individuals with alleged knowledge of fraud or abuse by the agency to report the behavior. Under the qui tam provision of the FCA, the relator may be entitled to a percentage of recovered funds.
A claim is a request for money made to the government. A false claim is money that is obtained from the government due to false or fraudulent claims. False claims include claims where the service
Claims may also be false and are covered under the FCA if they result from a referral made in violation of the Federal Anti-kickback statue (Stark Law).
The False Claims Act also includes payment from the government based upon false certification.
False claims include claims that the hospice agency should have known were false or fraudulent.
The FCA expressly includes claims that a hospice agency “should have known” were false or fraudulent. “Should have known” means deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard of truth. As such, a hospice agency cannot avoid liability by simply ignoring inaccuracy in their claims. Examples of “should have known” include:
A hospice agency must understand the rules and take proactive measures — such as conducting internal audits within the organization — to ensure compliance and accurate billing.
There are two ways that FCA matters can be initiated:
Qui tam actions are initially filed under seal. That is, only the US Attorney and some members of the Department of Justice (DOJ) have knowledge of and access to documents related to the case. The relator serves the complaint on the government together with a written disclosure of all material evidence.
The purpose of the sealed qui tam action is to allow the DOJ time to evaluate the relator’s allegations and for the DOJ to decide whether it would like to take over primary responsibility for prosecuting the case. If the DOJ decides to take over primary responsibility for the case, the DOJ is said to “intervene.”
The complaint remains under seal for 60 days during which time the DOJ investigates the relator’s allegations. This 60-day period can be (and typically is) extended. In fact, the government may spend months – or even years – investigating the case.
While the DOJ conducts its investigation, it may issue a Civil Investigative Demand (CID). This form of subpoena requires the defendant (the hospice agency) to engage in one-sided discovery where the hospice agency must produce documents, respond to interrogatories, and provide sworn oral testimony, as demanded. The CID is “one-sided discovery” because the hospice agency may not conduct any discovery.
If the government decides to intervene, the government is then responsible for litigating the case and files its own complaint instead of the complaint that was filed by the relator. The relator remains a party to the complaint.
If the government declines to intervene, the relator may proceed in her own name subject to the government’s right to dismiss the claim or to intervene at a later date.
Whether or not the government decides to intervene, the government remains the real party of interest. (As a reminder, the relator is only “standing in the shoes” of the government.) As such, the government must agree to any decisions on the case. The relator may not agree to dismiss or settle the case without the government’s approval.
Anyone can be a whistleblower and anyone may report alleged fraudulent activity to the government. The most common relators are:
Any complaints or concerns that are raised – by employees, vendors, patients, or competitors, or any other individuals should be investigated and treated with concern as these have the potential to reveal compliance issues that need to be resolved by the hospice agency.
Employee complaints – whether from departing or active employees – are often an excellent source of information on potential compliance issues. A hospice agency should have a clearly established method – that is clearly and often communicated to employees – for employees to raise concerns. It should also have an organized process to diligently investigate and address any concerns raised by employees.
Employees must feel that there is a process for raising concerns and that their concerns are heard. Employees should not fear retaliation for raising concerns. A hospice agency should be diligent and careful to respond to all employee complaints that are raised internally or to any complaints that are raised when employees leave the organization.
False claims act matters can be quite costly for a hospice organization. In addition to returning the payments associated with the false claims identified and incurring the costs associated with attorney fees to defend the matter, the hospice agency potentially faces the following significant costs: