HHS OIG Issues Open Letter On Changes In OIG Civil Fraud Settlement Policies and Practices
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.21.01
On November 20, 2001, DHHS Inspector General Janet Rehnquist issued an open letter to health care providers announcing changes to certain Office of Inspector General ("OIG") civil settlement policies and practices in response to concerns expressed by providers.
One change is the development of eight criteria to be considered by OIG staff in determining whether, in a given case, it would be appropriate for the OIG to forego administrative exclusion without imposing a corporate integrity agreement or, if a corporate integrity agreement is deemed appropriate, what the substance of the agreement should be. A second change is the modification of the claims review process mandated in future and, where appropriate, existing corporate integrity agreements to require the use of full statistically valid random samples only in cases where an initial claims review has identified an unacceptably high error rate.
The letter also promises that the OIG will explore ways to increase reliance on providers' internal audit capabilities, and will be more flexible in other integrity agreement requirements, such as employee training.
The letter included two attachments further detailing the new claims review procedures: (1) a summary of the procedures; and (2) a list of frequently asked questions regarding the new procedures.
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
