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 | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
