Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Sharp Rise in False Claims Act Cases - Navigating the FCA Waters

Client Alert


The Department of Justice has announced that False Claims Act (FCA) settlements and judgments exceeded $2 billion in the Fiscal Year 2022 and $5.6 billion in the Fiscal Year 2021. A large portion of such settlements and judgments involve healthcare businesses such as physician practices, hospitals, and pharmacies. The number of FCA cases has increased over the past several years, and it is evident that governments on both the state and federal levels are becoming more aggressive in their use of the FCA to obtain recoveries.

The FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., was enacted in 1863 during the Civil War to counteract fraud by companies selling supplies to the Union Army. War profiteers would swindle the Union Army by providing rotten food, worn-out garments, and defective weapons. Today, the FCA is one of the government's strongest anti-fraud statutes. It imposes liability on individuals and businesses that defraud and cause financial loss to the federal government. The FCA also provides the potential for rewards for whistleblowers who report such fraudulent activities.

FCA claims can also be a source of stress and complication for businesses when they find themselves to be the target of either a federal investigation or state investigation. Whenever there is government money at stake, there is a chance for an FCA claim. Among other industries, FCA investigations are commonly seen among healthcare businesses that bill state and federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Since fraud in the healthcare industry can lead to rising healthcare costs, the government is keen on cracking down on such activity.

Recently, on April 18, 2023, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the FCA’s scienter, or mental state, requirement. To prove violation of the FCA, the statute requires that a defendant “knowingly” file false claims for payment. The term “knowingly” is defined within the statute to mean a person that acts with actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard. Circuit courts are split on how to interpret and apply the knowledge element of the FCA, and based on the Supreme Court’s decision, there will be a large impact on healthcare defendants and their businesses as well as anyone who contracts with, or receives money from, a federal program. A broader interpretation of the FCA would unnecessarily target and stifle healthcare, and other businesses, for simple errors in daily operations. This goes against the intended application of the FCA, which was to prevent fraudulent activity.

Violation of the FCA can potentially lead to liability for treble damages, or three times the actual losses, so it is imperative to have the proper legal counsel as you navigate the FCA waters. Whether you are facing allegations of violating the FCA or you want to put in place safeguards to ensure your business does not face such allegations, our team and BMD is ready, willing, and able to help. Our team has experience successfully defending against FCA claims and large qui tam cases, and they would be happy to discuss any concerns you may have. Questions should be directed to Shalini Bhatia at sbhatia@bmdllc.com or 216.658.2214.


Invisible Algorithms: The Hidden Role of Artificial Intelligence in USCIS Immigration Processing

The Department of Homeland Security has confirmed that artificial intelligence and machine learning tools are now integrated into numerous operational functions within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). These tools are described as mechanisms to improve efficiency, reduce backlogs, and assist officers in managing an unprecedented volume of applications. DHS emphasizes that human adjudicators retain decision-making authority and that AI systems do not independently grant or deny immigration benefits. Find out how AI affects the U.S. immigration process.

OAAPN | Year In Review: 2026 Ohio Board of Nursing and Ohio Law Rules

Find out key changes to Ohio law and the Ohio Board of Nursing rules that have directly impacted APRN practice over the past year, including Psychiatric Inpatient Documents, Intimate Examinations, Signature Authority, Duties Related to Fetal Death, Retail IV Therapy Clinics, Release from Permanent Restrictions, Disciplinary Action, Course on Drugs and Prescriptive Authority, Overdose Reversal Drugs, Office Based Opioid Treatment, Withdrawal Management for Substance Use Disorder, Safe Haven Program, and more.

Ohio House Bill 537: Proposed Regulations for Midwives and Birthing Centers

House Bill 537, introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives, proposes a comprehensive regulatory framework for certified nurse-midwives, certified midwives, licensed midwives, and traditional midwives. The legislation would clarify scope of practice, establish licensure standards, and impose new requirements for freestanding birthing centers and home births. Healthcare providers and facilities should be aware of the proposed changes and their potential operational impact.

Proposed Health Information Privacy Reform Act Expands Protections Beyond HIPAA

The Health Information Privacy Reform Act (HIPRA) seeks to extend privacy protections to health data not covered under HIPAA, including data collected by apps and wearables. HIPRA introduces broader definitions of protected health information, strengthens privacy and security requirements, establishes patient notification rights, and sets national de-identification standards. Companies processing health data should monitor developments to ensure compliance.

Medicare Updates on Skin Substitutes: LCDs Withdrawn, Payment Changes Take Effect

Medicare’s planned Final Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) for skin substitutes were withdrawn in late December 2025, meaning previous coverage rules remain in effect. The 2026 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule introduces a single payment rate of approximately $127.14 for these products. Providers should review implications for diabetic foot and venous leg ulcer treatments.