Skip to main content

BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee to Pay U.S. $2.1 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations

WASHINGTON & NEWARK, N.J. – BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee (BCBS-T) has agreed to pay the United States $2.1 million to settle allegations of violating the False Claims Act, the Justice Department announced today. BCBS-T, which is headquartered in Chattanooga, Tenn., operates as Riverbend Government Benefit Administrators.

The settlement resolves allegations that BCBS-T, while the primary Medicare Part A Fiscal Intermediary for the state of New Jersey, failed to adjust the cost-to-charge ratios for many New Jersey hospitals in a timely manner between 2000 and 2002 that resulted in the payment of excessive "outlier payments" by Medicare program to those medical facilities. A Part A Fiscal Intermediary is a private insurance company that processes and pays Medicare claims.

In addition to its standard payment system, Medicare provides supplemental reimbursement, called outlier payments, to hospitals in cases where the cost of care is unusually high. Congress enacted the supplemental outlier payment system to ensure that hospitals possess the incentive to treat inpatients whose care requires unusually high costs.

"Today’s settlement demonstrates that the Justice Department will be vigilant in protecting the Medicare program from all who abuse it, including contractors that falsely bill for crucial tasks that they do not perform," said Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division.

"The United States relies extensively upon trusted contractors to uphold the integrity of the Medicare system within New Jersey, and any abuse of that trust will be sharply addressed," said Christopher J. Christie, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

The settlement with BCBS-T was the result of a coordinated effort among the Justice Department’s Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch; the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, Affirmative Civil Enforcement Unit; the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General and Office of Counsel to the Inspector General; the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; and the FBI, in investigating and resolving the allegations.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...