Skip to main content

Detroit Medical Center Pays U.S. $30 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations

Allegedly Engaged in Improper Financial Relationship with Referring Physicians

WASHINGTON – Detroit Medical Center, a non-profit company that owns and operates hospitals and outpatient facilities in Detroit, has agreed to pay the United States $30 million to settle allegations that it violated the False Claims Act, the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Statute, by engaging in improper financial relationships with referring physicians, the Justice Department announced today.

The Stark Statute and the Anti-Kickback Statute restrict the financial relationships that hospitals may have with doctors who refer patients to them. Most of the relationships at issue in this matter involved office lease agreements and independent contractor relationships that were either inconsistent with fair market value or not memorialized in writing.

"Improper financial relationships between health care providers and their referral sources can corrupt a physician's judgment about the patient's true healthcare needs," said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Department’s Civil Division. "In addition to yielding a substantial recovery for taxpayers, this settlement should deter similar conduct in the future and help make health care more affordable for patients."

The government learned of the statutory violations from Detroit Medical Center, itself, which discovered improper financial relationships with a number of physicians as it prepared for the sale to Vanguard. "We applaud the hospital leadership’s decision to come forward voluntarily to disclose these issues to the government," said U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade.

Detroit Medical Center is in the process of selling its facilities to Vanguard Health Systems Inc., a company headquartered in Nashville, Tenn., that owns and operates healthcare facilities in five states. Vanguard also signed today’s settlement.

The case was handled by the Justice Department’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

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 ...