On March 10, 2026, the Department of Justice released its first-ever Department-wide Corporate Enforcement Policy (CEP), replacing the separate policies DOJ components had used since 2016 with a single framework governing every criminal matter the Department brings, apart from antitrust cases. The policy restates a position DOJ has held since the 2015 Yates Memo: individual accountability, not a corporate settlement alone, is the primary goal of a corporate wrongdoing investigation. For a healthcare company, a physician group, or a management services organization under investigation, that carries a direct consequence for the physicians inside it. The facts an entity discloses to earn cooperation credit are the same facts DOJ uses to build the case against the individuals who ran the arrangement.
The Department-Wide Corporate Enforcement Policy
The new CEP builds on the Criminal Division's Corporate Enforcement Policy, first adopted in 2016 and revised in May 2025, and extends it to every DOJ component that brings criminal cases, including United States Attorneys' offices nationwide. A company that voluntarily self-discloses misconduct, fully cooperates, and timely remediates the underlying conduct is eligible for a declination, meaning DOJ will decline to prosecute the company at all, absent limited aggravating circumstances. DOJ described the policy as a way for prosecutors to reward corporate self-disclosure while pursuing the responsible individuals in the same matter, stating it lets prosecutors "reward good corporate behavior, seek individual accountability, and root out criminal conduct."
Cooperation Credit and the Individual Case
Since the Yates Memo, cooperation credit has required more than a general offer to help. To receive credit, a company must disclose all relevant facts about the individuals involved, and the 2026 policy keeps that standard as the baseline for a declination. The Yates Memo also directed criminal and civil DOJ attorneys handling a corporate investigation to stay in routine communication, and to resolve a corporate case only alongside a clear plan for the related individual cases before the statute of limitations runs. The current policy keeps both instructions. A healthcare company's board can accept a declination and a compliance overhaul while the physicians and billing directors who directed the conduct still face charges built substantially from the company's own production.
The facts a company discloses to earn a declination are the same facts DOJ uses to decide which of its physicians, executives, and billing staff to charge.
Where Physicians and Practice Owners Get Exposed
Exposure concentrates nearest the arrangement. The Stark Law imposes civil, strict-liability exposure on a physician's financial relationships with entities that receive the physician's Medicare referrals, regardless of intent. The Anti-Kickback Statute carries both civil and criminal exposure, and a physician who knowingly and willfully solicited or received remuneration for referrals can be charged criminally even after the company resolves its own exposure civilly. Stark Law vs the Anti-Kickback Statute: The Differences That Matter sets out how the two statutes diverge. A group practice's self-disclosure, made to protect the entity, can become the record that identifies the physician DOJ pursues next.
The Coordinated Civil and Criminal Tracks
A corporate healthcare investigation rarely runs on one track. DOJ's civil attorneys typically develop the entity's False Claims Act exposure through a civil investigative demand, while the criminal side, working the same facts, can open a parallel grand jury subpoena investigation into the individuals who directed the conduct. Parallel Proceedings: Managing Civil, Criminal, and Administrative Tracks at Once walks through how the two tracks interact and where their deadlines diverge. A physician served with a civil investigative demand should not assume the matter stays civil, or that the company's cooperation posture protects an individual inside it. A target letter naming the physician directly is often the next document, not the first.
Why Early Legal Counsel Is Critical
It is critical that physicians and practice owners promptly retain experienced healthcare defense counsel upon receiving a civil investigative demand, grand jury subpoena, target letter, or any government inquiry connected to a corporate investigation of their employer. Early legal intervention can protect the physician's individual interests, even where those diverge from the entity's cooperation strategy, help avoid inadvertent admissions, and preserve every available defense. Delaying representation can significantly affect the outcome and expose the physician to risk that the entity's own counsel is not positioned to address.
How Health Law Alliance Can Help
Health Law Alliance defends physicians who become individual targets inside a larger corporate healthcare investigation, including matters where the physician's own employer is simultaneously cooperating with DOJ. Our bench includes a former federal prosecutor and a former senior healthcare-industry executive, a background that informs how DOJ builds an individual case from a corporate disclosure. If you have received a civil investigative demand, a grand jury subpoena, or a target letter tied to an investigation of your practice or employer, contact us for a free, confidential consultation.
