Fill out the form below or call us at (800) 345-4125.
If your durable medical equipment (DME) business is being threatened by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) or one of its contractors, the future of your business is at stake. An overpayment demand or notice of license revocation can destroy a healthy business. You need experienced legal help immediately.
The attorneys at Health Law Alliance are dedicated to defending Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) vendors across the country. We have worked with Fee-For-Service providers and wholesalers across the country who have encountered issues with the cumbersome and onerous Medicare regulations. We use our deep knowledge of healthcare law to protect your billing privileges and your livelihood. If you have received a notice from CMS, a Unified Program Integrity Contractor (UPIC), a Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC), or other Medicare contractor, do not wait. Contact us now to protect your business.
As Seen On
.avif)
Healthcare Specialty Attorneys: As seasoned healthcare defense attorneys, we deliver legal guidance tailored to your DME business’s unique circumstances. We leverage our Medicare DME expertise and the complex web of state and federal laws to challenge CMS actions and aggressively protect your business’s rights and livelihood.
Tenacious Defense: Faced with this level of government overreach, you require a strategic and aggressive defense. We deliver defense tailored to your unique circumstances.
Navigating Complex Audits and Businesses Threatened: We mount a relentless defense specifically engineered to defeat the tactics of government contractors. Our attorneys command an expert understanding of Unified Program Integrity Contractors (UPIC) like CoventBridge Group and Qlarant, Medicare Administrative Contractors (MAC) like Noridian, Palmetto, and Novitas, allowing us to exploit procedural failures in their audits, dismantling baseless findings, and fighting to secure your business and its future.
Frequently Asked Questions about DME Billing & License Revocation
What causes a Medicare overpayment demand, and how can it impact my company?
A Medicare overpayment demand typically results from billing errors, a lack of documentation to prove medical necessity, or failing to meet a technical requirement for a claim. The most immediate impact is financial, as Medicare will demand repayment and can place your company on a 100% prepayment review or withhold future payments to recoup the debt. Left unaddressed, large or repeated overpayments can also put your billing privileges at risk.
What causes a Medicare license and billing privilege revocation, and how does that impact my company?
A revocation of your Medicare billing privileges is the most severe penalty a provider can face. It can be triggered by unresolved overpayments, failing to comply with regulations, application integrity issues, or other serious infractions. The risks are catastrophic and include a complete halt of all Medicare payments, a re-enrollment bar that can last for years, and placement on a preclusion list that prevents you from contracting with many other payors.
How can you help me fight a Medicare revocation notice?
Responding to a revocation notice requires an immediate and strategic defense. We help you assemble a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to show Medicare how you have fixed the underlying problems. We also represent you in the formal appeals process to fight the revocation itself. Our objective is to demonstrate your compliance and protect your ability to continue operating as a Medicare provider.
Is it possible to appeal a Medicare revocation?
Yes, a Medicare license revocation or billing privilege revocation can be appealed. Successfully appealing a revocation is challenging and requires proving that Medicare’s determination was incorrect or that you have fully corrected the issues that led to it. Unlike a simple monetary dispute, a revocation appeal is about defending your company’s fundamental ability to do business, making experienced guidance essential.
If I disagree with a Medicare overpayment demand, what are my options?
You have the right to challenge the demand through a formal, multi-level appeals process. The key is to act quickly within the strict deadlines and submit a strong case supported by medical records, physician orders, and proof of delivery. We can help you navigate each level of appeal, from the initial redetermination to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, with the goal of overturning the inaccurate finding.
How can I make my company better prepared to prevent future Medicare overpayments or license revocations?
Start by building a strong compliance foundation: conduct regular internal audits, train staff on documentation standards, and keep current with Medicare and regulatory changes. We offer compliance consultations to help you identify any risk areas and improve your documentation practices, reducing audit stress and keeping your company well-prepared. This proactive approach can give you peace of mind and lower the chances of unexpected overpayment demands.
Speak to an experienced attorney today at no-cost to evaluate your situation and discuss how we can help.
Legal challenges can be complex and stressful. Our experienced attorneys are dedicated to offering personalized guidance and effective solutions to help you navigate your legal journey with confidence
Medicare audits conducted by contractors like Qlarant, Noridian, and Novitas are a standard part of doing business for DME suppliers, but they can be incredibly disruptive. These audits are designed to uncover fraud, waste, and abuse, but their complex rules and aggressive tactics often catch even compliant providers off-guard. An unfavorable audit can quickly escalate into a serious threat to your company’s financial health.
In practical terms, a Medicare audit involves a meticulous review of your claims data and supporting documents, including physician orders, proofs of delivery, and records establishing medical necessity. Even minor clerical errors or documentation gaps can be magnified through statistical extrapolation, where auditors apply an error rate from a small sample of claims to a much larger universe, resulting in massive overpayment demands.
This is where DME audit defense becomes essential. With experienced legal representation, you can challenge flawed audit findings, defend your billing practices, and protect your revenue. DME audit defense is not just about reacting to a demand letter; it is about implementing a strategy to protect your business before, during, and after an audit.
Why it matters: Understanding and preparing for the Medicare audit process can mean the difference between a manageable inquiry and a devastating financial blow. Having an experienced legal team on your side helps you navigate the complexities, defend your company against unfair recoupments, and allows you to keep your focus on running your business.
When billing Medicare, DME suppliers must navigate a dense maze of federal regulations and local policies. These rules are established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and enforced by DME Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs), and they change frequently. Staying compliant requires constant vigilance and a deep understanding of the requirements.
Some of the key areas of regulation include:
Why understanding these regulations matters: A single misstep in this complex regulatory environment can lead to significant overpayment demands. A claim that is missing a physician’s signature or has an incorrect date on the proof of delivery can be deemed entirely invalid by an auditor. Working with a legal team experienced in DME defense ensures you are prepared to meet the specific documentation and billing requirements that auditors from contractors like Qlarant will scrutinize.
DME audits conducted by Medicare contractors frequently target a specific set of common errors and documentation issues. Understanding these frequent pitfalls is the first step in protecting your company from costly recoupments and penalties.
Some of the most common issues that trigger overpayment demands include:
Why being aware of these challenges matters: Knowing what Medicare auditors look for gives you the power to proactively strengthen your compliance. By conducting internal reviews of your documentation and intake processes, you can correct vulnerabilities before they become the basis for a multi-million dollar overpayment demand. An experienced DME defense team can help you identify and fix these potential issues, ensuring you are prepared when an audit notice arrives.
Receiving an overpayment demand from a Medicare contractor can be intimidating, but it is not the end of the road. There is a formal, five-level appeals process that gives suppliers the opportunity to fight back against incorrect findings. Understanding this process is key to a successful defense.
Why understanding the appeals process matters: Each level of the Medicare appeals process has strict deadlines and unique strategic considerations. A well-argued and thoroughly documented appeal is critical to success. Our firm provides aggressive legal representation at every stage, from drafting the initial redetermination request to arguing your case before an Administrative Law Judge.
A negative outcome in a Medicare audit can have devastating and far-reaching consequences for a DME business. The financial stakes are high, and the operational impacts can threaten your company’s survival.
Some of the most serious potential consequences include:
Why understanding these consequences matters: Knowing what is at stake underscores the importance of a swift and serious legal defense. A proactive strategy can help you challenge auditors' findings, protect your cash flow, and keep your business in good standing. Our team works to defend you from these severe outcomes so you are not facing these threats alone.
Facing an audit from a Medicare contractor like Qlarant, Noridian, or Novitas can be overwhelming, but you do not have to do it alone. Health Law Alliance specializes in DME audit defense, offering robust legal support to protect your business from financial and operational harm. Here is how we help:
Why choose Health Law Alliance: With deep experience defending DME suppliers nationwide, we understand the unique challenges you face. Our goal is to shield your business from the financial and operational risks of Medicare audits, allowing you to focus on your patients and your company’s success while we handle the fight.
CVS Caremark one of the three major PBMs that control nearly 90% of the market for prescription claims processing.
Learn More
Optum is one of three major PBMs that control nearly 90% of the market for prescription claims processing.
Learn More
ESI is one of the three major PBMs that control nearly 90% of the market for prescription claims processing.
Learn More
Prime has a relationship with ESI that provides for joint provider networks and oversight by both companies.
Learn More
Medicare and Medicaid use agencies like OIG or OMIG and outside contractors to audit prescription drug claims.
Learn More
Humana is a payor that uses PBMs and other contractors to audit government and commercial drug claims.
Learn More
Qlarant is contracted with Medicare to perform fraud, waste, and abuse audits and investigations.
Learn More
Safeguard is contracted with Medicare to perform fraud, waste, and abuse audits and investigations.
Learn More
To design an effective PBM audit response strategy, providers must understand the chain of events both prior to the initiation of a PBM audit and afterwards. For example, Special Investigative Units (SIUs) are often the genesis of a pharmacy audit, and the presence or absence of "audit risk factors" is informative on potentially broader exposure beyond the claims under audit. Any decision to resolve an audit should be informed and result in a full and final settlement of all liability, but PBM audit settlements need to be structured carefully to achieve this goal.
CVS Caremark, OptumRx, and Express Scripts, control at least 80% of the market, making them the three biggest PBMs. Humana also ranks among the largest. In addition, these PBMs regulate access to networks for smaller competitors, such as ESI's partnership with Prime. Plan sponsors, such as United Health, Cigna and Aetna, are vertically integrated with these PBMs, increasing audit risk for pharmacies because network sanctions are more likely to affect a significant aspect of a pharmacy's business across both government and commercial claims.
PBMs and payors use artificial intelligence and data mining across medical and pharmacy claims to identify areas of potential inquiry. Among other areas, these inquiries typically involve high-reimbursing medicines, brand/generic substitution, inventory discrepancies, co-payment collection, prior authorization, and telehealth relations. Separately, DEA conducts audits and inspections for compliance to controlled substance regulations.
Common types of PBM audits include desk audits; on-site audits; invoice audits; and prescription audits. Irrespective of the type of PBM audit, all interactions with PBMs should be taken extremely seriously and can lead to severe consequences if not handled appropriately. For example, there has been a sharp increase in the federal prosecution of pharmacists for audit-related conduct, including answering PBM questions incorrectly. Accordingly, pharmacies should consider using outside audit counsel to avoid these pitfalls.
Pharmacies can take various steps to prepare to meet PBM audits, including routine self-audits. In fact, the government publishes comprehensive guidance and a checklist to assist pharmacies in their audit planning, including self-audits around prescribing practices, controlled substance management, invoice management, and billing practices. If you need assistance designing or implementing an audit protection plan, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Defending against a PBM audit requires comprehensive knowledge of the rights, responsibilities, and intricacies of pharmacies and their laws and regulations. If your pharmacy has been identified for a PBM audit, there are a number of potential defenses available to you. The first defense against a PBM audit is to be proactive, and audit planning can lessen the chance of unfavorable findings. That said, it is often necessary to involve an attorney to hold PBMs to their obligations under law and provider agreements. For this reason, national audit services and pharmacy audit consultants are often ineffective.
Audit discrepancies and findings can be appealed based on the specific procedures outlined in the provider manuals. It is important to follow these requirements exactly, within the timeframes established, or your appeal rights could be lost and further review denied. In an appeal, it is critically important to make a complete record of why the audit findings or sanctions should be reversed, including through documentation, legal arguments, and corrective actions, if any. Depending on the outcome of the appeal, you may have further legal recourse against the PBM.
PBM audits can have severe repercussions depending on the results of the pharmacy audit, including recoupments, network sanctions, and criminal, civil and administrative investigations involving jail time, significant fines, and license revocation or exclusion. We publish a 10-part PBM Audit Guide that discusses the overlap between PBM audits and government investigations and how to successfully manage audit risk. This resource is complimentary to subscribers HERE.
Government investigations may come in many forms, but criminal matters involving potential jail time, mandatory exclusion, loss of licensure, and reputational harm are the most severe and scary scenarios that anyone can face. Unfortunately, it often is not clear, particularly at the outset, whether an investigation involves criminal violations or what your status might be in the investigation. For example, our clients might be informed that the FBI is interviewing patients, or that their partners have received subpoenas. The uncertainty that results from these types of events is particularly difficult for our clients to manage, and typically involves sleepless nights, loss of appetite, anxiety and potential depression.
Our experienced healthcare defense attorneys understand what clients are going through, and focus on providing them with insight into the government’s investigation and how best to defend it. There are a variety of potential outcomes, many of them involving far less severe ramifications than might be contemplated. Indeed, in healthcare, parallel criminal, civil, and administrative laws provide an opportunity for potential resolution of government investigations under terms that do not involve loss of liberty or livelihood. The range of outcomes that might be available depends on the evidence available to the government, but cases involving patient harm typically receive more focus from a criminal perspective than run-of-the-mill billing irregularities, particularly when the federal government is involved.
That said, there are several notable exceptions. At Health Law Alliance, our healthcare defense attorneys have decades of federal and state prosecutorial experience, and we rely on that background to highlight areas of increased risk. In particular, the below agencies focus on the prosecution of criminal healthcare fraud.
The Medicare Fraud Strike Force, operated by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in regions across the country, is particularly adept at prosecuting healthcare fraud criminal matters. Medicare Fraud Strike Force Teams harness data analytics and the combined resources of federal, state, and local law enforcement entities to prevent and combat healthcare fraud, waste, and abuse. More specifically, the Strike Force uses advanced data analysis techniques to identify aberrant billing levels in healthcare fraud “hot spots” – cities with high levels of billing fraud – combined with traditional investigative techniques to target suspicious billing patterns in addition to emerging schemes and fraudulent practices that move from one location to another.First established in March 2007, prosecutors operate in 16 Strike Forces, including the National Rapid Response Strike Force based in Washington, DC. The Strike Force Model centers on a cross-agency collaborative approach, bringing together the investigative and analytical resources of DOJ’s Fraud Section, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Office of the Inspector General (FDIC-OIG), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department of Labor-OIG, United States Postal Service – Office of the Inspector General (USPS-OIG), Veterans Administration – Office of the Inspector General (VA-OIG), and other agencies. Strike Force Health Care Fraud and Prescription Opioid teams are located across the country, as depicted by the chart below:
The Medicare Strike Force has filed thousands of criminal actions and indictments and recovered billions of dollars in assets resulting from healthcare fraud. The Strike Force teams bring together the Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Department of Justice (DOJ), Offices of the United States Attorneys (USAOs), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), local law enforcement, and others. These attorneys and investigators have a proven record of success in analyzing data and investigative intelligence to quickly identify fraud and bring prosecutions. The interagency collaboration also enhances the effectiveness of the Strike Force model. For example, OIG refers credible allegations of fraud to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) so that it can suspend payments to the alleged healthcare fraud perpetrators, thereby preventing losses to federal programs. Finally, the Medicare Strike Force does not focus exclusively on healthcare fraud but also prosecutes wire fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud, money laundering offenses, violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), false statements offenses, Title 42 offenses, Title 26 offenses, and Title 21 offenses, in the highest intensity regions.
The Medicare Strike Force is a specialized department within the DOJ’s Health Care Fraud Unit, based in Washington, D.C., with operations across the country. DOJ’s Health Care Fraud Unit is led by over 80 experienced white-collar prosecutors who focus solely on prosecuting the nation’s most complicated healthcare fraud matters and the illegal prescription, distribution, and diversion of opioids and other controlled substances. The Health Care Fraud Unit’s mission is to protect the public treasury from wide-scale healthcare fraud, protect patients from significant fraudulent schemes that result in patient harm, and to detect, limit, and deter fraud and illegal prescription, distribution, and diversion of controlled substance offenses. The Health Care Fraud Unit endeavors to prosecute defendants who orchestrate schemes that result in the loss of hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, the distribution of tens of millions of opioids or controlled substances, and complex money laundering, tax, and other financial crime offenses.
The Health Care Fraud Unit prides itself on conducting the most trials of any DOJ component, including the U.S. Attorney's Offices. DOJ prosecutors, referred to as “Trial Attorneys,” have participated in the largest and most complex healthcare fraud and opioid distribution trials in the country. Notably, the Health Care Fraud Unit is a leader in using advanced data analytics and algorithmic methods to identify newly emerging healthcare fraud schemes and to target the most egregious fraudsters. The Health Care Fraud Unit’s team of dedicated data analysts works with prosecutors to identify, investigate, and prosecute cases using data analytics. At the Health Law Alliance, our healthcare defense attorneys have extensive experience in the use of data analytics to identify potential fraud, waste, and abuse, having served as the Chief Compliance Officer and Executive Leadership Team member for UnitedHealth Group, with oversight of Optum and UnitedHealthcare, including Special Investigative Units (SIUs) within those platforms.
The Health Care Fraud Unit’s cases are complex and wide-reaching. In particular, the National Rapid Response Strike Force was created in 2020 to investigate and prosecute fraud cases involving major healthcare providers that operate in multiple jurisdictions. The National Rapid Response Strike Force coordinates with the Civil Division’s Fraud Section and Consumer Protection Branch, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices across the country, state Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFCUs), the FBI, HHS-OIG, and other agency partners to investigate and prosecute multi-jurisdictional and corporate healthcare fraud. The National Rapid Response Strike Force’s recent successes include the conviction of owners of a multi-state network of rural hospitals in a $1 billion billing fraud matter; the $500 million global resolution with Tenet Healthcare Corporation and related individual prosecutions for a hospital kickback scheme; the prosecution of billions of dollars in telemedicine fraud; prosecution of over $1 billion in fraudulent addiction rehabilitation facility fraud as part of the Sober Homes Initiative; and leadership of the Unit’s efforts to prosecute those seeking to criminally exploit the COVID-19 pandemic, including the conviction at trial of the President of a Silicon Valley technology company for healthcare fraud, illegal kickback, and securities fraud related to the announcement of purportedly revolutionary testing for COVID-19 using only a few drops of blood, i.e., Elizabeth Holmes and associates.
In addition, in 2022, the DOJ Criminal Division announced the formation of the New England Prescription Opioid (NEPO) Strike Force, a joint law enforcement effort to investigate and prosecute healthcare fraud schemes in the New England region, and to prosecute individuals involved in the illegal distribution of prescription opioids and other controlled substances. NEPO leverages the success of the October 2018 formation of the Appalachian Regional Prescription Opioid (ARPO) Strike Force, a joint effort between DOJ, FBI, HHS-OIG, DEA, and state and local law enforcement to combat healthcare fraud and the opioid epidemic in locations that have been harmed significantly by addiction. ARPO has partnered with federal and state law enforcement and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices throughout Alabama, Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia, Tennessee, and West Virginia to prosecute medical professionals involved in the illegal prescription and distribution of opioids.
In addition to DOJ’s Strike Forces and Health Care Fraud Units, all of the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices are staffed by federal prosecutors, referred to as Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs), who investigate and prosecute healthcare fraud crimes in their respective jurisdictions. There are 93 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices in the country, and the U.S. Attorney in each district is the chief federal law enforcement officer, reporting to the Attorney General of the United States. The U.S. Attorneys’ Offices are coordinated by the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, which oversees the DOJ’s Health Care Fraud and Abuse Act Program, established as part of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). To most, HIPAA is better known for privacy and nondiscrimination rules, but the statute also created a number of healthcare offenses and enforcement tools, including the “HIPAA subpoena,” and mandated that the DOJ and HHS-OIG coordinate to support efforts to investigate and prosecute healthcare fraud.
To this end, HIPAA provided a funding source, specifically requiring that amounts equaling recoveries from healthcare fraud investigations be deposited in or transferred to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. Recoveries are then appropriated from the Trust Fund to the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Account in an amount the Attorney General and HHS Secretary certify annually are necessary to finance healthcare fraud enforcement activities. Appropriations from the Control Account fund attorneys, investigators, and litigation support to combat healthcare fraud. Since 1997, over $57 billion has been collected by the DOJ and HHS. Of that, nearly $40 billion has been returned to the Medicare Trust Funds, an average of approximately $1.5 billion per year, and Medicaid, Tricare, the Veteran’s Administration, among others. In the same period, 13,628 defendants have been convicted of healthcare fraud offenses, an average of 545 every year. These numbers are startling, to be sure.
All states also operate Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFCUs), typically within the State Attorney General’s Office, to investigate and prosecute Medicaid-related fraud. The Social Security Act (SSA) requires each state to effectively operate an MFCU unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) determines that (1) the operation of a Unit would not be cost-effective because minimal Medicaid fraud exists in a particular state; and (2) the state has other adequate safeguards to protect enrollees from abuse or neglect. MFCUs are funded jointly by the federal and state governments. Each Unit receives a federal grant award equivalent to 90 percent of total expenditures for new Units and 75 percent for all other Units.
MFCU cases often begin as referrals from external sources or are generated from data mining. MFCU staff review referrals of possible fraud to determine the potential for criminal prosecution or civil action. If the Unit accepts a referral, the case may result in various outcomes. Criminal prosecutions may result in convictions; civil actions may result in civil settlements. Both criminal prosecutions and civil actions routinely include the assessment of monetary recoveries. The approach of the MFCUs varies state-by-state, with some offices, such as Pennsylvania’s MFCU, that pursue criminal cases exclusively. In other words, the Pennsylvania MFCU will either bring a criminal case or decline the matter completely; that office does not interpret its enabling statutes to permit the resolution of investigations on civil terms. Other state MFCUs, however, investigate and prosecute both criminal and civil cases. The OIG has the authority to exclude convicted individuals and entities from any federally funded healthcare program, such as Medicaid, on the basis of convictions referred from MFCUs. In addition to achieving these outcomes, MFCUs may also make recommendations to their state governments to strengthen program integrity.
%402x.svg){kind=icon}