Federal officials seem wary about their words and their dissemination.
At the Health Care Compliance Association’s (HCCA’s) fourth annual Healthcare Enforcement Compliance Conference, top U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officials provided an update on current developments related to criminal and civil fraud investigations.
While a future article will focus on some of the highlights, this article will focus on process, because before making any remarks, the first official to speak indicated that their comments were “not for attribution.” The official then expressed concern about how comments by DOJ officials at last year’s conference were reported to the public “before lunch” on the day they were made. The DOJ seemed to be expressing a concern that it considered it to be inappropriate for comments made by the DOJ at the HCCA conference to be reported publicly.
Here is a recap of what occurred last year. While the official did not mention Monitor Mondays and RACmonitor by name, it was a story broadcast on Monitor Mondays and published in RACmonitor that seemed to trigger the concern. At that time, an official explained that the DOJ would consider moving to dismiss False Claims Act cases if the government determined that the complaint was meritless. After the RACmonitor article was published, the DOJ press office asked for a correction, because the statements at the conference were not an official policy statement, and it was asserted that there had been no change in DOJ policy, because the DOJ was always willing to intervene to dismiss meritless claims.
Then, in January 2018, a memo by Michael Granston, director of the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Fraud Section in the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, became public. That memo described the policy outlined at the conference.
So, what is the DOJ’s position on reporting on the events of the conference? And should attendees of the conference respect that position? Let’s examine both of those questions. First, the way the DOJ’s position was described was that the comments were “not for attribution.” At the conference, I asked for clarification, noting that the conference is a public forum, and presumably, the reason DOJ officials were generously providing their time by speaking was to provide guidance to both the public and industry. Unless attendees are able to recount what occurs at the meeting, it would be impossible to disseminate this important and useful information. The response was that the Department expected the information to be disseminated, but that it wasn’t “official” and, again, “wasn’t for attribution.”
Personally, I am very grateful that the DOJ officials are willing to come present at conferences. These professionals are quite busy, and they certainly are not obligated to take time out of their day to participate. I don’t want to do anything that would result in the officials refusing to attend this conference or other public gatherings. But I am also shocked at the idea that there would be any attempt to limit the dissemination of what is said at the meeting. People who are not sitting in the room are entitled to exactly the same information that attendees received, aren’t they? Statements by the DOJ at a public gathering should be public. It shouldn’t be possible for certain groups to have inside access to information from the DOJ.
I have received two different comments about the DOJ position. I have been told both that statements made by officials at the conference should be described as “a statement by a DOJ official” without naming that official, and that the statements should be reported by naming the particular official, but emphasizing that their remarks were made in that person’s individual capacity, so it should be attributed to the person with a caveat that the statement is not an official policy position of the DOJ. We have asked the DOJ press office for clarification on their position and offered to accept comments on this article. That request was made Tuesday evening, Nov. 6, right before the President demanded the Attorney General’s resignation. So it is understandable that the office may not have had time to focus on this issue. My hope is that when I do hear from the DOJ, the clarification will be “we encourage you to report on the statements at the conference, but ask that you note in the article that statements at the conference are not official policy pronouncements.” That is, of course, true.
Regardless of the DOJ’s position, in a free an open society, it is important to be able to report on statements made by government officials. While it is reasonable for such officials to be able to make comments to reporters off the record, when they are made in a public forum, it is difficult to see a rationale for agreeing to keep them off the record. As a result, we intend to continue reporting on the statements made at conferences.
Welcome back everybody after the holidays. As a CPA, I have always been uncomfortable when the word “Audit” is used to describe activity since the term
On Nov. 21, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Dr. Ameet Vohra and his company, Vohra Wound Physicians Management, one of the nation’s
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Accurately determining the principal diagnosis is critical for compliant billing, appropriate reimbursement, and valid quality reporting — yet it remains one of the most subjective and error-prone areas in inpatient coding. In this expert-led session, Cheryl Ericson, RN, MS, CCDS, CDIP, demystifies the complexities of principal diagnosis assignment, bridging the gap between coding rules and clinical reality. Learn how to strengthen your organization’s coding accuracy, reduce denials, and ensure your documentation supports true medical necessity.
Denials continue to delay reimbursement, increase administrative burden, and threaten financial stability across healthcare organizations. This essential webcast tackles the root causes—rising payer scrutiny, fragmented workflows, inconsistent documentation, and underused analytics—and offers proven, data-driven strategies to prevent and overturn denials. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen documentation and coding accuracy, engage clinicians effectively, and leverage predictive analytics and AI to identify risks before they impact revenue. Through real-world case examples and actionable guidance, this session empowers coding, CDI, and revenue cycle professionals to shift from reactive appeals to proactive denial prevention and revenue protection.
Sepsis remains one of the most frequently denied and contested diagnoses, creating costly revenue loss and compliance risks. In this webcast, Angela Comfort, DBA, MBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, provides practical, real-world strategies to align documentation with coding guidelines, reconcile Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions, and apply compliant queries. You’ll learn how to identify and address documentation gaps, strengthen provider engagement, and defend diagnoses against payer scrutiny—equipping you to protect reimbursement, improve SOI/ROM capture, and reduce audit vulnerability in this high-risk area.
Only ICD10monitor delivers what you need: updates on must-know changes associated with the FY26 IPPS, including new ICD-10-CM/PCS codes, CCs/MCCs, and MS-DRGs, plus insights, analysis and answers to your questions from two of the country’s most respected subject matter experts.
Stay ahead of the 2026-2027 audit surge with “Top 10 Audit Targets for 2026-2027 for Hospitals & Physicians: Protect Your Revenue,” a high-impact webcast led by Michael Calahan, PA, MBA. This concise session gives hospitals and physicians clear insight into the most likely federal audit targets, such as E/M services, split/shared and critical care, observation and admissions, device credits, and Two-Midnight Rule changes, and shows how to tighten documentation, coding, and internal processes to reduce denials, recoupments, and penalties. Attendees walk away with practical best practices to protect revenue, strengthen compliance, and better prepare their teams for inevitable audits.
As AI reshapes healthcare compliance, the risk of biased outputs and opaque decision-making grows. This webcast, led by Frank Cohen, delivers a practical Four-Pillar Governance Framework—Transparency, Accountability, Fairness, and Explainability—to help you govern AI-driven claim auditing with confidence. Learn how to identify and mitigate bias, implement robust human oversight, and document defensible AI review processes that regulators and auditors will accept. Discover concrete remedies, from rotation protocols to uncertainty scoring, and actionable steps to evaluate vendors before contracts are signed. In a regulatory landscape that moves faster than ever, gain the tools to stay compliant, defend your processes, and reduce liability while maintaining operational effectiveness.
Get clear, practical answers to Medicare’s most confusing regulations. Join Dr. Ronald Hirsch as he breaks down real-world compliance challenges and shares guidance your team can apply right away.
Federal auditors are zeroing in on Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) and hospital rehab unit services, with OIG and CERT audits leading to millions in penalties—often due to documentation and administrative errors, not quality of care. Join compliance expert Michael Calahan, PA, MBA, to learn the five clinical “pillars” of IRF-PPS admissions, key documentation requirements, and real-life case lessons to help protect your revenue.
Happy National Doctor’s Day! Learn how to get a complimentary webcast on ‘Decoding Social Admissions’ as a token of our heartfelt appreciation! Click here to learn more →
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 1 with code CYBER25
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24
