Health Care Enforcement & Investigations

Learn the latest on EKRA enforcement and compensation rules for laboratory sales and marketing employees after the Ninth Circuit’s Schena decision. Explore DOJ’s stance, open compliance questions, and similar state law impacting clinical laboratories.

Discover key False Claims Act cybersecurity enforcement trends from 2025, including major DOJ settlements with defense contractors and health care companies. Learn best practices for compliance, self-disclosure, and risk mitigation as enforcement intensifies in 2026.

Explore 2025 managed care enforcement trends under the Trump administration. Learn about DOJ and CMS priorities, Medicare Advantage risk adjustment cases, key cases interpreting regulatory changes, and compliance strategies for MAOs.

Explore key constitutional challenges to the False Claims Act, including Article II disputes over qui tam provisions and Excessive Fines Clause litigation. Learn how recent court decisions impact FCA enforcement and penalty limits in 2026.

Learn how DOJ’s expanded Voluntary Self-Disclosure policy and evolving use of NPAs and DPAs create new opportunities for health care companies to resolve enforcement actions. Explore strategies for cooperation, remediation, and compliance.

Explore how consumer protection regulators tackled health care issues in 2025, from GLP-1 weight loss drugs to AI oversight and pricing transparency. Learn what enforcement trends mean for health care companies in 2026.

Explore DOJ health care enforcement trends under Trump 2.0. Learn how leadership changes, new False Claims Act (FCA) priorities, and political initiatives like gender-affirming care investigations are reshaping compliance risks for 2026.

Explore DOJ False Claims Act enforcement trends for 2025–2026 with insights from former US Attorney Erek Barron. Learn about data-driven investigations, AI risks, compliance strategies, and opportunities for self-disclosure.

Discover how health care organizations can prevent False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation claims. Learn best practices for compliance programs, whistleblower risk management, documentation protocols, and legal privilege strategies to reduce FCA litigation exposure.

Explore how AI is reshaping health care enforcement in 2026. Learn about emerging state regulations, federal oversight, enforcement risks, and best practices for compliance in an evolving AI-driven landscape.

Over the 2025 summer, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued four advisory opinions—two favorable and two unfavorable—that provide valuable guidance for medical device companies and pharmaceutical manufacturers navigating the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). These opinions address warranty reimbursements, vendor access fees, physician ownership, and exclusion screening costs. Below is a summary of each.

In a cautionary tale for health care entities, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina recently announced the convictions of two health care executives who admitted to orchestrating a multi-year kickback scheme involving the use of gift cards to incentivize Medicaid patients to attend counseling sessions and submit urine drug tests. Although the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued multiple Advisory Opinions green-lighting other programs that include gift card distributions, these convictions underscore the importance of structuring patient incentives in strict accordance with OIG guidance.

On July 31, 2025, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a pair of settlements with companies accused of having violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by falsely representing their compliance with certain cybersecurity requirements applicable to federal contractors. These two settlements highlight key aspects of DOJ’s enforcement priorities: (1) DOJ’s strong focus on enforcing the FCA in the cybersecurity space, and (2) DOJ’s willingness to reward companies that self-disclose violations. All government contractors certifying compliance with regulatory and contractual requirements must stay vigilant and take the steps needed to comply. 

This in-depth webinar examines DOJ’s enforcement priorities and topics such as recent False Claims Act settlements (which go beyond health care fraud), enforcement risks and best practices, and whistleblower risks and protections from an employment law perspective.

The first 120 days of the Trump administration have been characterized by dramatic changes in the realm of white-collar enforcement. Recently issued memoranda and policy guidance from DOJ contains critical details regarding the new administration’s enforcement priorities.  

On May 14, 2025, Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center d/b/a Community Health System (CHS) and its technology partner, Physicians Network Advantage, Inc. (PNA), agreed to pay $31.5 million and enter into a Corporate Integrity Agreement to settle allegations of violating the federal anti-kickback statute (AKS) and physician self-referral law (Stark Law) under the False Claims Act (FCA). The alleged conduct at issue revolved around CHS’s plan beginning in 2013 to assist local area physicians in their adoption of the electronic health records (EHR) platform used by CHS and its establishment of PNA to support that goal. For decades, the government has strongly promoted the adoption of interoperable EHR platforms by physician practices (e.g., Meaningful Use payments), given that EHR systems allow for better care coordination, increased efficiency, and improved patient experience. Moreover, as described in more detail below, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) adopted an AKS safe harbor and Stark Law exception that allowed certain entities, including hospitals, to donate EHR technology and services to physicians if certain conditions are satisfied. However, CHS’s and PNA’s alleged conduct exceeds what is permissible under the relevant safe harbor and exception.

Amid ongoing policy shifts in Washington, the federal government’s interest in pursuing civil cyber-fraud cases appears to be here to stay.  

In United States v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the First Circuit joined the emerging majority view that False Claims Act (FCA) claims based on violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) require a showing of “but-for” causation.  As we previously reported, the Sixth Circuit and the Eighth Circuit have also held that the stricter “but-for” causation standard applies to AKS-based FCA claims.

Read about how a win in the Fifth Circuit and the end of Chevron deference could breathe new life into the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program challenges despite continued losses in federal court.