Skip to main content

Hope S. Foster


[email protected]



Hope is the immediate past Chair of the firm’s Health Care Enforcement Defense Practice. She has also served on the firm’s Pro Bono Committee and Policy Committee.

Hope defends and resolves large, multifaceted federal and state investigations arising under criminal and civil statutes barring, among other things, the submission of false claims and the provision of remuneration to induce referrals. In connection with such cases, Hope negotiates and structures global settlements with the US Department of Justice and its US Attorneys’ Offices and state Attorneys' General Offices as well as corporate integrity agreements with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General.

Many of the cases that she has handled have arisen as a result of qui tam cases filed by whistleblowers, under federal and state False Claims Acts. Hope also develops and implements compliance programs and advises clients in connection with voluntary disclosures to the government. Hope defends administrative actions initiated by federal and state agencies, including recoupment actions and proceedings involving licensure and certification. She has a comprehensive understanding of the Medicare and Medicaid programs and the rules governing reimbursement. In her work before the US Congress on behalf of clients, Hope has supported enactment of statutes including the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments and the Stark self-referral bans.

She also represents health care providers, product manufacturers, payors, and investors, and specializes in statutory and regulatory issues affecting the provision of health care services. Her practice includes counseling, structuring, and litigating fraud and abuse issues as well as reimbursement matters.

Hope frequently speaks on topics of interest to health care providers, payors, and product manufacturers. She also has written extensively on issues confronting health care providers.

Hope is an excellent attorney who is responsive and has a great work ethic.

- Health Care Client, Chambers USA 2024


  • Represented a diagnostics company in a national criminal and civil investigation involving multiple US Attorneys’ Offices and state Attorneys' General Offices. The investigation involved alleged kickback issues and billing violations.
  • Defended a physician, from a Southeastern state, in a broad-based False Claims Act investigation alleging kickback issues.
  • Defended a publicly traded medical device company in connection with the alleged failure to substantiate marketing and promotional claims.
  • Represented a clinical laboratory in connection with a False Claims Act investigation, arising from a qui tam case, alleging issues with the manner in which specimens were obtained and transported to the laboratory prior to testing. The government declined the case and both the relator and government dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
  • Represented four specialty laboratories in False Claims Act investigations in connection with the payment of processing and handling fees for specimen collection.
  • Defending several providers in state False Claims Act investigations throughout the country regarding alleged violations of Medicaid billing rules.
  • Represented and continuing to represent a number of providers in investigations conducted by the Federal Trade Commission involving alleged consumer protection violations.
  • Representing a provider in defending against multistate investigations by numerous Attorneys’ Generals involving alleged violations of state consumer protection laws.
  • Settled a number of False Claims Act investigations of various providers without Corporate Integrity Agreements.
Read less


In a resounding unanimous 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a defendant’s subjective belief is irrelevant under the False Claims Act (FCA) when evaluating whether a defendant “knowingly” submitted a false claim to the government for payment. On June 1, 2023, the Court issued its highly anticipated opinion in the consolidated cases U.S. ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu, Inc. and U.S. ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, Inc. (SuperValu) and addressed the question of whether a defendant is liable under the FCA if its conduct is consistent with an “objectively reasonable” interpretation of ambiguous statutory or regulatory language. Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, held that an “objectively reasonable” interpretation does not provide a complete legal defense to liability under the FCA. Rather, a defendant meets the FCA’s intent (scienter) requirement if the defendant’s subjective beliefs indicate it had knowledge that its submission of claims was “false or fraudulent,” regardless of whether the defendant’s conduct could be supported by a later “objectively reasonable” interpretation of the ambiguous legal or regulatory issue. Further, the Court articulated new standards for what might constitute “deliberate ignorance” or “reckless disregard” under the “knowledge” prong of the FCA.

Read more
In our annual webinar, Mintz’s Health Care Enforcement Defense team reviewed the key policy developments, settlements, and court decisions from 2020 and assessed their likely impact in 2021 and beyond.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
Today the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued additional guidance with respect to the “necessity” certification required under the CARES Act in connection with the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). The relevant guidance appears in FAQ 46, and it is very good news for borrowers who received PPP loans under $2 million (together with PPP loans to affiliates, if any). The SBA, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Treasury, has determined that a safe harbor will apply with respect to SBA’s review of the certification of necessity in connection with respect to such loans. Specifically, “[a]ny borrower that, together with its affiliates, received PPP loans with an original principal amount of less than $2 million will be deemed to have made the required certification concerning the necessity of the loan request in good faith.”
Read more
In Part 5 of our Roadmap Series, we take a closer look at COVID-19 screening and testing, including best practices and legal implications, as potential tools to maintain a safe workplace.
Read more
Responding to increased public and congressional criticism of its arguably too-flexible approach to regulatory oversight of serological tests used to detect COVID-19 antibodies, on May 4, 2020 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a revised policy aimed at reducing the risks associated with such tests.
Read more
Health Care Viewpoints Thumbnail
Recently, newspapers and television news programs have been full of stories about laboratory testing and the important role it will play in containing the spread of COVID-19 and reopening U.S. economic activity. But these stories have told a mixed tale. The Washington Post and The New York Times both ran front page stories on April 19, 2020 about how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had bungled production of the first U.S. test kits for detecting the presence of the novel coronavirus by manufacturing them in a lab contaminated with the virus, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA, which regulates test kits, testing materials, and testing instruments, had investigated the causes of its sister agency’s failure, which delayed by weeks the nation’s fight against the virus.

Only days before those stories ran, news outlets reported that Great Britain had paid $20 million to purchase antibody tests from China but, upon their arrival in Great Britain, those tests were found not to work. On April 26, 2020, the front page story in The New York Times headlined that “Testing Remains Scarce as States Weigh Reopening.”

Day after day, we have read conflicting stories about lab testing: do we have sufficient capacity and capability or do we not? If we do not, why don’t we? We have seen an alphabet soup of federal agencies named as being involved with clinical labs and working towards a solution to the many issues that have been raised. Having worked with labs for decades, we thought we would explore these really important questions. Which agency is responsible for what, and what are they doing? Every day we receive questions like these, and we thought that we would share what we have learned.
Read more
As many of our readers know, as a result of the public health emergency caused by COVID-19, effective March 1, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) issued blanket waivers of its authority under Section 1877(g) of the Social Security Act (which authorizes the imposition of certain sanctions for violations of the Stark Law) with respect to 18 categories of remuneration and/or referrals (the “Blanket Waivers”).
Read more
Last Tuesday, we blogged about the arrest of the owner of a Georgia-based marketing company who was charged with health care fraud and conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute. The government has alleged that laboratories paid the company kickbacks for Coronavirus (COVID-19) testing leads.

The very next day, the United States Attorney’s Office in San Antonio, Texas charged 39 year-old Christopher Perez with allegedly perpetuating a COVID-19-related hoax by posting a false threat on Facebook in which he claimed to have paid someone to spread COVID-19 at grocery stores in Texas. These prompt actions to implement Attorney General William Barr’s March 16 call to prioritize the detection, investigation, and detection of all criminal conduct related to the COVID-19 pandemic caused us to wonder what the federal government is doing about enforcement. The answer is: a lot.
Read more
Following years of discussion, on March 5, 2020, U.S. Representatives Larry Buchson (R-IN) and Diana DeGette (D-CO) and U.S. Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) introduced identical versions of the Verifying Accurate and Leading-edge IVCT Development (VALID) Act in both chambers of Congress. The bipartisan legislation closely tracks existing medical device laws, with some notable exceptions, discussed below and in a prior post. If enacted, many regulatory elements familiar to in vitro diagnostic (IVD) and other medical device manufacturers would be applied to clinical laboratories that develop their own tests, commonly known as laboratory developed tests (LDTs). The bill also includes elements that are priorities for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including a program conceptually similar to pre-certification, third-party review, and Collaborative Communities. Unlike previously-circulated discussion drafts, the introduced bills include specific language designed to address public health emergencies, including COVID-19.
Read more
Read about health care qui tam litigation trends for the 12 months that ended on January 31 and significant cases, including two involving the issue of medical necessity.
Read more
Read less

News & Press

Press Release Thumbnail

Mintz is pleased to announce that 120 firm attorneys have been recognized as leaders by Best Lawyers® in the 2024 edition of The Best Lawyers in America©.

Press Release Thumbnail

BOSTON – Mintz has earned top rankings in the 2023 edition of Legal 500 United States guide. The firm is recognized in 14 practice categories, and 59 individual attorneys are also recognized in the guide, some in more than one category.

Press Release Thumbnail

Best Lawyers® recognized 108 firm attorneys in the 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in America©. Notably, two Mintz attorneys – Poonam Patidar and Scott M. Stanton – received 2023 “Lawyer of the Year” awards, and 28 firm attorneys were included in the inaugural edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.

Press Release Thumbnail
In the latest guide, Mintz garnered rankings as a top national firm in eight practice areas, and 32 firm attorneys were individually recognized.
Press Release Thumbnail
Mintz partner and Massachusetts lawyer Julie Korostoff is one of 49 attorneys recognized as “Leaders in Their Fields” by the 2018 Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business guide. Chambers named Korostoff a “Recognized Practitioner” in Technology.
Mintz is pleased to announce that eight attorneys have been named Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers for 2018 and three others have been named Washington, D.C. Rising Stars. The annual publication identifies lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.
Press Release Thumbnail
Best Lawyers named 85 Mintz attorneys to its 2018 list of The Best Lawyers in America. In addition, Mintz attorneys Matthew J. Gardella and Samuel M. Tony Starr were named “Lawyer of the Year” in their respective practice areas.
Eight Mintz attorneys have been named Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers for 2017 and four have been named Washington, D.C. Rising Stars. The list will be published in a special advertising supplement in The Washington Post Magazine and in a stand-alone magazine, Washington D.C. Super Lawyers Magazine.
Best Lawyers named 73 Mintz attorneys to its 2017 list of The Best Lawyers in America. Mintz attorneys selected for inclusion in this year’s list span 44 practice areas. 
Firm’s National Healthcare Practice, NY Corporate/M&A and Litigation: General Commercial Among Newest Rankings
Mintz Members Hope Foster and Larry Freedman authored this Law360 column providing an overview of “some of the most important joint criminal and civil matters” impacting health care fraud enforcement from 2015 into 2016.
Mintz Members Hope Foster and Larry Freedman authored this Law360 column, the second part in a three-part series, discussing some of the more notable cases and criminal prosecutions pertaining to health care enforcement in 2015.
This column kicks off a three-part series from the Mintz Health Law team. Members Hope Foster and Larry Freedman authored this Law360 piece that recaps policy developments impacting fraud enforcement in 2015.
The 2015 Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business guide names 52 Mintz, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.  attorneys as “Leaders in Their Fields.”
Seven Mintz attorneys have been named Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers for 2015 and five have been named Washington, D.C. Rising Stars. The list will be published in a special advertising supplement in Washington Post Magazine and in a stand-alone Washington D.C. Super Lawyers Magazine.
Read less

Recognition & Awards

  • Best Lawyers in America: Health Care Law (2011-2024)

  • Included on the Washington DC Super Lawyers: Health Care list (2012-2020)

  • Recognized by The Legal 500 United States for Healthcare: Service Providers (2018-2020, 2022-2023), Leading Lawyer (2024)

  • Chambers USA: District of Columbia (Band 1) – Healthcare (2009-2024)

  • Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent

  • Nightingale’s Healthcare News: Outstanding Healthcare Fraud and Compliance Lawyer (2008, 2010)

Read less


  • Member, American Health Lawyers Association
  • Member, District of Columbia Bar Association
  • Member, American Bar Association (ABA)
  • Member, ABA White Collar Crime Committee
  • Member, ABA Health Care Committee
  • Member, ABA Antitrust Committee
  • Member, ABA Subcommittee on Health Care Fraud and Abuse
Read less