Menu Close

Oroville Hospital Resolves Kickbacks and False Billing Claim for $10.25M

Oroville Hospital was founded in 1962 and is a 153-bed acute care facility that offers a variety of services, including inpatient and outpatient care, a radiology department, and multiple physician practices. It’s a Level 3 Trauma Center, which means its Emergency Service Department treats all but the most severe neurological, pediatric, and burn patients. It is owned by OroHealth Corporation, a private, non-profit organization. OroHealth Corporation has two subsidiaries: Oroville Hospital, an acute care inpatient and outpatient facility, and OroLake Corporation, a regional sales and service organization. .

Oroville Hospital has agreed to pay $10.25 million to the United States and the State of California to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act and the Anti-Kickback Statute, U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert announced today.

The settlement resolves allegations that Oroville Hospital engaged in an illegal kickback and physician self-referral scheme by paying kickbacks to physicians for patients they admitted to the hospital, and that it knowingly submitted false claims to Medicare and Medi-Cal for medically unnecessary hospital admissions and claims that included false diagnosis codes. Oroville Hospital will pay $9,518,954 to the federal government and $731,046 to the State of California.

The settlement resolves allegations that, to increase hospital admissions, Oroville Hospital illegally paid kickbacks to its physicians who were responsible for deciding whether individuals should be admitted as inpatients. These physicians allegedly received a bonus based on how many patients they admitted, according to the settlement agreement.

The settlement also resolves allegations that Oroville Hospital admitted patients as inpatients when it knew inpatient care was not medically necessary. Oroville Hospital then submitted claims to Medicare and Medicaid for inpatient care, which is more expensive. Oroville Hospital further allegedly submitted claims to Medicare and Medicaid that included false diagnosis codes for systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), resulting in excessive reimbursement to the Hospital.

In connection with the settlement, Oroville Hospital entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) that requires, among other requirements, the implementation of a risk assessment and internal review process designed to identify and address evolving compliance risks. The Corporate Integrity Agreement also requires an independent review organization to, among other requirements, annually assess both the medical necessity and appropriateness of select claims billed to Medicare and policies and systems to track arrangements with some referral sources.

The civil settlement includes the resolution of claims brought under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act by Cecilia Guardiola. Under those provisions, a private party can file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of any recovery. The qui tam case is captioned United States ex rel. Cecilia Guardiola v. Oroville Hosp., Case No. 2:20-CV-1558 (E.D. Cal.). As part of the settlement announced today, Ms. Guardiola will receive approximately $1.8 million.

“Physicians should make decisions based the best interests of their patients, not their own personal financial interests,” said U.S. Attorney Talbert. “Hospitals engaging in kickback schemes betray the trust placed in them by their communities and distort care decisions that should be untainted by illegal kickbacks. This settlement demonstrates my office’s commitment to preserving the integrity of public healthcare programs and ensuring that the well-being of patients remains paramount.”

“Improperly billing federal health care programs depletes valuable government resources used to provide medical care to millions of Americans,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “We will continue to advocate for the appropriate use of Medicare and Medicaid funds, and we will pursue health care providers who defraud taxpayers by knowingly submitting false claims.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Tennyson handled the case for the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The resolution obtained in this matter was the result of a coordinated effort between the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California, the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Section, the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, and the California Department of Justice, Division of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse.

The claims resolved by this settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

Kaiser Permanente Quadrupled Hospital at Home Care in 2024

Kaiser Permanente’s hospital-at-home program (HaH) has grown significantly in the past year, nearly quadrupling its capacity. The program’s average daily census has increased from 22.5 to 80.6 across all regions. Some of the areas where Kaiser Permanente offers Care at Home services include: Northern California, Southern California, Georgia, Mid-Atlantic states, Northwest, and Washington state.

Kaiser Permanente has been developing infrastructure to support the program’s growth, and building confidence in the program among patients and staff. The program is also encouraging more admissions from the emergency department and inpatients.

Research from Kaiser Permanente published last year reveals that its hospital-at-home program was scaled successfully, creating hospital capacity; however, the program’s care quality as it was being scaled could not be determined. Published in The American Journal of Managed Care, the study aimed to assess the feasibility of scaling a hospital-at-home program within an integrated healthcare delivery system.

Such programs are well established in England, Canada, Israel, and other countries where payment policies encourage – or at least do not discourage – the provision of health care services in less costly venues.

In Victoria, Australia, for example, every metropolitan and regional hospital has a hospital at home program, and roughly 6 percent of all hospital bed-days are provided that way. For specific conditions, the use of at-home care is significantly greater: nearly 60 percent of all patients with deep venous thrombosis (DVT) were treated at home in 2008, as were 25 percent of all hospital patients admitted for acute cellulitis.

A 2018 study by the Cincinnati Veterans Affairs Medical Center examined hospital readmissions, costs, mortality, and nursing home admissions of veterans who received Hospital-in-Home (HIH) services. Average per person costs were $7,792 for HIH services and $10,960 for traditional inpatient care (P<0.001). HIH veterans were less likely to use a nursing home within 30 days of discharge (3.1%) than non-HIH veterans (12.6%) (P<0.001). Thirty-day readmission rates and mortality were not statistically different between HIH and non-HIH veterans.

And a recent article in Forbes said that Since 2020, hospital-at-home programs have gained substantial traction as a patient-centered alternative to hospital care. Although available in the U.S. since the 1990s, these programs – delivering acute medical care in a home setting through care coordination, telehealth and remote patient monitoring (RPM) – are on the rise.

Forbes reports that with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ waiver, over 350 hospitals across the U.S. have implemented or are planning to launch HaH programs. While high initial costs and implementation challenges remain, research shows that HaH care is 32% less expensive than inpatient care. As hospitals increasingly adopt these programs, evidence continues to support HaH as an affordable, viable model for acute care delivery.

Traditional hospital care requires substantial resources to maintain inpatient beds, utilities and facility management. Operating a hospital involves constant operational costs – from electricity and water to the cleaning and upkeep of facilities. HaH programs alleviate much of this financial burden by shifting care to the home setting and minimizing the need for expensive infrastructure.

Former Insurance Agent Arraigned in $900K Long-Term Care Fraud Scheme

54 year old Jingjin “Kathy” Bian, who lives in Cupertino, was arraigned on felony charges of insurance fraud after a California Department of Insurance investigation revealed she allegedly received over $900,000 in undeserved long-term care insurance benefits for her and her father.

Bian, a former insurance agent, was in a car accident in August 2018, resulting in a back injury and her filing claims to enact her long-term care benefits on her life insurance policy.

The benefits were approved by her insurance company in January 2019 and she ended up receiving over $300,000 in benefits including for caregiver reimbursement.

The Department of Insurance began its investigation after her insurance company suspected fraud. Through surveillance she was observed performing activities independently, with no caregiver present, directly contradicting her claimed disabilities and reasons needing for caregiver reimbursement.

Bian was also the legal representative for her 81-year-old father, who lived with her and also had a life insurance policy with the same insurance company.

In February 2018 Bian’s father was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease and he filed a claim to enact the long-term care benefits on his insurance policy. The claim stated he required hands on assistance and required a walker when going outside. Bian’s father’s claim application for benefits was approved by the insurance company in February 2019 and he received over $600,000 in benefits.

Surveillance observed Bian’s father performing activities independently, with no caregiver present, directly contradicting his claimed disabilities. The investigation found that Bian was listed as her father’s legal representative in all correspondence and that all of her father’s policy correspondence, care provider scheduling, and billing were handled by Bian.

Bian’s alleged actions resulting in a loss of $900,000 to the insurance company. Bian is out on bail and is scheduled to return to court on April 16, 2025. The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office is prosecuting this case.

December 2, 2024 – News Podcast


Rene Thomas Folse, JD, Ph.D. is the host for this edition which reports on the following news stories: Supreme Court Rejected Long Standing Rule in Carrier Subrogation Case. Jury Awards Injured Walmart Truck Driver $34M For Subrosa Based Discharge. SoCal School District Joins 200 Self-Funded Employers Suing Drugmakers. Fresno Pharmacist to Serve 7 Years for Trafficking 450,000 Opiate Pills. Pharmaceutical Company and Its CEO Pay $47M to Resolve Kickback Case. U-S Framing West Faces 31 Wage Theft Criminal Charges. So Cal Prosecutors Fight New Street Drug 3 Times Stronger Than Fentanyl. Decline in WC Opioid Use Outpaced Decline in Overall Population.

California Moves to top 10 in National Hospital Safety Ratings Study

The Leapfrog Hospital Safety Grade is the only hospital ratings program focused exclusively on preventing medical errors and patient harm. It is fully transparent, free to the public and updated biannually in the fall and spring.

The Group released its fall 2024 Hospital Safety Grade, evaluating nearly 3,000 hospitals on their ability to prevent medical errors, accidents and infections.

The Hospital Safety Grade uses up to 30 performance measures to assign an “A,” “B,” “C,” “D” or “F” to individual hospitals and uses a public, peer-reviewed methodology, calculated by top patient safety experts under the guidance of a National Expert Panel. It is transparent and free to the public. Leapfrog analysts use the data to observe national performance trends and state rankings.

For fall 2024, Utah ranks number one with the highest percentage of “A” hospitals for the third cycle in a row, followed by Virginia and Connecticut in second and third. The latest Grades also show hospitals are making progress in patient safety across several performance measures including notable improvements in healthcare-associated infections, hand hygiene and medication safety.

“Preventable deaths and harm in hospitals have been a major policy concern for decades. So, it is good news that Leapfrog’s latest Safety Grades reveal that hospitals across the country are making notable gains in patient safety, saving countless lives,” stated Leah Binder, President and CEO of The Leapfrog Group. “Next, we need hospitals to accelerate this progress – because no one should have to die from a preventable error in a hospital.”

Key findings on state performance on the fall 2024 Leapfrog Hospital Safety Grade include:

– – The states with the highest percentages of “A” hospitals are Utah, Virginia, Connecticut, North Carolina, New Jersey, California, Rhode Island, Idaho, Pennsylvania, Colorado and South Carolina.
– – Utah ranks #1 in percentage of “A” hospitals for the third Safety Grade cycle in a row.
– – California ranks in the top 10 for the first time since fall 2014.
– – There were no “A” hospitals in Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota or Vermont.

Regrettably, Pacifica Hospital of the Valley in Sun Valley California received a grade of “F” and seventeen California hospitals received a grade of “D.” Pacifica Hosptial was rated “D” in fall of 2021, and fell to “F” in sprint 2022 and has remained at “F” ever since.

Detailed hospital performance information, including patient experience and safety measures, as well as grades for individual hospitals searchable by states and localities is available at HospitalSafetyGrade.org.

Bay Area Home Health Company Owner to Serve 2 Years for Fraud

Veronica Katz was sentenced to two years in federal prison and ordered to pay $543,634.34 in restitution for committing health care fraud.The sentence was handed down by U.S. District Court Judge James Donato.

Katz, 36, of San Francisco, was indicted by a federal grand jury on Oct. 17, 2023, along with two co-defendants. Katz pleaded guilty on Apr. 18, 2024, to one count of health care fraud.

Katz was the owner and operator of HealthNow Home Healthcare and Hospice (HealthNow), a home health agency that provided in-home medical care to patients in the Bay Area. HealthNow billed Medicare and private insurance companies for in-home medical care. In the course of operating HealthNow, Katz submitted false documentation to Medicare in order to obtain reimbursements in violation of Medicare’s rules and regulations.

According to Katz’s plea agreement, she participated in a scheme to defraud Medicare that took a number of forms, including using the identities of licensed medical practitioners on electronic medical records and billing information without the practitioners’ knowledge or consent; directing certain individuals to prepare “Start of Care” (SOC) forms even though the individuals were not Registered Nurses (RNs), as required by Medicare; manipulating electronic patient medical records in order to make it appear as if RNs had completed the patient SOCs; and billing Medicare for physical therapy services that Katz knew had not been provided.

In addition, Katz admitted that she took steps to thwart law enforcement’s investigation into HealthNow. In October 2019, Katz met with one of her HealthNow employees, who informed Katz that Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents had questioned the employee regarding the company’s billing practices and SOC assessments.

Katz instructed the employee to lie to the FBI and falsely state that the employee had been trained and supervised by an RN in the course of conducting SOC assessments.

In addition to the term of imprisonment and restitution, Judge Donato also sentenced Katz to a three-year period of supervised release and ordered her to pay a $50,000 fine Katz will begin serving her sentence on Jan. 6, 2025.

Co-defendant Vennesa Herrera pleaded guilty on Aug. 30, 2021, to conspiracy to commit health care fraud and health care fraud, and will be sentenced on Mar. 17, 2025. Co-defendant Simon Katz’s trial is scheduled for May 12, 2025.

Assistant United States Attorney Christiaan Highsmith is prosecuting the case with the assistance of Helen Yee and Mark DiCenzo. The prosecution is the result of a lengthy investigation by the FBI, HHS-OIG, and the California Department of Public Health.

Subminimum Wage For Disabled Workers Ends in California on January 1

In 1938, President Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) into law. It was a landmark piece of civil rights legislation designed to protect the rights of workers.

At the time, there was a fear that people with disabilities would be disadvantaged by the law and experience high rates of unemployment if employers had to pay comparable wages to people with and without disabilities. Therefore Section 14(c) of the FLSA (14(c)) was written into the law to allow employers to pay workers with disabilities lower wages.

Accordingly, California also included similar exemptions in its state Labor Code, in Sections 1191 and 1191.5.

The Fair Labor Standards Act authorizes the Secretary of Labor to issue certificates allowing employers to pay productivity-based subminimum wages to workers with disabilities, but only where such certificates are necessary to prevent the curtailment of opportunities for employment. Employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities have vastly expanded in recent decades, in part due to significant legal and policy developments.

Section 14(c) was little known and rarely used until the 1950s when sheltered workshops began to flourish. Sheltered workshops were started with good intentions as parents were seeking a way to keep their children out of institutions. The law currently has about 40,000 American workers laboring for half the minimum wage or less, according to the Labor Department.

However a proposed new rule, announced on December 4 with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), would end the issuing of 14(c) certificates, which permit businesses to pay people with disabilities below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. If implemented, the proposal would phase out 14(c) certificates altogether over a 3-year period, ending subminimum wage nationwide.

The Labor Department’s proposal follows a review of the program, and the new rule would not take effect until a public comment period ends on Jan. 17, 2025, days before President-elect Donald Trump takes office. The new administration could review and respond to the comments and issue a final rule, or withdraw it entirely.

If finalized, the proposed federal rule would not require workers with disabilities to leave their current places of employment and would not require current section 14(c) certificate holders to amend the employment setting or type of services they provide.

Subminimum wage for disabled workers in California will however end this January.

In 2021, Disability Rights California sponsored legislation to phase out subminimum wage in California. With the passage of SB 639 (Durazo), subminimum wage for Californians with disabilities will be fully phased out at the start of 2025.

California joins more than a dozen states and the District of Columbia that have already banned the program.

Today, unemployment rates among people with disabilities remain disproportionally high, despite the continued use of 14(c) and California exemptions. In 2019, California ranked 22nd in the nation for its employment of people with disabilities. People with disabilities experienced employment rates at 36.9 percent compared to 75.6 percent for their peers. Additionally, people with disabilities also represent a larger portion of the population not included in the labor force. Nationally, about 8 in 10 were not in the labor force in 2019, compared with about 3 in 10 of those with no disability.

WCIRB Geostudy Shows LA Basin Most Costly Area For Claims

The Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California (WCIRB) released the WCIRB Geo Study 2024, which underscores regional differences in claim characteristics across California. A web-based interactive map allows you to quickly view key measures across regions.

The study’s key findings include the following:

– – Even after controlling for regional differences in wages and industry mix, indemnity claim frequency continues to be significantly higher than the statewide average in the LA Basin and significantly lower than the statewide average in Northern California. This relationship has been fairly consistent over time, although the magnitude of the difference has fluctuated.
– – The LA/Long Beach region has the highest claim frequency, more than 35% above the statewide average.
– – The Yuba City/Redding/Far North and Peninsula/Silicon Valley regions have the lowest claim frequency, more than20% below the statewide average.
– – Regional differences in indemnity claim severity are more muted than for claim frequency. The magnitude of the differences has been consistent over time, but the relative severities by region have fluctuated. The severity relativities shown are adjusted for classification mix.
– – The highest severity cost is in SLO/Santa Barbara, which is more than 10% above the statewide average.
– – The lowest severity costs are in the San Bernardino/West Riverside and Sacramento regions, around 6% below the statewide average.
– – After adjustment for industry mix, regions with lower indemnity frequency tend to have a higher share of large claims, and there is a significant amount of variation among regions.
– – Yuba City/Redding/Far North, Sonoma/Napa and Bay Area have shares of large claims that are above the statewide average.
– – San Bernardino/West Riverside, LA/Long Beach and San Gabriel Valley/Pasadena have shares of large claims that are below the statewide average.
– – There has been a slight increase in the statewide share of indemnity claims that include permanent disability from PY 2021 to PY 2022 at 18 months (RL 1), reversing the decreases since PY 2015
– – Southern California regions have higher shares of indemnity claims with permanent disability than Northern California regions. SLO/Santa Barbara, Tulare/Inyo and LA/Long Beach have the highest shares, with more than 28% of their indemnity claims having permanent disability.
– – Sacramento, Stockton/Modesto/Merced, Bay Area and Peninsula/Silicon Valley have the lowest shares, with less than 22% of their indemnity claims having permanent disability.
– – The share of indemnity claims that include permanent disability is more than 17% above the statewide average in LA/Long Beach and 15% below the statewide average in Ventura at 90 months.
– – Southern California regions were more likely to have an increase in the share of CT claims. San Bernardino/West Riverside and LA/Long Beach (16) have had the largest increases at more than 2%.
– – The statewide share of paid medical for medical-legal reports continued to increase and is at an all-time high for this regional study. The share increased in nearly all regions, but the magnitude varied by region.
– – Medical-legal reports account for a significantly greater share of paid medical in the LA Basin than in the rest of the state.
– – Santa Monica/San Fernando Valley, LA/Long Beach and San Gabriel Valley/Pasadena have the highest shares, more than 12%.
– – Yuba City/Redding/Far North has the lowest share, less than 6%.
– – The LA/Long Beach and Orange County regions had the highest share of litigated indemnity claims, at more than 12% above the statewide average.
– –  The Yuba City/Redding/Far North and Sonoma/Napa regions had the lowest shares of litigated indemnity claims, at more than 17% below the statewide average.

Safety National Announces Winners of the 2024 Safety First Grant Program

Safety National® is a specialty insurance and reinsurance provider with its corporate headquarters in St. Louis Missouri . It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc., a Tokyo-based global insurer with a presence in over 40 countries.

Safety National just announced the winners of its annual Safety First Grant Program. Three policyholders will be awarded matching grants in order to develop the creative risk control ideas they submitted into formal safety programs.

“As a market leader and safety advocate, we are committed to identifying industry innovation that reduces the risk of employee injury and illness,” said Mark Wilhelm, Executive Chairman of Safety National. “Over the last 10 years, the Safety First Grant Program has funded 32 risk control projects, responding to the emerging needs of our clients while building a blueprint for safer workplaces.”

Winners of the 2024 program included:

– – First Place: Berry Global was awarded the $10,000 matching grant for the addition of radar technology capable of detecting human motion inside of an industrial robot cell. This innovation will prevent dangerous machine restarts, which can result in significant injury.
– – Second Place: Bigge Group was awarded the $5,000 matching grant toward the implementation of an enterprise-wide system used to monitor workplace temperature. These sensors can detect rising heat levels, mitigating heat-related illnesses.
– – Third Place: Lam Research was awarded the $2,500 matching grant to install ergonomic improvement equipment, including over 30 pneumatic and electric adjustable tables. This technology will eliminate problematic manual material handling tasks that lead to musculoskeletal disorders.

Nominees for the annual Safety First Grant Program must be an active Safety National policyholder with a risk-reducing solution that applies to the workers’ compensation line of coverage. The applied solutions must relate to an identifiable and quantifiable loss source and include an anticipated estimate of injury cost savings for the policyholder.

“Each year, our applicants submit increasingly impressive innovative and creative risk management ideas for this program, finding new ways to build a safer workplace for their employees,” said Matt McDonough, Assistant Vice President Risk Control of Safety National. “In celebrating these winning submissions, we hope other organizations are inspired to discover their next great risk-reducing solutions.”

Full details on the 2024 Safety First Grant Program winning solutions can be found on its website.

The 2025 grant application period will open in June 2025.

Late Arbitration Fee Penalties Not Applicable to Post Dispute Agreement

Stephnie Trujillo filed a complaint against her former employer J-M Manufacturing Company (JMM) and four former coworkers David Merritt, David Moore, David Christian, and Chuck Clark.alleging five causes of action: 1) unlawful sexual/gender discrimination; 2) unlawful sexual/gender harassment; 3) failure to prevent sexual/gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; 4) retaliation for opposing forbidden practices; and 5) injunctive relief.

On February 22, 2021, JMM reminded Trujillo that in 2012, she executed JMM’s arbitration agreement that required her to resolve any employment disputes by private arbitration. Based thereon, JMM asked Trujillo to submit to arbitration. A dispute arose regarding the applicability and validity of some of the terms of the pre-dispute arbitration agreement.

After weeks of negotiating, the parties entered into a stipulation for arbitration, later signed as an order by the trial court. Court proceedings were stayed and the parties initiated arbitration in May 2021.

JMM timely paid the arbitrator’s invoices for over a year. On October 18, 2022, the arbitrator contacted JMM and requested payment for the invoice with a due date of September 12, 2022. JMM immediately paid the invoice. Later that evening,

Trujillo gave notice of her intent to withdraw from arbitration due to JMM’s late payment. She filed a motion to withdraw from arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure2 section 1281.98, which the trial court granted.

The Court of Appeal reversed in the published case of Trujillo v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. B331083 (December 2024).

On appeal, JMM and the four coworkers argue the trial court erred in ruling that section 1281.98 applied. Appellants contend the statute does not apply to them because: 1) they entered into a post-dispute stipulation to arbitrate with mutually agreed upon terms, whereas the statute governs mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements; and 2) they were not the “drafting party” as defined in section 1280, subdivision (e). The Court of Appeal agreed.

We decide, in the first instance, whether the parties’ entry into a post-, not pre-, dispute arbitration agreement affects the applicability of section 1281.98. We note that every single appellate opinion we reviewed above involved arbitration arising from a pre-dispute arbitration agreement. Not a single case considered or addressed a section 1281.98 issue arising from a post-dispute arbitration agreement.”

“We conclude the Legislature intended to limit section 1281.98’s applicability to arbitration arising from a pre-dispute agreement. We so conclude because the Legislature provided us with a clear answer by reading section 1281.98 alongside section 1280. Section 1281.98, subdivision (a)(1) refers to the failure to timely pay arbitration fees by ‘the drafting party,’ a term defined by section 1280, subdivision (e) as ‘the company or business that included a predispute arbitration provision in a contract with a consumer or employee.’ ”