A healthcare fraud inquiry can begin with an audit, payment suspension, interview request, subpoena, search warrant, licensing complaint, or contact from an insurer or government agency. The allegations may concern a private health plan, Medi-Cal, Medicare, TRICARE, or several payers at once. Providers, owners, executives, billers, marketers, pharmacists, and other employees can all become witnesses, subjects, or targets.
Suspicious data or a billing disagreement is not the same as proof of fraud. Criminal laws generally require proof tied to a particular false claim, statement, scheme, and state of mind. A defense should identify who did what, which payer was involved, what the records show, and whether the government can prove knowledge or intent beyond an ordinary coding, documentation, or medical-judgment dispute.
Call 888-702-8882 for a free, confidential consultation. We are available 24/7.
Healthcare fraud is not one single California charge. The possible law depends on the claim, payer, representation, referral arrangement, document, and person’s alleged role. Common theories include billing for services or supplies not provided, duplicate claims, upcoding or unbundling, false diagnoses or certifications, claims for care alleged to be medically unnecessary, improper referral payments, patient or provider identity misuse, prescription misconduct, and records allegedly created to support payment.
The prosecution must still prove the elements of the selected offense. A denied claim, overpayment, statistical outlier, incomplete chart, mistaken code, or later medical disagreement does not automatically establish a knowing fraud scheme. The facts may instead support a correction, repayment, contractual dispute, administrative issue, or no violation at all.
California Penal Code section 550 contains several distinct insurance-fraud theories. Sections 550(a)(6) through (9) address knowingly false or fraudulent health care benefit claims, claims for benefits not used by or for the claimant, duplicate claims presented with intent to defraud, and specified undercharge/overcharge reconciliation conduct. Section 550(a)(10) also treats qualifying workers’ compensation health-benefit claims as health care benefit claims for those provisions.
Section 550(c)(2) supplies the punishment framework for violations of subdivisions (a)(6) through (9). When the claim or amount at issue exceeds $950, the statute permits felony or misdemeanor treatment with the custody and fine options stated in section 550(c)(2)(A). When it is $950 or less, section 550(c)(2)(B) provides misdemeanor treatment. Claims may be aggregated over a 12-consecutive-month period. The threshold affects charging and punishment; it does not by itself establish that conduct was fraudulent.
A private-insurer matter may lead to a California prosecution under section 550 or another state law. Medi-Cal is California’s Medicaid program, so a provider matter may involve the Department of Health Care Services and the California Department of Justice’s Division of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse. Medicare and TRICARE are federal programs, and investigations can involve federal prosecutors and agencies. One set of claims can create both state and federal exposure.
18 U.S.C. section 1347 addresses knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud a health care benefit program or obtain program money or property through false pretenses connected to health care benefits, items, or services. 18 U.S.C. section 1035 separately addresses specified materially false statements, concealment, and documents in health care matters. Scheme, materiality, knowledge, willfulness, causation, and each defendant’s actual role remain fact-specific.
Ownership, employment, access to records, or receipt of business revenue does not automatically prove that a person knowingly joined a fraud scheme. The defense should trace responsibility for the claim, coding choice, chart entry, referral, certification, and payment.
Investigators may focus on services not rendered, duplicate claims, upcoding, unbundling, false dates, inaccurate provider identifiers, or supplies allegedly not delivered. The records, payer rules, delegation, training, corrections, and person who submitted or caused the claim can matter.
A referral or marketing payment can trigger scrutiny when the government alleges it was tied to reimbursable services. The agreement, fair-market-value evidence, actual work, decision-making, disclosures, and connection to claims should be reviewed rather than assuming every business relationship is criminal.
Medical-necessity cases can involve charts, diagnostic criteria, coverage rules, consultations, supervision, treatment outcomes, sampling methods, and competing expert opinions. A retrospective disagreement does not automatically prove that a clinician knowingly falsified a claim.
Other matters involve altered charts, false certifications, patient or professional identities, prescription records, controlled substances, or credentials. Prescription billing allegations should be separated from forged-prescription, diversion, possession, or unlawful-prescribing theories.
The agency mix depends on the payer and conduct. California matters may involve DHCS program-integrity or investigations personnel, the California Department of Justice’s Division of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse, a local district attorney, a licensing board, or an insurer’s special investigations unit. Federal matters may involve the U.S. Department of Justice, FBI, HHS-OIG, CMS, DEA, or another program agency. The first contact does not always reveal whether someone is a witness, subject, or target.
A criminal investigation can proceed alongside a civil False Claims Act matter, civil monetary penalty or exclusion proceeding, payer recoupment, payment suspension, credentialing action, or professional-board complaint. Those tracks have different standards, procedures, deadlines, and consequences. A civil settlement or administrative finding does not by itself establish criminal guilt, and an audit does not necessarily mean charges will follow.
Early strategy should account for how one response may affect another forum. Statements submitted to a payer or licensing board may later be reviewed by prosecutors. At the same time, ignoring a deadline can create separate business or professional harm. Coordinated counsel can evaluate privilege, compulsory process, interview risks, preservation, and the order in which issues should be addressed.
Other issues may include mistaken identity, good-faith reliance on qualified personnel or advice, lack of materiality, legitimate services, absence of a scheme, unreliable witnesses, incomplete records, or failure to connect an individual to a false claim. No defense applies automatically, and no result can be promised without reviewing the evidence.
Doctors, nurses, pharmacists, chiropractors, therapists, and other licensees may face a board complaint or reporting issue in addition to criminal exposure. A clinic or supplier may face enrollment, exclusion, payment, credentialing, contracting, or ownership consequences. An accusation does not automatically revoke a license or prove fraud, but professional and business deadlines should be addressed as part of the defense plan.
Healthcare allegations often overlap with broader California fraud defense, private and public insurance fraud, workers’ compensation fraud, or prescription drug fraud. Federal inquiries may require a California federal defense lawyer. Providers should also consider professional criminal and licensing defense, while document-heavy business investigations may overlap with white-collar criminal defense.
No. A coding mistake, incomplete note, denied claim, overpayment, or medical disagreement is not automatically criminal fraud. The government must prove the elements and required state of mind of the charged law.
Medi-Cal is California’s Medicaid program; Medicare is federal. The payer affects which agencies, statutes, procedures, and consequences may apply, although one investigation can involve both state and federal authorities.
An owner’s title alone does not resolve criminal responsibility. Investigators may examine authority, communications, training, access, financial arrangements, corrections, and whether the owner knowingly participated in or caused the alleged conduct.
Not necessarily. Audits can remain administrative or reimbursement matters, but some are referred to investigators or prosecutors. The notice, agency, document requests, payment action, and communications should be reviewed promptly.
It can. A board complaint, reporting requirement, discipline proceeding, credentialing issue, or exclusion concern may arise separately from a criminal case. The outcome depends on the profession, facts, procedure, and governing rules.
Potentially relevant material can include claims, remittances, charts, EHR audit trails, prescriptions, contracts, referral records, policies, access logs, emails, texts, training, corrections, and payer communications. Counsel can help define a defensible preservation scope.
Before answering substantive questions, it is generally prudent to understand who is asking, whether the contact is voluntary or compulsory, your status, and the risks of an incomplete or inaccurate response. A lawyer can assess the request and help protect your rights.
This page provides general information, not legal advice. Reading it, calling the firm, or submitting information does not by itself create an attorney-client relationship. Laws and procedures can change, and every matter depends on its facts, evidence, jurisdiction, and timing. Past results do not guarantee a future outcome.
Call 888-702-8882 to discuss a California healthcare fraud investigation with My Rights Law.
This page was written by the My Rights Law Editorial Team and reviewed for legal accuracy by Bobby Shamuilian.
Attorney Shamuilian is the founder and managing partner of My Rights Law and is widely recognized as a legal authority, frequently appearing as a legal analyst and TV pundit on national news outlets.
He has earned a perfect “10.0 – Top Attorney” rating on AVVO and a “10.0” rating on Justia, and has been named among the “Top 40 Under 40” and the “Top 100 Trial Lawyers” by The National Trial Lawyers.
With his proven expertise and dedication, Mr. Shamuilian is committed to protecting your rights and achieving the best possible outcome for your case.
The last modified date shows when this page was most recently reviewed.
schedule a free confidential consultation
