Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did an interest in healthcare policy lead Robert Platt to a career in the law? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Envision to Sell to KKR for $9.9 Billion

We represented Envision Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: EVHC) in its definitive agreement to sell to KKR in an all-cash transaction for $9.9 billion, including debt. KKR will pay $46 per Envision share in cash to buy the company, marking a 32 percent premium to the company's volume-weighted average share price from November 1, when Envision announced it was considering its options. The transaction is expected to close the fourth quarter of 2018. Read more

Envision Healthcare

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Six Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice spotlight

Dermatology, ophthalmology, radiology, urology…the list goes on. Yet, in any physician practice management transaction, there are six key considerations that apply and, if not carefully managed, can derail a transaction. Download the 6 Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice to keep your physician practice management transactions on track.

Click here to download the guide.

GovCon Blog: A New Front in the Battle Against Fraud – the Continued Expansion of State False Claims Act Liability


February 18, 2015

Following the federal government's example, states are increasingly looking to their own false claims act ("FCA") statutes to combat procurement and healthcare fraud. This trend is being driven by two main factors: (1) the huge recoveries by the Department of Justice ("DOJ") under the federal FCA – $5.7 billion in Fiscal Year 2014 alone; and (2) a federal statute that provided a financial incentive for states to mirror their own FCAs on the federal FCA with regard to healthcare fraud. This state-level activity represents a new front in the battle against procurement fraud, one that government contractors must be aware of to fully analyze and mitigate risks when contracting with state entities.

Currently, 33 states and the District of Columbia have a false claims statute. Of these, 11 states have FCAs that are limited to healthcare fraud; the remaining statutes penalize a broad range of false claims. Many – but not all – of these state FCAs have provisions allowing for whistleblowers to file qui tam actions on behalf of the state government and to share in any recovery.

Given the enormous recoveries under the federal FCA, states see an opportunity to recover funds by expanding their own FCAs. While healthcare sector and, more recently, financial sector recoveries account for the majority of funds recovered under the federal FCA, significant liability risks exist in the government contracts space, with approximately $300 million of DOJ's recoveries in FY 2014 flowing from procurement and grant cases. Of the $5.7 billion recovered in FY 2014, cases filed by whistleblowers accounted for nearly $3 billion, with the whistleblowers receiving $435 million.

In addition, under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 ("DRA") the federal government incentivized states to implement or expand their FCAs. Under the DRA, if a state's FCA is as robust as the federal FCA, particularly with respect to the whistleblower incentives and protections, then the state is authorized to keep a portion of the federal government's share of recovered Medicaid funds in addition to the state's own recoveries. Since the DRA was passed, a number of states have revised their FCAs and sought to become eligible for this incentive. The Department of Health and Human Services publishes its state FCA reviews here. Earlier this month, Maryland, New Jersey and Vermont became the latest states to take action to either establish or expand the scope of existing FCA legislation:

  • Vermont – On February 4, legislation was proposed in Vermont that would establish a state false claims act. The proposed law in many ways mirrors the federal FCA. 
  • New Jersey – A bill was voted out of the New Jersey Assembly's Health and Senior Services Committee on February 5. If passed, the law would allow New Jersey's FCA to apply retroactively to certain civil actions for false claims made prior to March 13, 2008, the date the original statute took effect. The bill was introduced in response to an October 2011 appellate ruling that held the New Jersey FCA applies only prospectively.
  • Maryland – On February 6, a bill was introduced in Maryland that proposed to expand the scope of the state's existing false claims statute to cases beyond Medicaid and healthcare-related fraud. The current statute, enacted in 2010, is limited to healthcare. 

Some state FCA actions based on alleged procurement fraud have already resulted in large settlements. For example, on January 14, 2014, a California judge approved a $68.5 million settlement to resolve allegations that Office Depot allegedly overcharged California government agencies for office supplies in violation of the state's FCA. Office Depot settled similar overcharging allegations with Florida in 2010 for $4.5 million.

Because of the incentives provided by the DRA and the size of the recoveries under the federal FCA, we expect state legislatures to continue to expand state FCA statutes. As state prosecutors and whistleblowers become more familiar with these authorities, companies contracting with state entities will face increased risk of state FCA action. It is important that contractors understand this new legal landscape and have policies and procedures in place to adequately mitigate this risk.

Read more about government contracts on

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.