HB 1144 Creation of a False Claims Act
January 24, 2007
TO: House Judiciary Committee
FROM: Julie Reiskin, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition
Dear Members of the House Judiciary Committee:
Please accept this written testimony in strong support of HB 1144, Creation of a False Claims Act. I have jury duty or would be here in person to testify. I represent the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition—we have approximately 3000 members throughout the state.
This bill is essential and is a way to restore accountability and trust of the voters. When the voters passed Ref C it was clear that while they trusted the legislature to bring us out of the recession and restore vital programs, they also had some serious distrust over how Government does business and the lack of accountability. While Ref C was critical, the distrust is very real and needs to be addressed. This bill will go a long way towards addressing some serious problems, and will likely save the state significant amounts of money.
This bill will allow a private person to engage in a civil action against someone who makes a false claim against the state. This is already allowed on the federal level and is known as a qui tam action. People who knowingly deceive the government and submit false claims destroy the overall trust in government in general. Therefore it is appropriate that as the government you take action to punish such offenders.
This bill requires the attorney general to diligently investigate violations and more important requires the attorney general to take action once a private citizen forwards a complaint to his or her office. The action may only be dismissed if the attorney general and prosecuting authority give written reasons for dismissal. This will create a level of accountability that does not exist now. By forcing someone to look into false claims against the government and developing a process, the state will no longer be able to look the other way when such claims are presented.
Here are a few real life examples of why this bill is so important.
- One of our members purchased a home after the original owner had died. She has lived in this home for twelve years. Last year, when the state computer system began sending all kinds of notices she began to receive mail from Medicaid in the name of the former, now deceased, occupant. When she could not get the mail to stop she opened one piece to see if there was information she could use to get the mail stopped. What she found was a Medicaid prior approval for this year’s supply of oxygen and oxygen equipment. This means that this has been occurring for the whole twelve years since the person had died. She called the state Medicaid agency to report this and was told, “call the provider”—e.g. the person who had been submitting false claims against the state for 12 years.
- Another of our members complained because her personal care attendant billed for services not rendered. This attendant missed several days of work, leaving our person helpless in her home with no backup. The reason the attendant missed work was because she was in court. When the client complained to the state the investigation consisted of asking the personal care agency about it. The agency produced “documentation” showing that that aide had submitted time sheets (not signed by the client) and had documented that she had performed specific tasks on those days. The state did not bother to verify with the court (which was 50 miles away from the client’s home) if the worker had been in court and for how long. The state dismissed the complaint because “documentation” had been submitted despite an easy way to prove or disprove if the “documentation” was valid.
- A Medicaid transportation company is hired to take a person in a wheelchair to the doctor. This company does not have lift-equipped vehicles, so when they show up of course they do not provide the ride. In addition to billing for the trip (when the information that a wheelchair vehicle was needed was provided) the client did not get to a critical medical appointment and is now in the hospital at state expense.
- A durable medical equipment company bills the state for a new wheelchair. Another wheelchair expert examines the chair and learns that many of the parts are not new, and sees that the serial number is not in the place where the manufacturer typically places it. When this is reported to the state the response is that the state cannot prove that the client (remember, the one in the wheelchair) did not move the serial number or replace parts without authorization. No investigation is done.
- A medical supply company delivers unwanted items. The client says that she did not order the items. The company puts the item down in the doorway of the client’s home and says; “now it has been in your home and we cannot take it back”. The state says that they cannot prove that the client did not ask for the equipment.
All of these events are real and recent. Reporting to existing authorities clearly does not work. If passed, this law would give citizens that rely on government services an avenue to pursue to assure accountability. The bill has safeguards to prevent inappropriate reporting. This bill is a balanced solution to a very serious problem that has caused an erosion of trust by the citizens of this state.
Sincerely,
Julie Reiskin, Executive Director
