Back to Bills

Permanent Exclusion for Health Care Fraud

Full Title:
To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to exclude providers convicted of certain fraud-related criminal offenses from participation in Federal health care programs on a permanent basis.

Summary#

This bill would change Title XI of the Social Security Act. It would make providers convicted of certain fraud-related crimes permanently barred from taking part in Federal health care programs. The stated goal appears to be to prevent repeat fraud and protect program funds.

Key changes:

  • Makes exclusion permanent for providers convicted of certain fraud-related criminal offenses.
  • Applies to Federal health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid (programs that pay for health care with federal funds).
  • Would likely remove the current path for such providers to seek reinstatement after a set period.
  • Enforcement would occur through the existing exclusion process under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but the bill text is needed to confirm details.
  • What is unclear: which exact offenses trigger permanent exclusion, who counts as a “provider,” whether any exceptions or waivers exist, and when the change would take effect.

What it means for you#

  • Health care providers (individuals or organizations) convicted of certain fraud-related crimes

    • You would be permanently banned from billing or receiving payment from Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health programs.
    • You would likely be barred from ordering items or services for program patients or working in roles where your services are billed to those programs.
    • You would likely not be able to apply for reinstatement later. The bill does not clearly state if any appeal or waiver options remain.

  • Health care employers, clinics, hospitals, pharmacies, and managed care plans

    • You would need to ensure you do not employ or contract with any person or entity permanently excluded under this rule in roles tied to program billing.
    • You may need to update hiring, credentialing, and regular screening to catch permanent exclusions. Many organizations already screen for exclusions; this change could make some exclusions last forever.

  • Patients in Federal health care programs (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, etc.)

    • You would not be able to receive program-paid services from providers permanently excluded for certain fraud crimes.
    • This could reduce fraud exposure. In some areas, if an excluded provider is one of few local options, there could be short-term access impacts until you switch providers.

  • State Medicaid agencies and contractors

    • You would need to honor permanent exclusions when enrolling providers and paying claims.
    • Claims tied to excluded providers would need to be denied or recovered.

If you do not interact with Federal health care programs, this bill may have little direct effect on you.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Possible effects to consider:

  • HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) and related agencies may face added workload to implement permanent exclusions and handle related appeals or litigation.
  • Health care organizations may face modest compliance work to adjust screening and HR processes, though most already screen for exclusions.
  • There could be savings from avoiding payments to providers with serious fraud convictions, but no estimate is provided.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to deter health care fraud by imposing a strong, clear consequence for serious fraud-related crimes.
  • Permanent exclusion could protect taxpayer funds and program integrity by preventing known offenders from reentering Federal health programs.
  • It could reduce repeat offenses and administrative churn from providers cycling in and out after time-limited exclusions.
  • A bright-line rule may make enforcement more consistent and easier to administer.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that a permanent ban may be too rigid, leaving no path for rehabilitation or case-by-case judgment, even where the offense was long ago or involved mitigating factors.
  • The bill does not clearly define which “fraud-related” crimes trigger permanent exclusion; vague or broad categories could sweep in uneven or lower-level offenses.
  • It is unclear whether any waiver, appeal standard, or time-limited exceptions exist, which may raise fairness and due process concerns.
  • There could be access impacts in underserved areas if a key local provider is permanently excluded, at least until patients transition.
  • Without cost estimates, it is unclear how much added enforcement, legal, or compliance work the change would create for agencies and providers.