DOJ Healthcare Fraud Crackdown Raises the Bar for Compliance Analytics

The government is now looking at the numbers behind healthcare growth.

The U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) has made advanced data analytics central to its healthcare fraud strategy, using claims and payment information to identify providers, billing patterns and entire categories of medical spending that diverge sharply from their peers. The DOJ describes its Health Care Fraud Unit as a leader in using advanced analytics and algorithms to identify emerging fraud schemes, with dedicated analysts working alongside prosecutors from the outset of cases.

As a result, federal fraud enforcement is now happening before an investigator interviews a witness, reviews an email or receives a whistleblower complaint.

For healthcare companies, that means the compliance benchmark is moving as well. Policies can establish what employees are supposed to do. Audits can determine whether specific transactions followed those policies, while whistleblowers can expose conduct hidden from management. But data can reveal something different: what the organization itself may not yet know is happening.

See more: FTC Puts Digital Health’s Growth Playbook on Trial

Healthcare Fraud Enforcement Moves From Tips to Patterns

Healthcare fraud enforcement is hardly abandoning its traditional tools, but the data surfaced by those tools is becoming more important.

DOJ and the Department of Health and Human Services have formalized a False Claims Act working group intended to strengthen referrals and cross-agency cooperation, including through enhanced data mining and analysis of HHS and HHS Office of Inspector General findings. Its stated objective is not merely more referrals, but higher-quality ones. Rather than auditing providers largely one at a time, investigators can compare behavior across large populations and surface statistical anomalies worth examining.

That development creates a more consequential question for healthcare compliance officers. Not simply: Did the company have policies designed to prevent misconduct? But: What could the company have discovered from its own data?

Healthcare organizations already generate extraordinarily detailed transactional records. Claims reveal which services were billed, by whom and how frequently. Payment data shows where money moved. Provider records can reveal relationships and concentrations. Clinical, referral and authorization systems add another layer of context.

The operational consequence has been reduced by the marketplace to a simple directive: “Detect Early.” Companies should identify issues before they escalate into enforcement matters and ensure that their detection capabilities evolve alongside government priorities, and the DOJ itself stressed that routine internal auditing is the best way to identify problems before relators, data miners or agencies do.

“There are existing bodies of law that, while not passed or promulgated for the reason of AI, are still applicable to AI solutions,” Alaap Shah, member of the firm at Epstein Becker Green, told Competition Policy International (CPI), a PYMNTS company, in an interview this month, adding that the question for healthcare firms is not simply whether an AI-specific law applies but whether the system creates risks covered by older legal obligations.

See more: Federal Approval No Longer Guarantees CFOs a Green Light

Fraud Detection Through Data Is Also About Preserving Options

For healthcare firms, self-reporting may become particularly attractive when an issue is already likely to surface through claims data, a qui tam action or an agency audit. Other factors include significant financial exposure, involvement of an enforcement priority and the company’s ability to disclose promptly and remediate the problem.

The objective is not to label every outlier suspicious. It is to develop systems capable of asking why the outlier exists.

“It becomes an ongoing cost that the firms must shoulder and continue to support throughout the life cycle,” Doug McCormack, founder at Acumen Partners, told CPI in an earlier conversation. “That’s a cost that the bigger firms can absorb. But it’s something that’s much more difficult for smaller developers, startup companies, to take on.”

The practical value of better detection is not simply that it helps companies find fraud. It gives them time to decide what to do next. That matters in an enforcement environment where DOJ is rewarding speed, cooperation and remediation, and where claims data itself may make certain issues increasingly difficult to contain internally.

A company that identifies an anomalous billing pattern early has a chance to investigate it, understand whether it reflects misconduct or a legitimate business explanation, correct the problem and evaluate whether disclosure is warranted. A company that learns about the same pattern from a subpoena has already lost much of that flexibility.

The PYMNTS Intelligence report “Generations Under Pressure: How Younger Consumers Are Coping With Higher Living Costs” found that medical costs are landing like a second monthly rent payment for many households, recurring often enough to reshape budgets and weaken consumers’ confidence in their ability to stay ahead. Consumer concern about health insurance pressure rose from 60% to 63% between October and January, while concern among baby boomers and seniors about medical bills and copays increased from 53% to 55%.

For all PYMNTS B2B coverage, subscribe to the daily B2B Newsletter.