The connection between telehealth services and fraud charges
Healthcare professionals have to follow many different sets of rules to continue practicing medicine. Physicians typically have to conform to current best practices in their area of specialization. They also need to follow state and federal laws regarding patient treatment and financial practices.
As the economy changes, the way that medical professionals provide their services to clients also changes. Recent years have seen an explosion in telehealth appointments. Patients are more likely than ever before to attend remote visits with specialists. While telehealth appointments do remove barriers to patient care in many cases, they also create a unique new set of hazards. For example, medical professionals could be at increased risk of fraud charges and licensing penalties in certain telehealth scenarios.
What types of telehealth fraud are common?
There are a variety of different reasons why a licensed medical professional offering telehealth services could potentially face criminal charges. If a conviction follows those charges, they might then be at risk of licensing penalties that could put their career at risk. Sometimes, employer policies make the telehealth situation look fraudulent to regulatory professionals.
Scenarios where telehealth providers get paid based on the number of referrals or prescriptions they write during telehealth sessions have come under intense scrutiny in recent years. If a company pressures telehealth medical providers to attempt to prescribe certain types of medications, recommend certain medical equipment or refer patients out to specific other providers, those professional demands might put a physician at risk of prosecution.
Other company practices that might constitute fraud include upcharging for a telehealth session. Some insurance companies negotiate discounted rates for telehealth services. Charging for a higher-cost in-person visit after a digital appointment is a form of fraud that could lead to prosecution. A variety of billing issues and prescribing practices related to telehealth services could draw federal scrutiny and put someone at risk of prosecution.
Healthcare providers who plead guilty to charges related to their practice of medicine are then at risk of licensing penalties. It is common for disciplinary hearings to follow a conviction or guilty pleas, and the healthcare provider could be at risk of penalties up to the revocation of their medical license.
Professionals who understand the activities that might draw unnecessary scrutiny can avoid high-risk employment opportunities or change their personal practices for optimal professional stability. In the event that someone is placed under scrutiny despite their best efforts, fighting criminal charges and responding assertively to licensing issues and disciplinary efforts are important for healthcare providers accused of some form of telehealth misconduct.
Categories
- Blog
- Criminal Defense
- Drug Crimes
- Drunk Driving
- Dui
- Federal Crimes
- Firm News
- Injuries
- Medical Nursing
- OIG Exclusion
- Pennsylvania Criminal Law
- Philadelphia Criminal Justice Updates
- Professional License Application
- Professional License Issues
- Professional Misconduct
- Substance Abuse
- Uncategorized
- USMLE and ECFMG
Archives
- September 2026
- April 2026
- December 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- September 2011
- August 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
