Skip to main content

View Diary: The Inside Story of Medicare Fraud at a Major University (10 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You might . . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Nucleo

    to actually read the Meythaler complaint, and you will see it's all about research fraud.

    You also might want to check out the other whistleblower complaint, which I wrote about here:

    University of Kentucky Hires . . .

    The $600 million figure comes from a forensic accountant named Thomas Gober. You can check out his background here:

    UAB Cuts Jobs . . .

    or here:

    AIG Teetering . . .

    Gober is a national expert on the AIG story and has been quoted in Newsweek, The New York Times, and other major publications.

    My post is based on sworn testimony in public documents from Gober, a forensic accountant, and Meythaler, a research scientist and physician.

    If you consider that "shit sticking against the wall," I'm afraid I can't help you.

    •  I read it, and remain very confused (0+ / 0-)

      by your description.

      For example, there are some valid concerns -for example billing Medicare for procedures that were apparently paid for by NIH grants (but that is not "research fraud"!)

      But Meythaler's complaints (the way you describe it) about misuse of indirect costs seem to be hopelessly naive.  No one expects the indirect costs to be used to support one's research in the way this guy is alleging (i.e., to pay technicians working on multiple project or his secretary).   Yes, that would be wonderful, but really, you gotta write those researchers into the grant and pay them directly - that's just the way the game works.  Sure, if you have a really, really nice department chairperson, maybe he or she will funnel a few more $$s your way - but if he or she doesn't, most PI's don't run off in a snit and file a lawsuit. . . .

      •  I think . . . (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Johnny Nucleo

        you are using one definition of "research fraud," and I am using another. One is research-funding fraud, to which I am referring. You seem to be referring to scientific-research fraud.

        Both are serious problems, and I've written about both on my blog and here at DKos.

        Indirect costs issue is only one component of the Meythaler complaint, and I posted the whole thing so you don't have to rely on my description of it.  My description is accurate, but it's a summary (in a small space) of an 18-page document.

        UAB paid $3.4 million to the federal government to settle this case, which was a tiny fraction of what they could have been hit with. Under the treble damages concept of FCA claim, they could have been hit with about $1.5 billion in damages.

        You might not consider this a serious matter, but court documents indicate that everyone involved considered it to be very serious. UAB paid for a high-priced firm from D.C. to defend itself. No telling how much that cost.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site