Two New York eye-care practices have agreed to pay $2.3 million after federal investigators said thousands of patients were assigned diagnoses that did not support the cranial ultrasounds billed to Medicare and Medicaid. The case is a reminder that an inaccurate diagnosis can carry two costs at once: public money may be spent on an unnecessary service, and an unsupported condition may remain in a patient’s medical record.
The settlements focus on transcranial Doppler tests
The Justice Department announced July 31 that Fromer Eye Centers and Floral Park Ophthalmology agreed to pay a combined $2.3 million. The government alleged that the practices billed Medicare and Medicaid for transcranial Doppler ultrasounds, or TCDs, arranged through a third-party testing company and connected to a kickback arrangement.
Federal authorities said nearly all of the thousands of patients tested did not have the diagnosis submitted to support the procedure. A TCD measures blood flow in the brain’s major arteries; it is not an ordinary component of every eye examination. The government’s theory was that diagnostic codes and referrals were used to make the testing appear reimbursable rather than being driven by each patient’s documented clinical need.
Free retirement updates: Scam calls targeting retirees change every week. Our free Retirement Shield newsletter flags the ones going around and the one tell that stops each. Sign up free.
A diagnosis code can outlive the claim that created it
Patients commonly focus on what they owe and overlook a service when Medicare paid the provider directly. Yet an unfamiliar diagnosis on a summary notice deserves attention even when the patient balance is zero. Medical records inform later treatment, insurance review and risk scoring, so correcting unsupported information is a separate financial and health-protection task from contesting a bill.
The Department of Health and Human Services explains in its medical-record access guide that patients generally have a right to inspect and obtain copies of their health information. If a record attributes a condition never discussed by the treating professional, a written amendment request creates a traceable way to challenge it. The provider may deny an amendment, but the patient can often add a statement of disagreement.
Civil settlement language preserves an important boundary
The $2.3 million is definite because the practices signed agreements to pay it. The allegations are not equivalent to criminal convictions or court findings, and DOJ stated that the claims resolved by the settlements are allegations only. That legal boundary does not weaken the headline’s payment figure; it identifies exactly what the government proved through agreement rather than trial.
The False Claims Act gives federal authorities a civil tool for recovering money associated with knowingly false claims. It also permits qualifying whistleblowers to bring cases for the United States. In health care, that mechanism can expose billing arrangements across many patients even when each individual statement contains only one unfamiliar line.
Medicare notices provide a patient-level audit trail
A Medicare Summary Notice lists the provider, service date, amount charged, amount approved and what the beneficiary may owe. Matching that list against appointment notes can reveal a test performed without explanation, a service never received or a provider the patient does not recognize. An explanation from the practice may resolve a coding error before it grows into a formal dispute.
If the mismatch remains, Medicare’s fraud and abuse reporting guidance directs beneficiaries to call 1-800-MEDICARE and provide the provider name, service, date and reason the claim appears wrong. Reporting should be based on the facts visible in the record. Medicare, its contractors and law-enforcement agencies decide whether those facts amount to improper billing.
The strongest safeguard is a documented clinical reason
Before a specialized test, a patient can ask which symptom or diagnosis makes it necessary, who ordered it and whether the testing company is in network. That conversation is not a demand to reject care. It is a request to connect the service to a medical decision and to identify the entity that will submit the claim.
The two settlements join earlier resolutions involving the same testing arrangement, according to DOJ. For older patients who see several specialists, the practical defense is a modest one: read each notice, question an unfamiliar diagnosis and preserve the answer. The government’s $2.3 million recovery addresses past claims; accurate records are what prevent those claims from shaping future care.
Secondary insurance can magnify an inaccurate claim
A Medicare claim may also flow to a Medigap policy, Medicaid program or other secondary payer. Correcting only the provider’s internal chart can leave the downstream payment record untouched. When a practice confirms that a code was wrong, the patient should ask whether corrected claims were transmitted to every payer and keep the adjustment notices showing the reversal.
Debt collectors should not receive payment for a disputed balance simply because the claim looks technical. A written dispute can request the itemized service, diagnosis code, ordering provider and insurer disposition. Those details let a patient distinguish an uncovered but legitimate service from a test that the practice itself cannot support.
This article was researched and drafted with AI assistance and reviewed against the linked primary sources.
More Financial Reading
- The ideal retirement withdrawal rate so your savings actually last
- How many CDs can you park at 1 bank? FDIC rules you must know
David M. Keller is a finance writer based in Columbus, Ohio, covering personal finance and consumer-focused economic topics. He earned his degree in journalism from Ohio University and began his career reporting on local business and economic trends for a regional media outlet. Since then, he has contributed to a variety of online publications, focusing on clear, practical coverage of topics such as cost of living, debt, and everyday financial decision-making.
