The State of California has a contract to reimburse Planned Parenthood for giving out birth control pills.
But, it seems that Planned Parenthood overcharged the taxpayers by a possible $180 million.
"A former Planned Parenthood official has filed a lawsuit against affiliates in California saying they overcharged the state hundreds of millions of dollars on birth control. P. Victor Gonzalez says the abortion business fired him because he raised concerns about the illegal practices.
Gonzalez says his own internal audit estimates that Planned parenthood overcharged California taxpayers for purchasing birth control by at least $180 million.
He was the vice president of finance and administration for Planned Parenthood of Los Angles and, according to a Los Angeles Times report, the overbilling began in the late 1990s."
Even the LA Times found Planned Parenthood had violated the terms of its contract with the State of California. "However, altering the statute didn't address the billing practices prior to it and the Times says a 2003 state audit found at least $5.2 million in overbilling in 2003 alone from just one of the nine California Planned Parenthood affiliates."
What did Assemblywoman HB Jackson do? Did she demand the State fully audit the accounts? Did she demand that the contract of Planned Parenthood be ended? Did Jackson demand that those responsible be sent to jail?
No, she sponsored legislation to ALLOW the over billing. Even that of course did not change the fact that for years Planned Parenthood had overcharged the people of California.
The Left believes that if a defense contractor overcharges, the firm should not be allowed contracts with government and people should go to jail. Not Jackson, she worked to legalize the over billing.
Planned Parenthood, in its defense, said it was confused. "However, the Times says state officials now say Planned Parenthood was given conflicting information on billing practices. They say Planned Parenthood does not need to repay the millions it overcharged state taxpayers."
In other words, "State Officials" are giving a donation of your tax dollars to this organization.
If it was "confused", that is understandable and they should give the money back. They haven't. Instead they had HB Jackson sponsor legislation to allow the over billing.
Were it me, I would accept the explanation of Planned Parenthood, and a check for the over billing. I would NOT sponsor legislation legalizing the over billing. Would you?
Do you want the money back? Do you question the whole process? Read the article. Then write a comment if you agree that the money should be returned or that Jackson was right in supporting the over billing.
Sadly, the special interests have a lot of control over the legislature. This is just one example.
Well...I'd agree that any time a government surrogate inappropriately charges for services rendered, there should be investigation and if indicated, corrections made.
This article does not constitute an investigation and neither does the linked article.
What the link is, is a link to a "source" that seems to have one agenda...that being the "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" agenda. Whatever else it is, it certainly can't be very objective. It does seem to be a part of the increasingly shrill polarization of American politics the greatly contributes to the gridlock of decision making.
The former employee's suit may or may not have merit, but "frankly" Steve, it is not surprising that you or "LifeNews" would jump on the story, since it obviously helps justify opinions that are clearly already in evidence.
Put in some articles about Halliburton and between the two you might get more credibility.
Here's one for you and your reader(s) about military contractors cheating our government while soldiers die in Afghanistan:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9506
It actually has some facts, not just innuendo.
I saw this also in the LA Times and thats about as liberal as you get. So I guess there is some merit. Its funny how when there is an article about Jackson that doesn't worship the ground she walks on...liberals just start freakin'. "you have an agenda". Right! Like Dennert, Lakin, and Herdt don't? The Star actually surprised me by allowing Steve to get some ink on here. Jackson and here cronies are bankrupting this state with these types of legislation. All you have to do is look at her record to know this is the just the tip of the iceberg.
Planned Parenthood does wonderful work and gives women choices and information you obviously wouldn't allow.
The issue is not the purpose of Planned Parenthood. I did not make a single value judgment as to its self proclaimed mission in the blog.
The article does concern itself with overbilling of the people of California.
So, if you think a group is doing good work, by your values, it is OK for them to rip off the taxpayers of up to $180 million?
At some other time I will discuss the role of Planned Parenthood, right now I am discussing financial abuse of Californians by this organization.
Yeah it does wonderful work giving birth control to twelve year old girls but thats not the point here. Why should they be allowed to overcharge? With the support of Jackson they are basically stealing money from the state. Hannah Beth Jackson, as far as I'm concerned, is a thief.
So quick to respond to me, but nothing for Tom Johnston (#1 comment above), who makes some very valid points. And thank goodness, standup, that twelve year olds aren't having babies (except under the religious rule of FLDS)!
Lawsuit alleges overbilling by Planned Parenthood
The suit by a former executive of the group's L.A. affiliate alleges that state and federal agencies overpaid at least $180 million for birth control pills.
By Charles Ornstein, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 8, 2008
A whistle-blower lawsuit contends that Planned Parenthood affiliates in California overcharged the state and federal governments by at least $180 million for birth-control pills, despite internal and external warnings that its billing practices were improper.
In the federal suit, P. Victor Gonzalez says he was fired in March 2004 as vice president of finance and administration of the Los Angeles affiliate after raising concerns about the "illegal accounting, billing and donations practices of Planned Parenthood."
The alleged overbillings began in the late 1990s and continued until the Legislature changed the law in 2004 to allow Planned Parenthood to bill at a higher rate for oral contraceptives, said Gonzalez's lawyer, Jack Schuler.
A 2004 state audit of Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties -- one of nine affiliates statewide -- lends some support to Gonzalez's allegations. The report identified more than $5.2 million in overbillings just during the 2003 fiscal year.
Questions about Planned Parenthood's billing practices were raised as early as 1997 by a state Medi-Cal official, according to letters provided to The Times by Gonzalez's attorney. In October 1997 and January 1998, the official told Kathy Kneer, the organization's California chief executive, her affiliates were billing for oral contraceptives incorrectly.
State health officials now say, however, that they do not believe Planned Parenthood acted improperly because the organization was given contradictory guidance on billing from the state.
In fact, after Planned Parenthood complained that a lower reimbursement rate could imperil its survival, the state passed a law in 2004 allowing it to continue billing as it had been all along.
Former state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara said she sponsored the legislation to remedy the problem.
"I was told and persuaded that if Planned Parenthood had to reformulate the charges . . . that they wouldn't be able to continue providing the service, that they would be losing money," she said. "It was a question of access, absolutely."
The whistle-blower suit, originally filed under seal in 2005, seeks damages under the federal False Claims Act. It was made public this week.
"Contrary to their national reputation as a prominent charity organization and as a healthcare provider for reproductive services, there is probable cause to believe Planned Parenthood's . . . California affiliates have systematically engaged in fraudulent overbilling against government funded programs," the suit says. Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California spokeswoman Ana Sandoval declined to comment Friday, saying the organization had not seen the lawsuit.
The case involves the arcane reimbursement rules of public health programs of the federal and state governments.
At issue is a federal program that allows health centers to buy common drugs from manufacturers at a reduced price. In return for the discount, the suit says, such clinics must follow specific rules for seeking reimbursement.
The billing manual for California's Family Planning, Access, Care and Treatment program, for example, says providers must bill "at cost" for oral contraceptives.
Planned Parenthood, however, billed the government several times more than it paid for the drugs, the lawsuit says, seeking what is known as a "usual and customary" fee that allows for the cost of storing and dispensing the drugs.
The state paid Planned Parenthood clinics more for every monthly pill cycle dispensed, on average, than it paid other public and private providers, according to a report commissioned by the state in 2004.
Planned Parenthood received an average of $11.99 for every cycle, compared with $8.65 for other public healthcare providers and $8.26 for private providers, the UC San Francisco Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy found.
While the state's 2004 state audit was underway, Gonzalez said, he performed his own review of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles and found similar problems: $2.1 million in overpayments during a one-year period. He estimated that the agency made $100 per patient annually from the "birth control pill markup alone," documents show.
Gonzalez said he tried to raise the issue with top officials internally. The response was clear, he said: "They did not want to stop the overbilling."
Schuler said his client intends to rely on internal Planned Parenthood communications showing that officials worked tirelessly to lobby state health officials to adopt the organization's point of view.
Officials at the state Department of Health Care Services say they do not believe Planned Parenthood needs to repay any money already reimbursed by the state.
Great points, Steve. Keep up the good work.
May the truth be told!
This ran in March, was there any follow-up?
Resolute_Yet_Ambivalent--And say what? Yeah Haliburton baaad. not what were talking about here. Isn't it about Jackson and her support of overcharging the state? At least thats what I read...how is talking about Haliburton going to change that? I don't care who is overcharging-Planned Parenthood or someone else-its just wrong.
Steve- guess your gonna have to put in stories about how bad the Bush Admin is with all your blogs...................hogwash!
Did anyone mention the fact that Planned Parenthood is also a major contributor to Democratic candidates for local, state, and federal office? I'm sure Hannah-Beth is well aware of this.
HBJ's bill passed 59-21 and it was signed into legislation by Gov. Schwarzenegger. It allowed drugs to be billed at the actual acquisition cost plus a clinic dispensing fee, which provided clinics a cushion to provide services for underserved and very poor women.
Reason for the Bill and Proponents' Arguments for AB2151
The author's office states that the purpose of the bill is to codify current Medi-Cal regulations to provide that community and free clinics must be reimbursed for take-home drugs and supplies at their "usual charges made to the general public."
Community and free clinics have the narrowest financial cushion of all Medi-Cal providers. Clinic funding comes from sources such as Medi-Cal, Healthy Families, and the Family PACT program, but these reimbursements rarely cover the cost of providing services.
Proponents state that safety net providers such as Planned Parenthood negotiate deeply discounted contracts with drug manufacturers for pharmaceuticals such as birth control pills. The providers then pass these savings on to the state by billing for reimbursement at half the rate of retail pharmacies, or at "usual charges." Medi-Cal regulations authorize providers to be reimbursed at "usual charges" rather than the discount price. Supporters argue that "usual charges" are significantly lower than the reimbursements made to retail pharmacies for the identical product, while providing a cushion above the discount price.
It is this cushion that allows clinics to fund their operations to see more patients at a lower cost.
The sponsor offers as the example of current practice that clinics that bill "usual and customary" are reimbursed at a DHS flat rate of $12 per pack of birth control pills. Retail pharmacies bill at the average wholesale price, less 10 percent (prior to 2004-05 Budget changes), averaging approximately $35 per pack of birth control pills, in addition to a dispensing fee. This bill maintains the status quo for clinic drug reimbursements while ensuring viability for the affected clinics.
DHS is in discussions regarding changes to the Medi-Cal and Family PACT billing and reimbursement requirements for clinics, moving toward a requirement for clinics to bill at acquisition costs.
The author's office states that this change, currently being contemplated seriously by DHS, effectively eliminates the financial cushion currently afforded to community and free clinics, resulting in dire consequences for clinic financing and access to care for underserved patients.
The sponsor states that a recent survey of Planned Parenthood clinics shows that Medi-Cal and Family PACT reimbursements for patient visits are 40 percent to 50 percent below the cost of patient care.
Let's talk about the criminal over billing by Halliburton and KBR.
Let's talk about the criminal over billing by Halliburton and KBR.
Brian,
You mean change the subject, right?
Each year, California taxpayers are required to contribute $33 million dollars to fund 95,000 "free" Medi-Cal reimbursed abortions. That is 300 abortions per day that we are forced to pay for, hurting women for a lifetime. During this time of California budget crisis, why should we continue to subsidize the lucrative abortion industry, which has experienced record-breaking profit margins and has allegedly overcharged the state taxpayers by $180 million, while our services are being cut and our taxes are being raised! It is time to say, "Enough is enough!" We will no longer support the abortion industry. Contact your legislators today, demanding that these $33 million dollars be re-directed to better serve the needy citizens of our state, especially women and children. Women deserve better than abortion. See www.california4life.org for more information.