A Medicaid investigation letter in New York City can come from several different agencies, depending on whether you are a recipient, a provider, or both: the Human Resources Administration (HRA) Bureau of Fraud Investigation, the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) of the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG), or HHS-OIG on the federal side. Each runs a different process. None of them sends letters lightly.
Whatever the letterhead says, the rule is the same: do not call the investigator. Call us first at 212-233-1233 or email [email protected]. The consultation is free and confidential by law.
If the letter comes from HRA or the Bureau of Fraud Investigation — often at 375 Pearl Street — the investigation is into recipient-side Medicaid issues: unreported income, unreported household members (frequently a spouse or partner whose income would have changed eligibility), or assets that were not disclosed at application or recertification.
The MFCU sits in the Office of the Attorney General and handles provider-side Medicaid cases. An MFCU letter or subpoena to a doctor, dentist, pharmacy, home-care agency, DME supplier, or behavioral-health provider signals a serious investigation that can lead to indictment, civil False Claims Act exposure, and exclusion from Medicaid.
OMIG conducts audits, recoups overpayments, and refers matters to MFCU when criminal exposure appears. OMIG audit demands and information requests should be answered by counsel.
When the federal share is implicated, HHS-OIG may issue an administrative subpoena under 5 U.S.C. App. § 6(a)(4). These investigations sometimes run alongside US Attorney grand jury subpoenas in the SDNY or EDNY.
By the time the letter is sent, investigators have typically pulled:
"Medicaid investigation letter" is a category, not a single document. The letter on your desk is one of several distinct things, and the right response depends on which one it is.
Almost every Medicaid letter has a deadline buried in it. Missing the deadline forfeits rights. Common ones:
If the deadline is short and counsel cannot be retained in time, a written extension request from your prospective counsel usually buys two to four weeks. Investigators routinely grant them.
The investigator's job is to build a case. Friendly conversation is evidence-gathering. Anything you say can and will be used at a Part 519 hearing, in a civil False Claims Act action, in a state criminal case, or in a federal grand jury — without warning and without re-interview.
"Voluntary statements" are particularly dangerous. They are not Mirandized because the interview is not technically custodial. The investigator does not have to caution you that what you say will be used against you, because by participating without counsel you have effectively waived the warning. Inconsistent statements between an interview and a later production produce false-statement charges under PL Article 210, Social Services Law § 145-b, or 18 U.S.C. § 1001, all on top of whatever was originally being investigated.
The other reliable trap is informal email and text messages with the investigator. Those land in the case file the same way a formal interview transcript does.
For recipients, the most common allegations are:
Most recipient cases resolve civilly with a repayment agreement and no criminal record. The path to that resolution runs through counsel. Walking into the HRA interview alone is the single most common reason a civil case turns criminal.
For providers, the questions are different. The first task is to identify the agency, the scope, and the theory. The second is to issue a litigation hold and preserve every record — charts, billing software extracts, employee files, email, and text messages — that could be responsive. Destroying or altering anything after a subpoena arrives is itself a crime under PL Article 215 (Tampering with Physical Evidence) and 18 U.S.C. § 1519, and converts a defensible billing dispute into a felony.
Provider matters involve several parallel concerns at once: the audit or criminal case itself, professional license discipline before OPMC or OPD, Medicaid enrollment status under 18 NYCRR Part 504, exclusion exposure under 18 NYCRR Part 515 and 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7, malpractice insurance reporting, hospital privileging reporting, and (for corporations) board notification and disclosure-controls duties. We coordinate all of them. See professional license defense.
If the matter has reached an in-person interview at OMIG offices, expect a multi-hour session in a small conference room with one or two auditors and, sometimes, an MFCU investigator. The auditors will have a binder of claims, a list of recipients, and a chronology. They will ask open-ended questions designed to lock in answers, then closed questions to test inconsistencies. They take notes. There is no court reporter, but the agent's contemporaneous notes are admissible.
We do not send clients into those meetings unprepared. Where an interview makes sense at all, we prepare with the same care we would for grand jury testimony — review of the records, anticipated questions, scope agreements in writing, and a clear understanding of what topics are off limits.
Most agency adverse determinations carry appeal rights:
The deadlines are short and the process is paper-heavy. Hearings are won on the record — the record we build during the audit phase.
For the audit and investigation phase generally, see our Medicaid investigation attorney page. If the case is already charged, see Medicaid fraud attorney and Medicaid fraud lawyer. For the broader practice, see healthcare fraud lawyer and criminal defense lawyer.
If you received a Medicaid investigation letter, call us at 212-233-1233 or email [email protected].