Listen to the article
DOJ Signals Aggressive False Claims Act Enforcement, Expanded Focus on Health Care and Trade Fraud
In recent remarks at the Federal Bar Association’s 2026 Qui Tam Conference, Department of Justice (DOJ) Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brenna Jenny outlined an ambitious enforcement agenda that puts companies dealing with the federal government on notice. Jenny’s comments signal continued aggressive use of the False Claims Act (FCA) across multiple sectors, with particular emphasis on health care, trade fraud, and a new push into antidiscrimination enforcement.
Health care remains at the forefront of DOJ’s enforcement priorities, accounting for the majority of FCA recoveries in fiscal year 2025. The agency is specifically targeting managed care organizations submitting unsupported risk-adjusted diagnosis codes, improper chart reviews, and engaging in fraudulent enrollment practices. Drug pricing is another key focus area, with investigations targeting inaccurate pricing information and arrangements like co-pay assistance programs that may insulate against price increases.
“Even where harm has not materialized or cannot be precisely quantified, meaningful risk alone may support enforcement action,” Jenny stated, underscoring the DOJ’s commitment to pursuing cases where patient safety or program integrity might be jeopardized.
The DOJ is also intensifying its scrutiny of trade fraud through its cross-agency Trade Fraud Task Force. Recent trends show record numbers of qui tam actions and settlements, particularly involving goods imported from China. Enforcement efforts are concentrated on three primary areas: misclassification of goods into lower-duty categories, undervaluation of imported items, and false declarations about countries of origin to evade tariffs.
In a significant expansion of FCA application, Jenny highlighted that antidiscrimination enforcement has become a top priority. The DOJ is investigating federal contractors for potential violations of antidiscrimination laws, focusing on practices that may pressure supervisors to make hiring and promotion decisions based on race or sex. Problematic practices include demographic goals disconnected from legitimate remediation, “diverse slate” hiring policies, and compensation linked to diversity targets.
“Compliance with federal antidiscrimination laws will be treated as material to government contracting decisions,” Jenny emphasized, suggesting the DOJ could seek damages equal to the full value of contracts in cases where alleged discrimination might have affected the award process.
Perhaps most notable is the DOJ’s increasing reliance on advanced data analytics to proactively identify potential FCA violations before whistleblowers even come forward. These systems can flag outlier patterns in healthcare utilization and other data that may indicate fraud.
“By the time a civil investigative demand has been issued, we’ve typically already completed a thorough review of relevant data,” Jenny explained, highlighting the government’s increasingly sophisticated approach to enforcement.
The DOJ’s enforcement strategies reflect a continued evolution of prosecutorial discretion. Jenny indicated that the agency is systematically evaluating potential dismissals under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A) at the point of declination and throughout case development, resulting in record numbers of dismissals in the past fiscal year.
For companies engaging with federal programs, these developments heighten the need for robust compliance programs and proactive risk management. Certain defense arguments will carry little weight with investigators, including claims that alleged misconduct is too stale, that continued government payment indicates materiality, or that questionable practices reflect widespread industry norms.
Jenny also clarified the DOJ’s position on subregulatory guidance, noting that it will not, by itself, create legal obligations or serve as the basis for enforcement. The agency will prioritize substantive violations over technical noncompliance with guidance that exceeds statutory authority.
For healthcare organizations, federal contractors, and importers, these enforcement priorities signal continued scrutiny and potential liability. Companies are advised to implement comprehensive compliance programs, conduct regular internal reviews, and prepare data-driven responses to potential government inquiries. As the DOJ increasingly views the FCA as a flexible tool for addressing emerging enforcement priorities, proactive risk assessment becomes essential for organizations doing business with the federal government.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
The DOJ’s emphasis on pursuing even cases where ‘harm has not materialized’ suggests a broad interpretation of the False Claims Act. Companies need to be proactive in self-auditing and addressing potential issues before they become enforcement actions.
Agreed. The low bar for ‘meaningful risk’ leaves a lot of room for DOJ discretion. Staying on top of compliance is critical to avoid the legal and reputational fallout from False Claims Act cases.
This article highlights the DOJ’s continued focus on aggressive enforcement of the False Claims Act, particularly in the healthcare and trade fraud sectors. It’s a good reminder for companies to ensure robust compliance measures are in place to avoid potential legal issues.
Interesting to see the DOJ honing in on managed care organizations and drug pricing practices. It underscores the importance of transparency and accurate reporting when dealing with government contracts.
Absolutely. With the DOJ’s expanding priorities in areas like antidiscrimination, companies need to be extremely diligent in their practices and documentation.
This update provides valuable insight into the DOJ’s evolving priorities around the False Claims Act. The focus on managed care, drug pricing, and trade fraud will likely lead to more investigations and settlements in the coming years.
Interesting to see the DOJ expanding its FCA efforts into new areas like antidiscrimination. This signals an evolving and increasingly broad interpretation of the law. Companies will need to stay vigilant across all aspects of their government-facing operations.
Agreed. The DOJ’s widening scope means companies can’t afford to have blind spots in their compliance efforts. Comprehensive risk assessment and remediation will be critical.
The DOJ’s targeting of managed care organizations and drug pricing practices is noteworthy. It suggests the government is scrutinizing these industries for potential abuse of government programs and fraud. Companies in these sectors should review their practices carefully.
The DOJ’s emphasis on aggressive FCA enforcement, especially in the healthcare and trade sectors, underscores the need for companies to have robust compliance programs in place. Proactive risk mitigation is key to avoiding potential legal issues down the line.
This article underscores the need for companies to stay ahead of the DOJ’s evolving enforcement priorities around the False Claims Act. Proactive compliance and diligent self-auditing will be key to avoiding potential legal landmines.
Absolutely. The DOJ’s emphasis on pursuing even ‘meaningful risk’ means companies can’t afford to be reactive. Robust compliance programs are essential to mitigating FCA exposure.