Petitioner Alleges Violation of the False Claims Act By Making Medicare Primary Payer

In Negron v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.., No. 14-577, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24994 (U.S Dist. N.J., March 1, 2016), a complaint was brought under the False Claims Act against Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Progressive Garden State Insurance Company. The complaint alleged that the insurers allowed Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to elect a health first automobile insurance policy which caused health care providers to submit medical claims to Medicare and Medicaid in violation of secondary payer laws. In response to the petitioner’s complaint, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case.

When purchasing an insurance policy through Progressive’s website, an individual had the option of choosing a health first policy. A health first policy would make the individual’s private health insurance carrier the primary payer to the automobile insurance carrier in violation of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MPSA). 42 U.S.C. §1395y(2)(A) of the MSPA provides that payment cannot be made by Medicare if it “can reasonably be expected to be made under a workmen’s compensation law or plan…or under an automobile or liability insurance policy or plan.” While the website informed the individual that they should not select this option if their primary health insurance was Medicare or Medicaid, it did not actually prevent an individual from signing up with Medicare or Medicaid as the primary payer. The petitioner in this case purchased an automobile policy through Progressive choosing the health first policy option, although Medicare was her primary health coverage. When she was later involved in an automobile accident requiring medical treatment, several of her health care providers submitted bills to Medicare. As a result, Medicare became the primary payer despite the MSPA which was enacted to prevent this very occurrence.

In considering the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, the court found that she had sufficiently pled her case and denied the defendant’s motion. We will continue to monitor this case as it progresses.

#MSPA #ProgressiveCasualtyInsurance #USDistrictCourt #FalseClaimsAct

Recent Posts

© 2020 Carr Allison Medicare Compliance Group

100 Vestavia Parkway

Birmingham, AL 35216

P: 205.949.2949

F: 205.822.2057



  • LinkedIn - White Circle
  • Twitter - White Circle


Required statement from the AL State Bar:  No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services provided by other lawyers.  Any recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among other factors.  Disclaimer.