Ohio Woman Sentenced To Prison For Theft From Health-Benefit Program
A
The following description of Spencer's crimes come from court documents:
Professional Benefits Administrators ("PBA") was a third-party administrator of health care benefit plans. PBA's main office was located in
Spencer was the office manager of PBA's
PBA had a number of clients with whom it contracted to provide third-party administration services in relation to the health care benefit plans that the clients sponsored for their employees. Those clients included
NOMS
NOMS was the sponsor of the Northern Ohio Medical Specialists Employee Health Benefit Plan - HSA Plan, a self-funded health care benefit plan for the benefit of NOMS' employees (the "NOMS Health Benefit Plan"). PBA was the third-party adminstrator for the NOMS Health Benefit Plan. PBA was responsible for processing and adjudicating the health benefit claims of NOMS employees and for paying those claims from a bank account at
NOMS also contracted with an insurance carrier, TPAC, to provide "stop-loss" insurance coverage in relation to the NOMS Health Benefit Plan. Under the agreement, NOMS paid the health benefit claims of NOMS employees up to a certain, agreed-upon aggregated amount for all employees. If the combined health benefit claims of NOMS employees exceeded that amount, the stop-loss coverage kicked in, and TPAC was responsible for paying the excess NOMS employee health benefit claims.
To facilitate the collection and making of such stop-loss payments, PBA submitted claims in excess of NOMS' aggregate claims amount to TPAC. TPAC, in turn, set up an account at
SPENCER had access to the names, addresses, social security numbers, employee numbers, and other personal identification information of NOMS employees, and to other NOMS Health Benefit Plan information. SPENCER also had access to the PBA claims system and to information relating to the NOMS Health Benefit Plan Trust Account.
CHC
PBA was also the third-party administrator services in relation to the self-funded health benefits plan that CHC sponsored for its employees.
Like NOMS, CHC also contracted with an insurance carrier to provide stop-loss insurance coverage for the health benefit claims of CHC employees, but CHC used Trustmark, not TPAC. Under the agreement, CHC paid the health benefit claims of its employees up to a certain agreed-upon amount. If the health benefit claims of CHC employees exceeded that amount, the stop-loss coverage kicked in, and Trustmark was responsible for paying the excess health benefit claims of CHC employees, which it did by making stop-loss payments directly to CHC.
To get stop-loss coverage, CHC was required to provide certain information to Trustmark about its employees and their prior health claims and claims history ("disclosure information"). Trustmark based the premium it charged to CHC for the stop-loss coverage on this disclosure information, and the enforceability of the stop-loss coverage was subject to proper disclosures being made to Trustmark. PBA was responsible for compiling and providing any and all disclosure information relating to CHC employees to Trustmark such that the stop-loss coverage would be in force and cover any excess claims.
The Scheme
Using personal identification information for NOMS employees and/or their covered spouses, Spencer manufactured and submitted two separate fake medical claims for stop-loss payments to TPAC, purportedly on behalf of NOMS. Based on Spencer's submissions, TPAC paid the claims and funded the NOMS Health Benefit Plan Trust Account even though no medical services were ever rendered in either case. Spencer then diverted the funds from the NOMS Health Benefit Plan Trust Account to other uses.
In the first instance, Spencer diverted
This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys
TNS-AD130412-JF78-4293945 StaffFurigay
| Copyright: | (c) 2013 Targeted News Service |
| Source: | Targeted News Service |
| Wordcount: | 908 |


New 401(k) Fee-Disclosure Rule Impresses Few
Advisor News
- Help women break through their retirement roadblocks
- Advisors await SEC decision on Vanguard fair fund distribution
- What to do when adult children become the client
- Judge rules insurers not liable for Newport Group’s AME Church pension lawsuit
- Why vacation homes are becoming a major blind spot for advisors
More Advisor NewsAnnuity News
- Legacy Marketing Group partners with Malibu Life USA for annuity launch
- Best’s Market Segment Report: Global Life/Annuity Reinsurers Remained Poised for Steady Growth
- When technology becomes easy to rent, what still separates life and annuity carriers?
- Legacy Marketing Group® and Malibu Life USA Announce Distribution Partnership for New Fixed Indexed Annuity Platform
- Empower Annuity Insurance Company of America Trademark Application for “EMPOWER WHAT’S NEXT” Filed: Empower Annuity Insurance Company of America
More Annuity NewsHealth/Employee Benefits News
Property and Casualty News
- Who should get flood insurance?
- STATE AUDITOR JAMES BROWN PERMANENTLY REVOKES LICENSE OF KALISPELL BAIL BONDSMAN ACCUSED OF USING POSITION TO EXPLOIT MONTANANS, INCLUDING FOR SEXUAL FAVORS
- CT business owner charged with failing to have workers’ compensation insurance when employee injured
- 2026 Employer Excellence Certification awardees announced
- AI Begins to Wield Significant Influence on Consumers’ Auto and Home Insurance Decisions
More Property and Casualty News