Texas Senate Bill SB688

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 2/14/11
• Out of Senate Committee: 3/28/11
• Voted on by Senate: 4/11/11
• Refer: 2/23/11
• Out of House Committee: 5/9/11
• Report Pass: 3/28/11
• Voted on by House: 5/18/11
• Engrossed: 4/11/11
• Governor Action: 6/17/11
• Refer: 4/14/11
• Report Pass: 5/7/11
• Enrolled: 5/19/11
• Passed: 6/17/11

Caption

Relating to the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of criminal Medicaid fraud and certain other offenses related to Medicaid fraud; providing penalties.

Impact

If enacted, SB688 will have significant implications for how criminal Medicaid fraud is addressed within Texas. The bill not only outlines specific penalties based on the value of the fraud, ranging from misdemeanors to felonies, but it also sets standards for the prosecution of offenders by specifying the jurisdictions involved. One notable change is granting the attorney general concurrent jurisdiction with local prosecutors to pursue cases of Medicaid fraud, potentially increasing enforcement and oversight capabilities against fraudulent activities that exploit the Medicaid system.

Summary

Senate Bill 688 aims to amend several provisions of the Texas Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure in regards to the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of criminal Medicaid fraud and related offenses. The bill introduces a range of penalties determined by the monetary value of the fraud involved. This structured approach seeks to align the severity of the penalties with the financial impact of the fraudulent activity, thereby creating clearer consequences for those accused of Medicaid fraud. The new legislation intends to streamline the prosecution process and clarify the roles of various law enforcement authorities involved in Medicaid-related offenses.

Contention

However, as with many legislative changes, there are potential points of contention surrounding SB688. Critics may argue that the emphasis on prosecution could overshadow prevention efforts, and that increased penalties may disproportionately affect lower-income individuals who might inadvertently become entangled in fraudulent claims. Furthermore, healthcare providers may express concerns regarding the implications of these regulatory changes on legitimate claims processing, fearing that the heightened scrutiny could create an atmosphere of uncertainty that stifles access to essential medical services.