2 | 7 | | |
---|
3 | 8 | | |
---|
4 | 9 | | HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION |
---|
5 | 10 | | WHEREAS, In 2015, the federal Department of Justice (DOJ) |
---|
6 | 11 | | began an investigation of the Health and Human Services Commission |
---|
7 | 12 | | (HHSC) quality control (QC) of the Supplemental Nutrition |
---|
8 | 13 | | Assistance Program (SNAP) from 2007 to the present, requesting |
---|
9 | 14 | | documents from HHSC in April 2017 and deposing HHSC staff in March |
---|
10 | 15 | | 2019; and |
---|
11 | 16 | | WHEREAS, DOJ's investigation focused on whether HHSC |
---|
12 | 17 | | properly and accurately calculated, determined, and reported |
---|
13 | 18 | | Texas' error rates in compliance with FNS requirements regarding |
---|
14 | 19 | | SNAP QC; specifically, DOJ focused on HHSC's relationship with |
---|
15 | 20 | | Julie Osnes Consulting (Osnes), a contractor who assisted HHSC in |
---|
16 | 21 | | determining SNAP error rates and quality control review of SNAP |
---|
17 | 22 | | cases from September 2009 to June 2015; and |
---|
18 | 23 | | WHEREAS, DOJ was concerned that, by following certain |
---|
19 | 24 | | recommendations by Osnes, HHSC failed to maintain the integrity of |
---|
20 | 25 | | the QC system by introducing bias into its processes; and |
---|
21 | 26 | | WHEREAS, Osnes reached a settlement with DOJ in June 2019 of |
---|
22 | 27 | | $751,571, and to date three other states have settled DOJ's claims |
---|
23 | 28 | | related to their implementation of Osnes's recommendations: |
---|
24 | 29 | | (a) April 2017--Virginia settled for $7,150,436; |
---|
25 | 30 | | (b) April 2017--Wisconsin settled for $6,991,905; |
---|
26 | 31 | | (c) September 2017--Alaska settled for $2,489,999; and |
---|
27 | 32 | | WHEREAS, DOJ claimed that HHSC's SNAP management violated the |
---|
28 | 33 | | Federal False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 3729, et seq.) and the Program |
---|
29 | 34 | | Fraud Civil Remedies Act (31 U.S.C. 3801, et seq.), in addition to |
---|
30 | 35 | | asserting various claims under common law; and |
---|
31 | 36 | | WHEREAS, The Covered Conduct alleged by DOJ included: |
---|
32 | 37 | | (a) Changing QC findings or dropping cases from review to |
---|
33 | 38 | | reduce or eliminate errors; |
---|
34 | 39 | | (b) Adding to or removing information from case files as |
---|
35 | 40 | | necessary to support the new findings and submitting the revised |
---|
36 | 41 | | findings and information to the U.S. Food and Nutrition Service; |
---|
37 | 42 | | (c) Finding ways to induce client responses to justify |
---|
38 | 43 | | dropping error cases from the review and asking leading questions |
---|
39 | 44 | | of clients to obtain desired answers to eliminate error potential; |
---|
40 | 45 | | (d) Selectively applying requirements and policies to |
---|
41 | 46 | | overturn and reduce errors; |
---|
42 | 47 | | (e) Retaliating against SNAP employees who questioned using |
---|
43 | 48 | | Osnes's methods by removing the employees from the QC review team; |
---|
44 | 49 | | and |
---|
45 | 50 | | WHEREAS, DOJ sought recovery of two years of accuracy |
---|
46 | 51 | | performance bonuses paid to HHSC, as well as certain other costs |
---|
47 | 52 | | associated with the QC process and the relationship with Osnes; and |
---|
48 | 53 | | WHEREAS, DOJ engaged HHSC in settlement negotiations, with |
---|
49 | 54 | | the Office of the Attorney General representing HHSC in both the |
---|
50 | 55 | | investigation and settlement discussions; and |
---|
51 | 56 | | WHEREAS, In December 2019, the parties reached agreement on |
---|
52 | 57 | | the following terms: |
---|
53 | 58 | | (a) A total settlement amount of $15,294,360: |
---|
54 | 59 | | (1) Of that amount, DOJ characterizes $13,396,343 as |
---|
55 | 60 | | restitution for the performance bonuses paid to the State; |
---|
56 | 61 | | (2) The remaining $1,898,017 represents repayment of |
---|
57 | 62 | | the federally funded portion of HHSC's QC costs and the amounts paid |
---|
58 | 63 | | to Osnes, plus a "multiplier" required by DOJ; |
---|
59 | 64 | | (b) Waiver by HHSC of any claim to the 2014 performance |
---|
60 | 65 | | bonus that was awarded but never paid to the State; |
---|
61 | 66 | | (c) No admission of liability by HHSC; and |
---|
62 | 67 | | WHEREAS, Section 111.003(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and |
---|
63 | 68 | | Remedies Code prohibits HHSC from entering a settlement agreement |
---|
64 | 69 | | that requires the payment of damages of more than $10,000,000 |
---|
65 | 70 | | within a fiscal biennium; therefore, the settlement agreement is |
---|
66 | 71 | | expressly conditioned upon the legislature approving and |
---|
67 | 72 | | appropriating the agreed upon settlement amount; and |
---|
68 | 73 | | WHEREAS, Since the findings resulting in the settlement, the |
---|
69 | 74 | | U.S. Department of Agriculture has reviewed HHSC's Quality Control |
---|
70 | 75 | | SNAP section processes twice and did not identify any adverse |
---|
71 | 76 | | finding; now, therefore, be it |
---|
72 | 77 | | RESOLVED, That the 87th Legislature of the State of Texas |
---|
73 | 78 | | hereby approve the proposed Settlement Agreement. |
---|