What Healthcare & Regulated Industries Must Know About New DOJ Branch

The U.S. Department of Justice has created a new Enforcement & Affirmative Litigation (“EAL”) Branch within the Civil Division, signaling a strategic escalation in civil enforcement and government-initiated litigation. For healthcare entities—the perennial focal point of civil fraud enforcement—the EAL Branch’s formation presages more integrated, data-driven, and swift actions across a spectrum that extends well beyond the False Claims Act. The ripple effects are likely to be felt across life sciences, managed care, private equity, fintech-enabled health services, government contracting, and other regulated sectors that intersect with federal funds, consumer protection regimes, or national security interests.

This DE Insight examines the structural significance of the EAL Branch, anticipated enforcement priorities, practical implications for healthcare and adjacent industries, and steps organizations can take now to shore up risk governance.

A Structural Pivot With Strategic Consequences

In its history, the Civil Division has been home to several of the DOJ’s most potent civil enforcement authorities, including the False Claims Act (FCA), the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), the Controlled Substances Act’s civil remedies, and a wide array of injunctive and equitable tools. The newly created EAL Branch suggests that the DOJ intends to centralize high-impact affirmative litigation capabilities, harmonize case selection across components, and accelerate the conversion of investigative leads into coordinated enforcement actions. In practice, this can:

• Concentrate subject-matter expertise and analytic resources that enhance early case triage.
• Standardize use of powerful civil remedies such as corporate monitors, stipulated civil penalties, and tailored compliance undertakings.
• Tighten collaboration with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the Criminal Division, Antitrust, the National Security Division, and agency Inspectors General—especially where conduct implicates overlapping statutes or parallel proceedings.
• Expand data-driven enforcement, including the use of advanced analytics, whistleblower intelligence, and claims-linkage models to detect patterns of fraud, kickbacks, and medically unnecessary services.

In summary, this just doesn’t mean more cases, but more complex, multi-theory matters brought with greater speed and leveraged across broader corporate families and investment structures.

Reinforced Focus on Healthcare

Healthcare remains the heart of civil enforcement. The EAL Branch is poised to intensify several well-developed lines of inquiry.

Primarily, False Claims Act theories will continue to dominate, with renewed attention to scienter standards, materiality under Escobar[1], and causation frameworks in Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) cases. Expect the EAL Branch to emphasize inducement evidence and remuneration valuation, tying marketing practices, consulting agreements, free goods or services, and “value-add” perks to claim submissions. The Branch is also likely to push on “medical necessity” and “upcoding” disputes using peer-comparison data and physician-level outlier analyses, sometimes accompanied by expert-driven sampling and extrapolation.

Second, Medicare Advantage (MA) risk-adjustment enforcement will remain a priority. Refined analytics that reconcile chart reviews, diagnosis coding, and encounter data can support cases targeting inflated risk scores, unsupported hierarchical condition categories (HCCs), and retrospective coding initiatives. The EAL Branch’s centralization may facilitate broader, system-level remedies that require plan wide controls, provider network oversight enhancements, and independent validation mechanisms.

Third, quality-of-care and patient safety theories—often framed as FCA violations where substandard services render claims false—may gain renewed prominence, particularly in post-acute settings, behavioral health, and telehealth-enabled models. Where civil penalties and injunctive relief are viable, the Branch may seek forward-looking quality improvements and control remediations rather than monetary relief alone.

Fourth, AKS and physician self-referral arrangements will be examined with greater sophistication regarding fair market value and commercial reasonableness, especially in private equity-backed roll-ups, specialty carve-outs, and co-management agreements. Expect deeper scrutiny of compensation metrics tied to downstream revenue, productivity targets, and service-line expansion incentives that could be construed as disguised referrals.

Beyond Healthcare: Life Sciences, Supply Chains, Data Governance, and National Security Overlays

The EAL Branch’s mandate extends beyond healthcare into any area where federal funds, consumer harms, or public integrity are at stake.

In life sciences, manufacturer discount structures, patient support programs, copay assistance, and hub services remain enforcement flashpoints, alongside quality system breakdowns that lead to adulteration or misbranding theories with civil consequences. Clinical research billing to federal payors and grant compliance will continue to attract attention, particularly where data integrity, trial conduct, or publication practices intersect with funding streams.

Government contracting and supply chains can expect broader use of civil tools to address defective pricing, Buy American compliance, cybersecurity attestations, and performance certifications. Coupled with increased use of agency suspension and debarment, the EAL Branch may elevate cases that pair monetary recovery with contract oversight reforms.

Data governance and privacy practices—especially those that underpin billing, eligibility, or reimbursement—are increasingly central to civil enforcement. Misrepresentations in privacy notices, consent flows that affect billing eligibility, or data monetization practices that conflict with declared purposes can yield deceptive practices theories that dovetail with FCA exposure where federal program claims are implicated.

National security overlays are likely to surface where export controls, sanctions, or foreign ownership and control risks intersect with federally funded research, health data, or critical suppliers. Expect the EAL Branch to collaborate with national security components in cases where civil penalties and injunctive relief can quickly constrain risky practices.

Methodology Upgrades: Analytics, Parallel Tracks, and Remedies Engineering

The EAL Branch’s impact will be magnified by three methodological shifts:

1. Analytics maturation will drive case origination. The DOJ and agency partners increasingly deploy machine learning models, graph analytics, and cross-claim linkage to flag outliers, map referral patterns, and quantify anomalies. These tools compress investigative timelines and expand the scale of recoveries by enabling extrapolation and portfolio-level remedies.
2. Parallel civil-criminal coordination is likely to become more seamless. The EAL branch can act as a hub for information flow with the Criminal Division and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, ensuring that civil resolutions are calibrated against potential criminal exposure and that corporate settlements incorporate comprehensive remediation.
3. Remedies engineering will become more sophisticated. Expect bespoke compliance undertakings, independent review organizations, and data-driven testing obligations with reporting to the DOJ. Monitorships may be used sparingly but effectively, and stipulated penalties for backsliding will elevate the cost of superficial remediation.

Practical Implications for Providers, Plans, and Investors

For clients that are providers and health plans, the creation of the EAL Branch truly magnifies the need to uplift enterprise risk management. Boards and audit committees should expect sharper questions around the design and testing of billing and coding controls, AKS/STARK risk in physician alignment strategies, and MA risk-adjustment governance. Telehealth, behavioral health, and ancillary testing models warrant particular care given rapid growth and uneven control maturity. Organizations should stress-test their documentation standards, outlier detection capabilities, and escalation pathways, and ensure that internal audit functions have clear independence and access.

For life sciences organizations, the most immediate implications lie in patient support programs, copay assistance structures, and interactions with foundations and hubs, along with real-world evidence and medical affairs activities that can affect promotional risk. Manufacturers should revisit fair market value frameworks, sampling, chargeback integrity, and data-sharing arrangements that could be construed as kickbacks or deceptive practices, especially where downstream claims touch federal programs.

For private equity and other investors, the EAL branch raises the stakes on investment premised on aggressive coding uplift, referral-driven growth, or rapid roll-up strategies. Portfolio governance should include targeted pre-close diligence on reimbursement and AKS exposure, and post-close plans that prioritize documentation, compliance staffing, and analytics-enabled monitoring. Co-investment and management fee arrangements should be reviewed for any appearance of remuneration tied to federal program volume.

Preparing for the New Normal: Governance, Data, and Disclosure Posture

Organizations and prospective clients can prepare themselves for this environment by focusing on three pillars:

• Governance should elevate compliance to a strategic function with board oversight, clear accountability for reimbursement and referral risks, and escalation protocols that trigger timely remediation and, where appropriate, disclosure. Incentive structures should be aligned to compliance objectives, avoiding metrics that unduly pressure volume, coding intensity, or utilization.
• Data should be treated as both an asset and a liability. High-quality source data, lineage documentation, and audit trails are essential to defend medical necessity, support coding decisions, and demonstrate fair market value analyses. Independent testing and continuous monitoring, especially for MA risk adjustment, can surface issues early and inform corrective actions that withstand regulatory scrutiny.
• Disclosure posture should be calibrated to the heightened enforcement landscape. Where potential violations are identified, prompt scoping, preservation, and privileged root-cause analysis are critical. Voluntary repayments, repayment methodology, and, in appropriate circumstances, engagement with enforcement authorities can mitigate penalties and shape remedial obligations.

Future Outlook

The DOJ’s formation of a Civil Division Enforcement & Affirmative Litigation Branch is more than an organizational refinement; it is a signal that civil tools will be deployed with greater speed, sophistication, and scale. Healthcare will remain the epicenter, but the Branch’s influence will reach any sector where federal funds, consumer harms, or public integrity are implicated. Now is the time for all clients, providers, plans, life sciences companies, contractors, and investors to strengthen risk governance, modernize analytics and controls, and align incentives with compliant growth. Those who do so will be better positioned to navigate the EAL branch’s more integrated and assertive enforcement paradigm.

[1] Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016)

——————————————————————–

This DarrowEverett Insight should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. This Insight is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your attorney concerning any particular situation and any specific legal question you may have. Please reach out to us if you need help addressing any of the issues discussed in this Insight, or any other issues or concerns you may have relating to your business. We are ready to help guide you through these challenging times.

This Insight does not constitute written tax advice as described in 31 C.F.R. §10, et seq. and is not intended or written by us to be used and/or relied on as written tax advice for any purpose including, without limitation, the marketing of any transaction addressed herein. Any U.S. federal tax advice rendered by DarrowEverett LLP shall be conspicuously labeled as such, shall include a discussion of all relevant facts and circumstances, as well as of any representations, statements, findings, or agreements (including projections, financial forecasts, or appraisals) upon which we rely, applicable to transactions discussed therein in compliance with 31 C.F.R. §10.37, shall relate the applicable law and authorities to the facts, and shall set forth any applicable limits on the use of such advice.