While dodging black cats, walking under open ladders and looking into broken mirrors, Jay Rosen and myself are back on this Friday the 13thto take a look at some of the top compliance stories from the past week.

  1. Want to take a deep dive into the Credit Suisse FCPA enforcement action? Check out Tom’s 3-blog post series (Part I, Part IIand Part III) and Mike Volkov’s two-part series (underlying factsand lessons learned).
  2. What’s the best way to use data to detect corruption? Enestor Dos Santos, principal economist at BBVA Research writes in Global Anti-Corruption Blog. For the full BBVA Research report clickhere.
  3. Did FCPA enforcement pick up in Q2? William Garrett explores this question in WSJ Risk and Compliance Journal.
  4. Romania’s president removes chief anti-corruption prosecutor. Radu-Sorin Marinas reports in Reuters.
  5. Tony Hayward (yes, that Tony “I want my life back” Hayward) will lead Glencore’s corruption investigation. What could go wrong? Harry Cassin explores in the FCPA Blog. Is Glencore pushing the corruption risk envelope too far? David Pilling opines in the Financial Times. (sub req’d)
  6. Does AI create or simply expose ethical dilimmmas? (Hint-it’s all about the data). Vera Cherepanova explores this question in the FCPA Blog.
  7. The second half thebriberyact.com guys; Richard Kovalevsky QC leaves Chambers to move to Stewart’s. Waithera Junghae reports in GIR. (sub req’d)
  8. Are the administration’s moves against ZTE part of a larger all out trade war strategy against China and/or the rest of the world? Louise Lucas explores this question in the Financial Times. (sub req’d) New management says compliance is the top priority. See report in com.
  9. Tone at the top really does matter. PapaJohn Chairman (and former CEO) resigns from Board after using racial slur in con call with vendor. Vendor fires PapaJohn’s as client. See report in Wall Street Journal.
  10. Uber finally gets a CCO but loses its head of HR. Greg Bensinger and Sadie Gurman report in the WSJon the hire. Bensinger reports on the resignation of the head of HR in WSJas well.
  11. The Red Sox have the best record in baseball at the All-Star break. Can they avoid yet another collapse? Jay and Tom debate.

For more information on how an independent monitor can help improve your company’s ethics and compliance program, visit our sponsor Affiliated Monitors at www.affiliatedmonitors.com.

Last week Credit Suisse Group AG (CSAG) and Credit Suisse (Hong Kong) Limited (CSHK), a subsidiary of CSAFG, settled a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement action for just over $77 million for the illegal hiring of family members and close personal friends of Chinese government employees and employees in Chinese state-owned enterprises. CSHK obtained a Non-Prosecution Agreement(NPA) from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and CSAG entered into an agreed Cease and Desist Order(Order) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Collectively, they paid a criminal fine to the DOJ in the amount of $47 million and disgorgement to the SEC in the amount of $24.9 million with interest of $4.8 million for a total to the SEC of $29.8 million.

The FCPA enforcement matter was concluded with a substantial positive for CSAG given its conduct surrounding the affair. CSHK employees worked actively to circumvent, over-ride and hide their actions; clearly indicating the intent to provide benefits to foreign government officials in return for significant benefits. I have been considering this FCPA enforcement, lessons to be learned for the compliance practitioner and how CSHK was able to garner such a superior NPA result. Today I conclude with some of the factors which led to the DOJ giving a 15% discount on the criminal penalty and steps companies should take around the hiring of family members of foreign government officials and employees of state-owned enterprises.

Even with the intentional acts of CSHK, the (very) bad facts outlined in the prior posts, CSAG obtained what can only be described as a superior result in CSHK receiving a NPA and the US entity agreeing to a Cease and Desist Order. This enforcement action is now one of three from the spring of 2018 which demonstrates the effect of the new FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, announced in late November 2017, and the new anti-piling on policy announced in May 2018. The other two enforcement actions were the Declination issued to Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. and the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) obtained by Panasonic Avionics Corporation. The DOJ and SEC have made clear the benefits to a company which cooperates and remediates, even if they do not so fully and they do not self-disclose the FCPA violation.

The Result

CSHK did not receive any credit for self-disclosing the FCPA violations and “because neither it nor CSAG voluntarily and timely disclosed to the Offices the conduct described in the Statement of Facts”. However, CSHK did receive “partial credit for its and CSAG’s cooperation with the Offices’ investigation, including credit for conducting an internal investigation, making factual presentations to the Offices, voluntarily making foreign-based employees available for interviews in the United States, producing documents to the Offices from foreign countries in ways that did not implicate foreign data privacy laws, providing translations of foreign language documents, and collecting and presenting evidence to the Offices”. Tellingly, it did not receive full credit for its cooperation “because its cooperation was reactive, instead of proactive.”

CSHK did institute significant remediation, including:

(1)   adopting additional compliance internal controls related to their hiring programs;

(2)   implementing procedures in the Asia Pacific region in 2013, and globally in 2015, to ensure the identification of and anti-corruption vetting for all candidates referred for employment by foreign government officials and employees of state-owned enterprises;

(3)   requiring all candidates for employment to be screened by an independent service for connections to government officials, SOE employees and other “politically exposed persons” and verifying the efficacy of this screening;

(4)   requiring additional post-hire controls on employees linked to foreign government officials and employees of SOEs, such as ring fencing them from work involving such officials and SOE employees and requiring compliance personnel to track their performance;

(5)   requiring and conducting periodic reviews of hiring controls, and developing procedures for the regular evaluation of hiring controls;

(6)   conducting yearly headcount reviews to ensure accurate record-keeping concerning hiring; and

(7)   requiring improved FCPA and anti-corruption training for all staff, including job-specific training for bankers, recruiters, human resources, and compliance personnel.

Yet here CSHK did not receive full credit as it did not discipline those within the organization who “engaged in the misconduct, and instead only recorded policy infractions internally and provided notices of infractions”. For all of the above and some other efforts, the company did receive a 15% discount off the bottom range in the Sentencing Guidelines. It is also important to note that the SEC stated in its Order, “Respondent acknowledges that the Commission is not imposing a civil penalty based upon the imposition of a $47 million criminal fine as part of Credit Suisse’s settlement with the United States Department of Justice.”

Going Forward

It is incumbent to note that there is nothing illegal in the hiring of family members of foreign government officials or employees of SOEs. What is illegal under the FCPA is intentionally hiring a family member or close personal friend to influence a decision maker at a foreign government or SOE to confer a benefit. If the answer to that question is yes, then the FCPA is impacted. That benefit can be a new contract, contract renewal, tax benefit, confidential inside information or the wide variety of other conduct which constitutes a benefit under the FCPA.

Moreover, there is nothing in the FCPA which makes illegal or prevents the hiring of a family member or close personal friend of a foreign government official or SOE employee. Admittedly, such a hiring may be more high risk and require greater risk management but there is nothing which prevents any business from such hires. The key is that the hiring goes through the standard hiring process.

It all starts with the hiring criteria. If a candidate does not meet your company’s educational or professional standards for hiring, they should not be considered – full stop. There should not be any waivers or exceptions granted unless it is for a technical position that the candidate is uniquely suited for, all of which must be documented. If such a candidate is hired then they must be ring-fenced from working on any matter related to their family member who is a foreign government official or SOE employee.

What is the criteria Compliance can advise HR on to implement and operationalize the compliance issues in hiring? There are three questions I suggest be used to analyze the hiring of a family member of foreign official or SOEs. They can also be installed as internal controls.

  1. Does the candidate meet your firm’s hiring criteria?
  2. Did the foreign official whose family member you are considering for hire demand or even suggest your company hire the candidate?
  3. Has the foreign official made or will make a decision that will benefit your company?

If the answer to the first question is “No” and the second two “Yes”, you may well be in a high-risk area of violating the FCPA. You should investigate the matter quite thoroughly and carefully. Finally, whatever you do, Document, Document, and Document your investigation, both the findings and the conclusions. Furthermore, these questions can be set up as internal controls. This is another example of how a company can operationalize compliance and burn it into the fabric and DNA of an organization. Additionally, it provides another level of oversight or “a second set of eyes” on the hiring process around hires that are high-risk under the FCPA.

I hope you have enjoyed this short series on the CSAG FCPA enforcement action. For an enforcement south of $100 million there was quite a bit to unpack and more to learn for the compliance practitioner.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2018

Last week Credit Suisse Group AG (CSAG) and Credit Suisse (Hong Kong) Limited (CSHK), a subsidiary of CSAFG, settled a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement action for just over $77 million for the illegal hiring of family members and close personal friends of Chinese government employees and employees in Chinese state-owned enterprises. CSHK obtained a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and CSAG entered into an agreed Cease and Desist Order (Order) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Collectively, they paid a criminal fine to the DOJ in the amount of $47 million and disgorgement to the SEC in the amount of $24.9 million with interest of $4.8 million for a total to the SEC of $29.8 million.

The FCPA enforcement matter was concluded with a substantial positive for CSAG given its conduct surrounding the affair. CSHK employees worked actively to circumvent, over-ride and hide their actions; clearly indicating the intent to provide benefits to foreign government officials in return for significant benefits.

Acting Assistant Attorney General John Cronan said in a DOJ Press Release,“The Department of Justice remains steadfast in our commitment to combatting bribery and corruption in all its many forms, including where companies engage in corrupt hiring practices to gain the favor of foreign officials to generate improper business advantages and increase profits.” U.S. Attorney Richard Donoghue said, “Credit Suisse Hong Kong’s practice of employing friends and family members of Chinese government officials as a quid pro quo for lucrative business opportunities was both profitable and corrupt and now the company will pay the price for that corruption.” Assistant Director-in-Charge William F. Sweeney, Jr. was quoted for the following, “In the banking industry, not every undertaking is fair game. Trading employment opportunities for less-than-qualified individuals in exchange for lucrative business deals is an example of nepotism at its finest. The criminal penalty imposed today provides explicit insight into the level of corruption that took place at the hands of Credit Suisse Group AG’s Hong Kong-based subsidiary.”

The Bribery Scheme

The illegal actions were engaged in by CSHK and their business in China. CSAG itself had a policy around not only the hiring of family members of foreign government officials and those of state-owned enterprises but also for training activities and internships which recognized that job offerings were “things of value” under the FCPA, (the “Global Policy). The Global Policy stated, “such referrals could only qualify for positions in existing campus or lateral hiring programs with open application processes and that no special treatment could be provided for those referrals in the recruiting process.” Additionally, any such hire had to go through a rigorous process overseen by CSAG’s Legal and Compliance Department (LCD).

However, CSHK worked throughout the relevant time frame of 2007 to 2015 to evade, over-ride and hide such hires from the LCD and avoid the company’s rigorous internal controls around the hiring of family members of foreign government officials and employees of state-owned enterprises. These hires were a clear quid pro quo for business steered the way of CSHK by corrupt foreign officials and employees of state-owned enterprises (SOEs). The Order stated, “senior Credit Suisse managers repeatedly took steps to onboard Referral Hires from SOEs and government ministries independently from the scrutiny of the company’s established, merit-based campus recruiting program.”

The family members illegally hired were called “Referral Candidates” and they were hired without CSHK conducting such basic Human Resource (HR) controls as employment interviews, screenings or “vetting of any kind”. Following the JPMorgan Sons and Daughters hiring program example, CSHK maintained a written documentation of its own program, with the Order noting, “spreadsheets that listed “referral hires” or “relationship hires.” These spreadsheets included information identifying the referring client or relationship when the relationship was with a government regulator. Some of these spreadsheets identified the “[c]ontribution” of the referral hire, including in at least three instances, deals specifically attributable to the relevant relationship.”

The illegal actions were not limited to only CSHK as the Order related, “certain Credit Suisse managers in the U.S. were aware of CSHK hiring of Referral Candidates. One manager went so far as to call such hires “boondoggles”. Senior Credit Suisse managers in the Asia-Pacific region (APAC) were also aware of these illegal hiring practices, indeed instructing hiring of family members simply “based on the business advantages the government official who referred the candidate could provide.” Some of these same senior officials mandated employees engage in “sham practices” to give the appearance that the hiring practice was being followed, instructing “subordinates to conduct interviews of referral candidates and automatically score the candidate highly, regardless of his/her actual performance.”

The NPA noted that in addition to the hires not going through the regular hiring process, they “often lacked technical skills, were less qualified, and had significantly less banking and other relevant experience than candidates hired through Credit Suisse’s other employment channels.”  But the illegal actions did not simply end with the hiring’s , as “Credit Suisse continued to provide these referral hires with additional benefits and promotions, including at the request of certain SOE or other government officials, even though these referral hires had performed poorly or were not otherwise suited to receive such benefits or promotions.”

In addition to lacking even a modicum of the basic skills to work at CSAG, several of the Referral Hires did not even bother to act as if they cared about their jobs or the work which was provided to them. They did not attend mandatory training sessions and did not bother to stay at the office during business hours. In short, some of these Referral Hires were actually a negative employment relationship for CSHK, destroying morale and actually hurting the paper culture of compliance that CSAG had laid out in its Global Policy. It was clear the only reason such people were hired, maintained their jobs and were even promoted and awarded bonuses were as a result of family members sending business to CSHK.

Tomorrow, I will look at some of the individual hires to see how CSHK over-rode internal controls, hid the hiring process from the home office and violated the FCPA.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2018

This week, I am running a special five-part podcast series, Monitoring in Healthcare. In it, I take a deep dive into healthcare monitoring and how the pro-active use of a healthcare monitor can positively impact all stakeholders in the healthcare industry. The series is sponsored by Affiliated Monitors, Inc. One of the lessons that I learned in researching and producing the series is that while healthcare monitoring has its own unique challenges, there are many techniques, strategies and tools which have wider application to commercial and financial entities. Even if you are not in healthcare, checking out the series could provide you with some new innovative approaches and best practices for the enhancement of your corporate compliance program.

In the healthcare space, when someone makes a complaint to a licensing board, the complaint is investigated, and the licensing board finds, among other things, that the practitioner’s patient records lack basic elements: for example, adequate notes about treatments. Most of these licensing boards have regulations that say what minimally should be included in patient records. And this is the standard you would hope that any kind of a medical provider is recording in writing. This is critical  for a patient’s medical care going forward. A monitor can be an excellent option as for the healthcare provider to continue to practice while providing prompt feedback to the agency about whether the healthcare provider is making promised changes. This is because a straight suspension may hit the pocketbook without helping the provider make meaningful change. An equal if not greater benefit to the healthcare provider as that the monitor can provide tailored advice about how to bring the practice up to professional standards.

In the opioid crisis, a monitor to track prescriptions and prescribers of opioids and other drugs,  as part of a multi-pronged approach to the opioid abuse issue. A monitor can help a provider to put policies and procedures in place to (a) assess the underlying need for pain medication; (b) determine whether someone is actually taking the medications; (c) refer to other specialists for supplemental care: physical therapy, acupuncture, pain clinics; and (d) appropriately terminate care of patients who appear to be getting prescriptions primarily to re-sell the pills.

Yet the benefits do not end there as monitoring, as part of settlement agreement, could require the provider to reduce the number of pain patients and the quantity of pills prescribed over a certain period. A monitor can keep the regulators informed as most state agencies do not have the staff available to track compliance with the details of such an agreement. Independent monitoring is paid for by the licensee. Such use of a monitor also works to protect the public by bringing the professional in line with national standards for assessment, treatment and follow-up of pain patients. Finally, using a monitor can allow the provider to remain open and demonstrate their commitment to improved practice. Healthcare providers are quick learners and, in some cases, putting a structured program in place is a relief.

Another scenario from the healthcare industry where employing a monitor can inform a corporate compliance program is around hospital conversions. Many states have laws in place to protect the public’s interest when a not-for-profit hospital is sold to a for-profit entity. The state’s Attorney General or Department of Health may impose conditions on the new entity, in some cases to prevent it from simply flipping the hospital and extracting the dollar value of the goodwill that was invested by the state when it was not-for-profit.

Hospitals started by charitable or religious organizations may have been acquired or approached by for-profit entities who might be interested in acquiring them. States are concerned that they simply want these healthcare institutions snapped up, so the states want to make sure that the interest of the public are really protected. There are multiple interests that the public has when a not-for-profit entity is bought by a for-profit entity; including things like making sure that the for-profit entity will exist as a healthcare provider for a reasonable period of time, they are good neighbors, that they pay taxes and if there were charities that were in place, those charities continue.

When such a conversion occurs, the purchaser may agree to a wide variety of conditions, such maintaining certain services, making capital improvements, expanding in certain areas, meeting certain public health standards (for immunizations, treatment standards, coordination of care) and addressing certain public health priorities, such as opioid overdose risks or area-specific issues like Lyme disease. An monitor may engage in some or all of the following: review of money to be sure it is spent according to conditions; review of policies, procedures, contracts, training materials; review of assignment of assets,  e.g. donations that were earmarked for a purpose that is no longer possible; visits to the hospital to see if certain programs are functioning, to see if services are being offered as agreed-upon; interviews with staff to see how medical requirements are being met; and review of charts to see whether processes are being followed. In short there are wide variety of conditions which be in place or which the state or regulators want visibility into and a monitor can provide that visibility.

A monitor can also consider other factors, which may seem to less healthcare related but could impact a conversion. There might be an agreement for capital improvements, for example, there might be total dollar amounts to be invested, dollar amounts per year or there might be dollar amounts over a span of time. It could all depend on what the long-term plans are for the acquirer. As an acquirer typically does not make a lot of capital improvements in the first year, a regulator would need a monitor in place for some period of time to make sure the investments are made and  the money spent is actually going on capital improvements. There could be ancillary agreements such as participation in and sponsoring of community activities or education, all of which need to be monitored.

A monitor can drill down into whether the healthcare provider put out advertisements about those kinds of things and see if the public and the person or persons involved actually attended them. Another area often seen is around charitable assets, where a donor may have made a bequeath to a hospital for a specific purpose. If the specific purpose is no longer available; for instance, if it was for a hospital wing that is getting closed down and not being used for the kind of care that it was set up for, those assets might be reassigned.

These examples from healthcare clearly demonstrate how using an independent monitor can facilitate not only compliance with regulations and regulatory issues but with a much wider variety of scenarios. The hospital conversion example clearly informs any merger and acquisition situation or even a business expansion. As a compliance professional, you are only limited by your imagination. By using imagination and innovation, you can tackle many issues more efficiently, with a lower overall cost and in a manner,  which should satisfy a wide variety of stakeholders; from the government to your Board of Directors to shareholders and most significantly to your company’s bottom line.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2018

This week, I am running a special five-part podcast series, Monitoring in Healthcare. In it, I take a deep dive into healthcare monitoring and how the pro-active use of a healthcare monitor can positively impact all stakeholders in the healthcare industry. The series is sponsored by Affiliated Monitors, Inc. One of the lessons that I learned in researching and producing the series is that while healthcare monitoring has its own unique challenges, there are many techniques, strategies and tools which have wider application to commercial and financial entities. Even if you are not in healthcare, checking out the series could provide you with some new innovative approaches for the enhancement of your compliance program.

Healthcare occupies a unique space in the American business world. First of all is the size of the healthcare industry as it accounts for almost 20% of our economy. Moreover a very large portion and an ever-growing portion of that money comes from the taxpayers, federal programs like Medicare, Medicaid, the VA and state funded programs. When you have lots of money being spent in a particular industry, there is always the potential for fraud, waste and abuse. Now overlay this with the public money involved, there is the potential for a False Claims Act or government action, civility or criminally. Finally, the healthcare industry is highly regulated, with most, if not, all healthcare providers, whether individuals or organizations, licensed by the state, either by a Board or state agency and some might even be licensed or certified by federal authorities.

Not every healthcare organization has a good handle on either the effectiveness of their compliance program or the compliance culture of their organization. Independent integrity monitoring can proactively assess compliance programs and culture, identify potential areas of compliance risk.  By using an independent compliance expert to do a proactive assessment of a compliance and ethics program and culture, a healthcare organization can get a lot of value by assessing not just whether the organization has a compliance program that appears to meet all the elements of an effective compliance program but the monitor can come in and actually assess whether that program truly is effective. The assessment can identify the ethical culture of the organization, detect gaps, make recommendations to remediate those gaps and provide the organization with a particular level of comfort that the structure of the program is truly effective and that the culture of the organization is such that compliance has been embraced by the workforce throughout the organization from the top to the bottom.

An independent compliance expert can bring a fresh set of eyes to any organization or entity. Such an expert can provide several valuable inputs to any organization including: demonstrating to the Board organization’s ethical culture and effective compliance program; identify gaps or weaknesses in the compliance program when a healthcare organization has a problem, for instance, a compliance problem where the government gets involved; provide recommendations for remediations demonstrate to government regulators the seriousness and effectiveness of the organizations compliance program; educating an organization’s workforce; and, finally, sending a strong positive message throughout the entire organization that they take compliance very seriously and expects the workforce to take it seriously as well.

Moreover, this is where an independent integrity monitor can be very useful when the organization thinks they have a problem. A monitor can be brought in to assess the compliance program, make recommendations for improvements and then be available to monitor the remedial recommendations as they are implemented. If an organization makes a self-disclosure or if the government comes and investigates the company, they can use the fact that they have used an independent integrity monitor to assess the compliance program and, equally importantly, themselves and they will continue to use the monitor to ensure continued compliance.

In healthcare, when the government or the regulators come knocking, bringing in a compliance monitor can help demonstrate to the government that any compliance violations are not indicative of a systematic problem with the compliance program or the ethical culture of the company. It can show the problems have been remediated. Through monitoring, the government can feel comfortable that the organization is going to be a compliant organization going forward. Using an independent integrity monitor can help an organization avoid more severe sanctions, such as license suspension or even exclusion from a government healthcare program.

There is also value to the government of approving a monitoring relationship in a matter they are involved in. Governments and healthcare regulators want to ensure, above all, that patients and healthcare consumers receive high quality and safe care, that taxpayer money is efficiently and well spent, and that there is a healthcare industry environment and culture of compliance, transparency, and quality. An independent monitor can help the company meet these objectives and provide assurance to the government that the compliance risks have been addressed.

An independent integrity monitor can work with the government to ensure compliance with an oversight requirement, such as a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) or other resolution agreement. Yet an independent compliance monitor typically is going to be an expert in compliance and ethics. The healthcare industry is incredibly complex. Hospitals have many different regulations with which they must comply, which are different from regulators under which a health insurance company must comply, which, again, are different from a medical device company. These are but some of the challenges that an independent compliance monitor needs to have expertise on. The independent monitor can come in and do a proactive assessment, identify gaps in particular areas, such as HIPPA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) privacy, data security, compliance program and internal controls.

The bottom line in healthcare regulation is that government enforcement and regulatory agencies would prefer not to exclude important healthcare providers who have compliance issues. Their goal to ensure access to sufficient quality providers is a constant challenge for healthcare policymakers. Regulators generally agree that the best solution is to have providers with compliance issues remediate their problems and implement a sustainable and effective ethical compliance program. By engaging an independent compliance expert and monitor can provide the government with confidence that organization has remediated and will be an effective, compliant participant.

All of this has significance for commercial and financial institutions. By using an independent compliance monitor in a pro-active approach, your organization can both assess and nip in the bud any matters before they become matters, issues or problems.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2018