Hope is the immediate past Chair of the firm’s Health Care Enforcement Defense Practice. She has also served on the firm’s Pro Bono Committee and Policy Committee.
Hope defends and resolves large, multifaceted federal and state investigations arising under criminal and civil statutes barring, among other things, the submission of false claims and the provision of remuneration to induce referrals. In connection with such cases, Hope negotiates and structures global settlements with the US Department of Justice and its US Attorneys’ Offices and state Attorneys' General Offices as well as corporate integrity agreements with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General.
Many of the cases that she has handled have arisen as a result of qui tam cases filed by whistleblowers, under federal and state False Claims Acts. Hope also develops and implements compliance programs and advises clients in connection with voluntary disclosures to the government. Hope defends administrative actions initiated by federal and state agencies, including recoupment actions and proceedings involving licensure and certification. She has a comprehensive understanding of the Medicare and Medicaid programs and the rules governing reimbursement. In her work before the US Congress on behalf of clients, Hope has supported enactment of statutes including the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments and the Stark self-referral bans.
She also represents health care providers, product manufacturers, payors, and investors, and specializes in statutory and regulatory issues affecting the provision of health care services. Her practice includes counseling, structuring, and litigating fraud and abuse issues as well as reimbursement matters.
Hope frequently speaks on topics of interest to health care providers, payors, and product manufacturers. She also has written extensively on issues confronting health care providers.
Hope is an excellent attorney who is responsive and has a great work ethic.
- Health Care Client, Chambers USA 2024
Experience
- Represented a diagnostics company in a national criminal and civil investigation involving multiple US Attorneys’ Offices and state Attorneys' General Offices. The investigation involved alleged kickback issues and billing violations.
- Defended a physician, from a Southeastern state, in a broad-based False Claims Act investigation alleging kickback issues.
- Defended a publicly traded medical device company in connection with the alleged failure to substantiate marketing and promotional claims.
- Represented a clinical laboratory in connection with a False Claims Act investigation, arising from a qui tam case, alleging issues with the manner in which specimens were obtained and transported to the laboratory prior to testing. The government declined the case and both the relator and government dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
- Represented four specialty laboratories in False Claims Act investigations in connection with the payment of processing and handling fees for specimen collection.
- Defending several providers in state False Claims Act investigations throughout the country regarding alleged violations of Medicaid billing rules.
- Represented and continuing to represent a number of providers in investigations conducted by the Federal Trade Commission involving alleged consumer protection violations.
- Representing a provider in defending against multistate investigations by numerous Attorneys’ Generals involving alleged violations of state consumer protection laws.
- Settled a number of False Claims Act investigations of various providers without Corporate Integrity Agreements.
viewpoints
The Supreme Court’s SuperValu Decision on the “Knowingly” Element in the False Claims Act: Protecting Against Liability When There is Regulatory Ambiguity
June 14, 2023 | Blog | By Laurence Freedman, Hope Foster, Stephnie John
In a resounding unanimous 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a defendant’s subjective belief is irrelevant under the False Claims Act (FCA) when evaluating whether a defendant “knowingly” submitted a false claim to the government for payment. On June 1, 2023, the Court issued its highly anticipated opinion in the consolidated cases U.S. ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu, Inc. and U.S. ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, Inc. (SuperValu) and addressed the question of whether a defendant is liable under the FCA if its conduct is consistent with an “objectively reasonable” interpretation of ambiguous statutory or regulatory language. Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, held that an “objectively reasonable” interpretation does not provide a complete legal defense to liability under the FCA. Rather, a defendant meets the FCA’s intent (scienter) requirement if the defendant’s subjective beliefs indicate it had knowledge that its submission of claims was “false or fraudulent,” regardless of whether the defendant’s conduct could be supported by a later “objectively reasonable” interpretation of the ambiguous legal or regulatory issue. Further, the Court articulated new standards for what might constitute “deliberate ignorance” or “reckless disregard” under the “knowledge” prong of the FCA.
Webinar Recording: Health Care Enforcement Year in Review & 2021 Outlook
February 24, 2021 | | By Eoin Beirne, Brian Dunphy, Hope Foster, Karen Lovitch
SBA Issues Additional Guidance Regarding “Necessity” Certification Required under the CARES Act
May 13, 2020 | Blog | By Hope Foster, Karen Lovitch, Joseph Price, Sahir Surmeli
Part Five of the COVID-19 Roadmap Series: Ensuring a Safe Workplace - COVID-19 Screening and Testing
May 6, 2020 | Blog | By Nicole Rivers, Michael Arnold, Karen Lovitch, Hope Foster, Cynthia Larose
Rough Seas for COVID-19 Serology Tests Lead to Course Correction by FDA
May 5, 2020 | Blog | By Joanne Hawana, Hope Foster
COVID-19 and Lab Testing: What’s the Story Behind the Story?
April 29, 2020 | Blog | By Hope Foster, Joanne Hawana
Only days before those stories ran, news outlets reported that Great Britain had paid $20 million to purchase antibody tests from China but, upon their arrival in Great Britain, those tests were found not to work. On April 26, 2020, the front page story in The New York Times headlined that “Testing Remains Scarce as States Weigh Reopening.”
Day after day, we have read conflicting stories about lab testing: do we have sufficient capacity and capability or do we not? If we do not, why don’t we? We have seen an alphabet soup of federal agencies named as being involved with clinical labs and working towards a solution to the many issues that have been raised. Having worked with labs for decades, we thought we would explore these really important questions. Which agency is responsible for what, and what are they doing? Every day we receive questions like these, and we thought that we would share what we have learned.
Practical Tips and Guidance for Understanding and Using HHS's Stark Law Blanket Waivers and the OIG’s Policy Statement About Them
April 21, 2020 | Blog | By Samantha Kingsbury, Hope Foster
Law Enforcement Stays Active During the COVID-19 Pandemic
April 13, 2020 | Blog | By Hope Foster
The very next day, the United States Attorney’s Office in San Antonio, Texas charged 39 year-old Christopher Perez with allegedly perpetuating a COVID-19-related hoax by posting a false threat on Facebook in which he claimed to have paid someone to spread COVID-19 at grocery stores in Texas. These prompt actions to implement Attorney General William Barr’s March 16 call to prioritize the detection, investigation, and detection of all criminal conduct related to the COVID-19 pandemic caused us to wonder what the federal government is doing about enforcement. The answer is: a lot.
The VALID Act, Aiming to Reform the Regulation of Diagnostic Products, Is Finally Introduced in Congress
March 12, 2020 | Blog
Mintz Health Care Qui Tam Update - February 2019
February 20, 2019 | Article | By Hope Foster, Kevin McGinty, Randy Jones, Jane Haviland, Yarazel Mejorado
News & Press
The Best Lawyers in America 2025 Recognizes 184 Mintz Attorneys across 56 Practice Areas
August 15, 2024
187 Mintz attorneys have been recognized by Best Lawyers® in the 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in America©. Notably, three Mintz attorneys received 2025 “Lawyer of the Year” awards, and 64 firm attorneys were included in the 2025 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.
Mintz announced today that 42 of its practices and 83 of its attorneys earned recognition in the 2024 edition of Chambers USA, a guide to the country’s leading law firms. Of those included in the guide, 18 attorneys and seven practice areas were awarded Chambers’ highest ranking, Band 1. The firm obtained new listings in three practice areas and 10 of its lawyers were recognized for the first time.
Mintz is pleased to announce that 120 firm attorneys have been recognized as leaders by Best Lawyers® in the 2024 edition of The Best Lawyers in America©.
BOSTON – Mintz has earned top rankings in the 2023 edition of Legal 500 United States guide. The firm is recognized in 14 practice categories, and 59 individual attorneys are also recognized in the guide, some in more than one category.
Best Lawyers® recognized 108 firm attorneys in the 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in America©. Notably, two Mintz attorneys – Poonam Patidar and Scott M. Stanton – received 2023 “Lawyer of the Year” awards, and 28 firm attorneys were included in the inaugural edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.
Mintz Practice Groups and Attorneys Garner Top Rankings in 2020 Edition of The Legal 500 United States
June 12, 2020
Chambers USA 2018 Ranks Mintz Attorneys & Practices
May 03, 2018
Health Care Enforcement Reflections and Forecasts: Part 3
January 26, 2016
Health Care Enforcement Reflections and Forecasts: Part 2
January 25, 2016
Health Care Enforcement Reflections and Forecasts: Part 1
January 22, 2016
Events & Speaking
Received COVID-19 Funding? How to Mitigate and Respond to Enforcement Risks and Government Actions
View the Webinar Recording
Health Care Enforcement in 2015: A Look Back on 2014 and Forecasting the Year Ahead
Mintz Levin
Webinar
Legal Issues Affecting Academic Medical Centers and Other Teaching Institutions
AHLA
Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Washington, DC
2014 Enforcement Outlook for Public Companies in the Health Care and Life Sciences Sectors
Mintz Levin
Webinar
Recognition & Awards
Best Lawyers in America: Health Care Law (2011-2025)
Included on the Washington DC Super Lawyers: Health Care list (2012-2020)
Recognized by The Legal 500 United States for Healthcare: Service Providers (2018-2020, 2022-2023), Leading Lawyer (2024)
Chambers USA: District of Columbia (Band 1) – Healthcare (2009-2024)
Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent
Nightingale’s Healthcare News: Outstanding Healthcare Fraud and Compliance Lawyer (2008, 2010)
Involvement
- Member, American Health Lawyers Association
- Member, District of Columbia Bar Association
- Member, American Bar Association (ABA)
- Member, ABA White Collar Crime Committee
- Member, ABA Health Care Committee
- Member, ABA Antitrust Committee
- Member, ABA Subcommittee on Health Care Fraud and Abuse
Recent Insights
187 Mintz attorneys have been recognized by Best Lawyers® in the 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in America©. Notably, three Mintz attorneys received 2025 “Lawyer of the Year” awards, and 64 firm attorneys were included in the 2025 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.
Mintz announced today that 42 of its practices and 83 of its attorneys earned recognition in the 2024 edition of Chambers USA, a guide to the country’s leading law firms. Of those included in the guide, 18 attorneys and seven practice areas were awarded Chambers’ highest ranking, Band 1. The firm obtained new listings in three practice areas and 10 of its lawyers were recognized for the first time.
