Medicare funds received by health care providers constitute "benefits" within the meaning of the federal bribery statute prohibiting fraud and other offenses against organizations receiving federal benefits
Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent
Thomas, joined by Scalia
Fischer v United States, 529 U.S. 667 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that the scope of the federal bribery statute 18 U.S.C.§ 666(b), which applied to organizations that received "benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program", included funds received through Medicare.[1]
Background
This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (April 2024)
Opinion of the Court
In a 7-2 opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that, "The government has a legitimate and significant interest in prohibiting financial fraud or acts of bribery being perpetrated upon Medicare providers.... Fraudulent acts threaten the program's integrity...."[1]
Thomas' dissent
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Antonin Scalia, argued that Medicare funds did not constitute bribery as the only people who ultimately received the benefits were patients.[1]
![[icon]](File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small}
