Congress Demands Action on “Staggering” California Fraud Scheme
A coalition of senior House Republicans is demanding answers from the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS OIG) following revelations of massive Medicare home health and hospice fraud centered in Los Angeles County, where federal data show unprecedented spikes in questionable billing and provider growth.
In a joint letter released January 13, House Committee Chairs Brett Guthrie, John Joyce, Morgan Griffith, Jason Smith, David Schweikert, and Vern Buchanan requested an urgent meeting with federal health watchdogs, citing “large-scale, ongoing Medicare fraud” in California’s largest county.
The request follows alarming evidence suggesting that the county has become the epicenter of one of the nation’s most brazen health-care fraud schemes.
Among the findings: Los Angeles County now accounts for 18 percent of all home health billing in the United States, despite representing only a small fraction of the nation’s senior population.
The county has nearly 2,000 hospice agencies—more than 36 states combined—and 30 times more than Florida or New York. In one instance, a single physician allegedly billed the federal government $120 million in one year while claiming to supervise 1,900 patients.
“How is that possible?” Rep. Jason Smith, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement. “We’ve seen reports of hospices operating out of strip malls, unmarked buildings, even a wrecking yard. It’s an entire paper empire draining taxpayer dollars that should go to real care.”
A 2022 state audit revealed that more than 112 hospice agencies were registered to the same physical address in Los Angeles County. Federal auditors estimate that hospice fraud cost Medicare $198 million in fiscal year 2023, while improper home health payments reached $1.2 billion. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has since labeled the home health sector as “high risk” for fraud and abuse.
Despite national declines in home health agencies over the past five years, Los Angeles County has seen explosive growth — a 46 percent increase since 2019, even as the total number of U.S. providers fell by six percent.
More than 1,400 new home health agencies have registered in the county since 2019, accounting for over half of all new providers in California and nearly 14 percent of the national total.
Republican lawmakers are now questioning how this growth escaped federal scrutiny. Their letter cites systemic failures by accrediting organizations, which they say “rubber-stamped” Medicare enrollment applications without verifying locations, ownership, or legitimate patient activity.
California’s Department of Health and the state auditor have also warned of extensive overbilling, estimating that hospice agencies in Los Angeles County alone overcharged Medicare by at least $105 million in 2019. The problem, federal investigators suggest, has only worsened.
Rep. Guthrie said the House Energy and Commerce Committee intends to use its subpoena power if federal agencies fail to deliver clear answers. “We’ve got evidence that these operations are not just fraudulent—they’re criminal enterprises exploiting our most vulnerable,” Guthrie said.
HHS OIG has pledged to complete a full audit by fiscal year 2026 identifying trends and patterns in hospice and home health billing.
The department previously acknowledged that “rapid, disproportionate growth and excessive geographic clustering” are classic indicators of fraud.
The revelations follow multiple arrests in 2025 linked to Armenian organized crime groups accused of laundering tens of millions through fake hospice operations in the greater Los Angeles area.
The Health Care Fraud Strike Force — a joint federal-state task force — said it dismantled five such networks last year, but investigators believe the problem remains widespread.
CMS issued new rules in late 2025 to strengthen Medicare provider verification and ownership transparency, but lawmakers say enforcement has lagged.
“This is the largest concentration of suspected Medicare fraud in the country,” said Rep. Smith. “Gavin Newsom’s California could just as well be another Minnesota — a state government asleep at the switch while billions vanish.”
The House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee is now coordinating with HHS OIG to schedule hearings on what members call “systemic federal negligence.”
“Every fraudulent claim is a dollar stolen from a senior who needs real care,” said Rep. Buchanan, chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health. “We are determined to shut this down.”
Seditious Six' Mark Kelly Does It AGAIN - Pete Hegseth Promises A Legal Response
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired U.S. Navy captain, drew criticism after discussing details from a classified Pentagon briefing during a live interview on CBS News. In the segment with anchor Margaret Brennan, Kelly described the impact of U.S. military operations in the Middle East on American weapons stockpiles. He specifically referenced munitions including Tomahawk cruise missiles, ATACMS, SM-3 interceptors, THAAD rounds, and Patriot systems, stating it was “shocking how deep we have gone into these magazines.”
Kelly attributed the depletion to decisions made by the current administration, saying the president acted “without a strategic goal, without a plan, without a timeline,” which he argued left the United States less prepared for potential conflicts elsewhere, including a hypothetical scenario involving China and Taiwan. He noted that replenishing the stockpiles would take years.
The comments followed a classified briefing provided to members of Congress on the effects of recent U.S. involvement in the Iran conflict. National security experts and administration officials have expressed concern that public discussion of specific munitions levels and readiness timelines could compromise operational security and provide adversaries with actionable intelligence.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth responded swiftly, stating that the Department of Defense’s legal counsel would review Kelly’s remarks to determine whether they constituted a violation of his oath or improperly disclosed classified information. Hegseth wrote on social media: “Captain Mark Kelly strikes again. Now he’s blabbing on TV (falsely & dumbly) about a CLASSIFIED Pentagon briefing he received. Did he violate his oath…again? @DeptofWar legal counsel will review.”
Kelly has faced previous scrutiny for a video earlier this year in which he and several Democratic colleagues encouraged military members to evaluate the legality of orders from President Trump, remarks some critics labeled as seditious. As a former naval aviator and astronaut, Kelly has frequently drawn on his military background when discussing national security issues.
The senator’s office has not issued a direct response to Hegseth’s statement. In the interview, Kelly framed his comments as part of legitimate congressional oversight, noting that members of Congress receive classified briefings to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.
The episode highlights ongoing tensions between the executive and legislative branches over the handling of sensitive national security information. Legal analysts note that members of Congress are generally protected by the Speech or Debate Clause when discussing matters related to their official duties, but the public disclosure of classified details can still trigger internal reviews and potential referrals to the Department of Justice.
The Pentagon has declined to confirm or deny the accuracy of Kelly’s description of stockpile levels. Officials have previously warned that public speculation about munitions readiness can embolden adversaries and complicate deterrence strategy, particularly with respect to China’s military posture in the Indo-Pacific.
The incident occurs against the backdrop of heightened U.S.-Iran tensions and broader concerns about military readiness. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have expressed worries about the pace of munitions replenishment following sustained operations in multiple theaters. However, the public nature of Kelly’s remarks has intensified partisan debate over congressional responsibility and the boundaries of classified information.
As the Department of Defense legal review proceeds, the matter is likely to fuel further discussion about the balance between transparency, oversight, and national security in an era of heightened geopolitical competition.
Former General Milley Says Armed Forces Must Serve the Constitution Above Politics
Mark Milley Issues Stark Warning at Arlington National Cemetery — “Military Must Serve the Constitution, Not a President”
In times of political strain and national uncertainty, the most enduring principles of a democracy are often reaffirmed not through legislation or elections alone, but through the voices of those entrusted with its defense. The statement attributed to Mark Milley, delivered at Arlington National Cemetery, speaks directly to one of the foundational pillars of the United States: the subordination of military power to constitutional authority rather than individual leadership.
At the heart of Milley’s message lies a principle that distinguishes democratic systems from authoritarian ones—the military’s oath is sworn to the Constitution, not to a person. This idea, while deeply embedded in American civic tradition, gains renewed significance in moments when political divisions intensify and questions of loyalty arise. By emphasizing this distinction, Milley reinforces a core safeguard against the concentration of unchecked power: that no leader, regardless of position, stands above the constitutional framework.
The setting of Arlington National Cemetery adds a profound symbolic dimension to the statement. It is a place where the cost of preserving constitutional ideals is made visible in rows of white headstones, each representing a life given in service to something larger than individual ambition or political allegiance. Speaking in such a setting transforms a statement into a moral reflection, linking present concerns to a legacy of sacrifice. It reminds the nation that the principles under discussion are not abstract—they have been defended at the highest possible cost.
This message arrives amid ongoing debates about the relationship between civilian leadership and military responsibility. In any democracy, the military must remain under civilian control; yet that control is exercised through lawful authority rooted in constitutional order, not personal loyalty. The distinction is subtle but critical. It ensures that the armed forces operate as an institution of the state rather than as an instrument of any one leader’s will. When this balance is maintained, it protects both democratic governance and the integrity of the military itself.
Criticism of Milley’s remarks, particularly from allies of Donald Trump, reflects the broader polarization shaping contemporary political discourse. Some view such statements as overreach by military figures into political territory, raising concerns about the appropriate boundaries between military leadership and public debate. Others interpret them as necessary clarifications during a time when those boundaries may appear blurred. This divergence of interpretation underscores the difficulty of navigating institutional roles in a highly charged environment.
Yet beyond the immediate controversy, Milley’s words serve a broader purpose. They invite reflection on the nature of allegiance in a constitutional democracy. Loyalty, in this context, is not directed toward individuals but toward enduring principles—rule of law, separation of powers, and the rights enshrined in the Constitution. These principles provide continuity even as leaders change, ensuring that the nation’s identity is not tied to any single figure.
Ultimately, the significance of this moment lies not in partisan reactions but in the reaffirmation of a fundamental truth: the strength of a democracy depends on the clarity of its commitments. By reiterating that the military serves the Constitution above all, Milley echoes a tradition that has helped sustain American governance through crises both past and present.
In the quiet solemnity of Arlington, where history is etched in stone, such a reminder carries particular weight. It speaks not only to those currently in positions of power but to future generations, emphasizing that the preservation of democratic ideals requires constant vigilance—and, at times, the courage to restate what should never be forgotten.
