This bill would create a new set of crimes in the Penal Law for “unlawful procurement of clients, patients or customers,” aimed at people who act as “runners” or who hire, direct, solicit, or employ others to do so. A “runner” is defined as someone who, for payment or other pecuniary benefit, procures or tries to procure clients, patients, or customers at the direction of or in cooperation with a provider, where the purpose is to obtain insurance benefits, health care benefits, prescription drug assistance benefits, or to assert claims against insurers or benefit programs. The bill also defines “provider” broadly to include attorneys, health care professionals, health care practices or facilities, and related agents, managers, consultants, or anyone creating the impression they can provide legal or health care services.
The bill establishes three offense levels. Third-degree unlawful procurement is a class A misdemeanor for knowingly acting as a runner or using another person as a runner. Second-degree is a class E felony when the conduct involves more than $2,500 in aggregate pecuniary benefit or occurs five or more times. First-degree is a class D felony when the conduct involves more than $5,000 in aggregate pecuniary benefit or occurs ten or more times. The bill excludes certain conduct, including referrals otherwise authorized by law, procurement through public media, and certain health maintenance organization or health insurance sales activity.
In addition to creating these new offenses, the bill amends the list of predicate felonies used in New York’s persistent felony offender and wiretap statutes to include the new second- and first-degree offenses. Specifically, it adds these crimes to Penal Law section 460.10 and Criminal Procedure Law section 700.05, which affects sentencing and investigative-authority provisions tied to serious felonies. The bill would take effect on November 1 following enactment.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill materials is preventive and enforcement-oriented, with the measure framed as a response to improper client- and patient-solicitation practices in legal and health care-related settings, especially where insurance or public-benefit claims are involved. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate broader support or opposition.
The main point of potential contention is the breadth of the definition of “provider” and the scope of conduct covered by “runner,” since the bill reaches both legal and health care contexts and criminalizes solicitation tied to pecuniary benefit. Possible concerns could include whether the bill could overlap with legitimate marketing, referral, or business-development practices, though the text attempts to carve out public media and otherwise lawful referrals.
The bill would add a new article of criminal liability to the Penal Law for unlawful procurement of clients, patients, or customers, creating misdemeanor and felony penalties for runner-based solicitation schemes. It would also amend the persistent felony offender statute and the wiretap statute to treat the new second- and first-degree offenses as qualifying felonies, thereby expanding the consequences of conviction and the circumstances under which law enforcement may seek interception authority.
The bill appears to be driven by a law-enforcement and consumer-protection rationale, targeting alleged solicitation abuse in legal and health care claim contexts. With no committee transcripts or votes available, the record does not show formal opposition or support, but the structure of the bill suggests a generally punitive, anti-fraud sentiment aimed at curbing exploitative referral practices.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s broad definitions and its reach into both attorney and health care markets. Critics could argue that the terms “provider” and “runner” may sweep in legitimate marketing, referral, or intake practices, while supporters would likely emphasize the need to deter paid solicitation schemes that exploit insurance, health benefits, or public programs. The explicit exclusions for public media and lawful referrals appear designed to address some of these concerns.