To enact sections 2749.01, 2749.02, 2749.03, 2749.04, 2749.05, 2749.06, 2749.07, 2749.08, 2749.09, and 2749.10 of the Revised Code regarding filing false or fraudulent claims with the state and defrauding the state of money or property.
HB976 would create a new chapter of the Revised Code aimed at fraud against the state. It defines key terms such as “claim,” “documentary material,” and “knowing,” and then prohibits a range of conduct including submitting false or misleading claims to the state, using false records or statements to obtain payment, conspiring to defraud the state, concealing state property or money, and making false documents about receipt of state property. The bill also specifically targets kickbacks, bribes, rebates, or other remuneration connected to referrals for health care services paid for by Medicaid or the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.
The bill establishes a civil enforcement framework modeled on a false claims act. The attorney general would be required to investigate suspected violations and could bring civil actions, but private whistleblowers could also file qui tam-style suits on behalf of the state under seal. If the state intervenes, the whistleblower could receive 15% to 25% of recoveries; if the state declines, the share could rise to 25% to 30%, plus expenses and attorney’s fees. The bill also authorizes civil investigative demands, sets venue and limitations periods, protects whistleblowers from retaliation, and makes information gathered in these investigations generally confidential and exempt from public-records disclosure.
If enacted, HB976 would add a new set of state fraud remedies and enforcement tools to Ohio law, supplementing existing remedies for false claims and related misconduct. It would expand the attorney general’s investigative authority, create a new cause of action for the state and relators, and impose treble damages or reduced damages depending on early cooperation with the attorney general. It would also create employment protections for workers who report or assist in such cases and provide procedural rules for subpoenas, sealed complaints, discovery stays, and settlement or dismissal of whistleblower actions.
The available legislative context shows no committee testimony or recorded votes, and the bill was only introduced. As a result, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to measure directly. Based on the bill’s structure, the measure appears designed to strengthen anti-fraud enforcement and encourage reporting of misconduct, especially in state-funded health care and public spending programs.
Because there is no recorded debate, the main likely points of contention are inferred from the bill’s design: the breadth of liability for false claims, the use of private whistleblowers, confidentiality of investigative materials, and the potential burden on defendants facing sealed qui tam litigation and civil investigative demands. Support would likely come from those favoring stronger anti-fraud enforcement and recovery of state funds, while concerns could come from entities subject to state contracting, Medicaid, or workers’ compensation reimbursement rules.
HB976 would create a new chapter in the Revised Code governing false claims and fraud against the state, adding civil penalties, treble-damages remedies, whistleblower suits, retaliation protections, and attorney general investigative powers. It would affect contractors, grantees, health care providers, managed care organizations, and others who seek or receive state funds or reimbursement, and it specifically reaches kickbacks tied to Medicaid and workers’ compensation referrals. The bill would also make investigative submissions confidential and exempt from public-records disclosure, while authorizing civil investigative demands and sealed qui tam procedures.
There is no recorded committee discussion or vote history in the provided materials, so the bill’s sentiment cannot be measured from formal legislative debate. The text suggests a generally enforcement-oriented and pro-recovery posture, aimed at deterring fraud and encouraging whistleblowers to report misconduct. In the absence of testimony, the most likely overall sentiment is neutral-to-supportive among anti-fraud advocates, with potential concern from regulated parties about litigation exposure and investigative burdens.
No specific contention is documented in the available transcript or voting record because none was provided. Based on the bill text, the likely points of dispute are the scope of prohibited conduct, the qui tam mechanism allowing private relators to sue on the state’s behalf, the confidentiality and sealing provisions, and the broad subpoena-like civil investigative demand authority granted to the attorney general. Parties most likely to object would be state contractors, health care providers, managed care organizations, and other recipients of state funds, while supporters would likely include fraud enforcement advocates and agencies seeking stronger recovery tools.