What A CMS Fraud Expert Learned By Caring For Her Parents In Hospice

A former top CMS fraud investigator learned the painful truth about hospice fraud not from case files, but from the bedside of her own dying parents. Dara Corrigan, who once led Medicare integrity efforts at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, placed both her parents in hospice care in recent years. What she witnessed firsthand has given her a new perspective on the systemic failures and fraud that plague end-of-life care in America. Her story, shared in a Forbes essay, exposes the gap between policy intentions and real-world patient experiences.

Hospice care is a $20 billion industry funded largely by Medicare, but it has long been a target for fraud. Previous investigations by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General have found aggressive marketing, unnecessary enrollments, and billing for services not rendered. The Government Accountability Office has flagged hospice as a high-risk area for improper payments, with an estimated $1.5 billion in questionable claims annually. Corrigan spent her career building safeguards against such abuse. Now she has seen the other side.

Corrigan describes the difficulty of finding honest, compassionate hospice providers. She recounts specific administrative hurdles: confusing paperwork that delays care, lack of transparency about what services are covered, and a payment system that incentivizes long stays rather than quality outcomes. She notes that while CMS has tried to tighten rules, bad actors find ways to exploit loopholes. "The system is broken for patients and providers alike," she writes, urging policymakers to listen to frontline caregivers and families.

Key details from her account include the emotional toll of navigating care while grieving, the realization that even well-intentioned regulators miss on-the-ground realities, and the urgent need for better oversight of for-profit hospice chains. Corrigan points to successful models like community-based nonprofits that prioritize patient dignity. She also highlights that hospice fraud prevention requires more than enforcement—it demands cultural change in how we approach end-of-life care.

Analysis: Corrigan's dual perspective—as a regulator and as a daughter—is rare and valuable. It highlights that even well-intentioned policies can create perverse incentives. Informed observers at the Kaiser Family Foundation and Brookings Institution argue that without fundamental reform, hospice fraud will continue to drain Medicare and harm vulnerable patients. The aging baby boomer population will only intensify these pressures.

Outlook: Corrigan advocates for several practical solutions: clearer eligibility criteria, mandatory data sharing between hospices and referring physicians, and increased funding for oversight. She also calls on patients and families to become more proactive in choosing hospice providers—asking hard questions about ownership, staffing ratios, and patient outcomes. The next few years will see increased congressional scrutiny as Medicare costs rise and the population ages. Corrigan's testimony and the growing body of investigative journalism on hospice fraud prevention may finally force the systemic changes needed to protect the dying and their families.