Corporate Integrity Agreements Dashboard

Active HHS OIG Corporate Integrity Agreements entered 2023–2026, with violation summaries, the compliance obligations read from each agreement OIG publishes, and a plain read on what it means for your own program.

Source: OIG CIA Browser ↗  ·  Compiled as of August 30, 2026; reverified September 20, 2026 against OIG's own page for every agreement: all 68 effective dates, term lengths and Active statuses agree, and 66 of the 68 agreements were read in full: 65 as text PDFs, and one scanned image rasterised at 300 dpi and put through OCR on 2026-09-21, which confirmed its Claims Review obligation and five year term from the agreement's own words, and whose pages were then rendered and read so that the sections its obligations sit in could be cited; the OCR reading order, not the scan, is what had made those numbers unreadable. OIG publishes no agreement document for the remaining two, and none was found elsewhere, so their provisions were not read and no claim here rests on them. Their OIG category and report type were checked against OIG's own detail pages, which is a different thing from reading the agreement. Read the Active status as OIG's listing, not as a term calculation. Every record here is one OIG lists as active, and OIG's browse listing lags nominal term expiry, so agreements keep their Active status past the date their stated term runs out. Five of the 68 were past that date on September 20, 2026, the most recent being Connex Family Services LLC, whose three-year term from September 15, 2023 elapsed on September 15, 2026 and which OIG still listed as Active when checked that day. That count rises on its own as terms run out between refreshes, so treat a record past its own effective date plus term as one OIG has not yet moved, and confirm current status on the linked OIG page before relying on it. Settlement figures follow the DOJ press release, not OIG's Settlement Amount field. Those two disagree for eight records, so the field is not a check on this table: for three of them OIG states one component of a larger resolution, for two it truncates cents DOJ reports, and for three it does not match its own linked release. 63 of the 68 figures were confirmed against the DOJ release; the other five are composites or entity shares whose basis is stated in each record's note. Rite Aid's $409,368,524 is OIG's own Settlement Amount to the dollar; what it is not is the sum of the two components DOJ announces, because DOJ rounds both. Review obligations were read from the agreements themselves. The review type shown is the review the agreement names in its Independent Review Organization section: 49 of the 52 records that name one already agreed, three named a review their agreement does not impose and were corrected, and three that said Other were filled in. Six records keep Other because their agreements impose several reviews that no single category describes. Each agreement's obligations were read out of its own sections. On 2026-09-21 all 66 readable agreements were walked section by section, and every obligation shown on a card carries the section it was read from, with the review obligation quoted in the agreement's own words. That produced 872 cited obligations, between 6 and 20 per agreement. Every section label on an obligation line has been checked back against its agreement. The 66 review citations were checked on 2026-09-21, by walking each agreement's heading tree and reading the printed page where the text layer could not settle it, and eight of the 66 named the wrong section. 872 of the 872 obligation labels have now been checked the same way, and 36 of those 872 were wrong and were corrected on 2026-09-22. 859 were found in their agreement's heading tree, and the heading's printed title was read against the obligation. Seven the walk cannot settle, because the text layer splits a heading, a label names two provisions or footnotes, or the provision sits in the definitions, were checked by finding the provision's own heading and words in the agreement's text. Community Options' six were read off its rendered pages, because it is a scan. Rite Aid's eleven were checked first, and six of them pointed elsewhere in the same agreement. Rite Aid cited its compliance officer, compliance committee, board oversight and management certification lines at III.1 to III.4 where the agreement has III.A.1 to III.A.4; its IRO engagement at III.C.2, which is Board Training, where the agreement has III.D.1.a; and its IRO independence certification at III.C.3, which is Training Records, where the agreement has III.D.3. A label of the form III.1 cannot be a section of these agreements at all, because a roman numeral takes a letter before it takes a number, and looking for that shape found fourteen more across five other records, each corrected against its own agreement. Reading the other 841 found sixteen more wrong. Eleven cited the wrong provision: an IRO engagement at Training Records or at a records-retention clause, an independence certification at a section with no such item, focus arrangements procedures at Covered Persons training, an Arrangements Review at the Anti-Kickback section that precedes it, two EyePoint policies at the compliance-program item instead of their own, and a Veloxis line that cited one of the two programs it names. Five named an Independent Review Organization in agreements that engage none: four quality-of-care agreements engage an Independent Monitor, and McKinsey's engages an Independent Compliance Expert. All sixteen are corrected. That leaves 0 of the 872 labels unchecked. A checked label says where the obligation is; it is still a summary of the obligation, not the agreement's words. The controls this dashboard suggests are separate and are not the agreement's terms. 43 of the 268 lines previously shown attributed a duty to an agreement: 31 were replaced by the cited obligation itself, and 12 were rewritten as this dashboard's own suggestion. Seven stated something their agreement does not say rather than merely overstating its scope: a prospective coding review no agreement in this set requires, a speaker-program monitoring threshold given as 2 where the agreement says 35, owner-level certifications in an agreement whose only certification is by the compliance contact and the chief executive, management certifications in an agreement that has none, a grant-expenditure review that is actually a review of Federal Financial Reports, an arrangements review called annual that runs in the first and fourth reporting periods, and owner accountability described as built into obligations that reach owners only by making them Covered Persons. An earlier word-frequency pass over the same 268 lines is what decided which to read first; word overlap settles nothing about whether a document imposes a duty, and none of the results above rest on it. 19 of these 68 are Integrity Agreements and one is a Recipient Compliance Agreement, per OIG's own Report Type field, and those impose fewer of the usual elements. Counting the cards that list each provision, out of the 66 with a list: exclusion screening 66, a review by an IRO, a monitor or a compliance expert 65, annual reports 65, training 64, notification of investigations 63, reportable events 60, record retention 54, written standards 49, a compliance officer 47, management certifications 47, a compliance committee 46, a disclosure program 40, board oversight 37, an overpayment procedure 20, a notice posted for patients 18, and a lesser compliance contact in place of an officer 9. No element but exclusion screening is on every card, which is why no card shows a generic list any more. These count the cards, not the agreements: a card lists the obligations that were located and read, so an agreement can carry a provision its card does not list  ·  68 agreements  ·  2023–2026  ·  active CIAs effective in this window