Providers

STONESPRINGS GASTROENTEROLOGY PLLC

NPI 1932763786, organization, Dulles, VA, Internal Medicine, Gastroenterology

1
Evidence tier
documented action, then payment
  • Listed on the Medicare revocation list since January 21, 2021.
  • Medicaid still paid claims in 4 later months, $13,835 in total.
score 94 of 100, rank 264, $14K at stake

Public list actions

Medicare revocation effective January 21, 2021, barred from re-enrolling until January 21, 2031
424.535(a)(9) failure to report and 424.535(a)(3) felonies, Part B Supplier - Clinic/Group Practice, DC
Medicare revocation effective January 21, 2021, barred from re-enrolling until May 7, 2032
424.535(a)(9) failure to report and 424.535(a)(3) felonies, Part B Supplier - Clinic/Group Practice, VA

Paid after the action

Months in which Medicaid paid claims for this provider after a public action that should have triggered a screening check. This is a record of payments, not a determination that they were improper.

listidentity checkaction datewindow closedmonths paid afterfirstlastpaid after12 months before
Medicare revocation list
424.535(a)(9) failure to report and 424.535(a)(3) felonies
Exact NPI, name verifiedJan 21, 2021Jan 21, 20314Feb 2021May 2021$14K$230K

National provider registry

From the CMS NPPES Registry, refreshed daily.

NameSTONESPRINGS GASTROENTEROLOGY PLLC (also N/A)
TypeOrganization
StatusActive
NPI issuedApril 26, 2019, last updated April 26, 2019
Practice location24430 STONE SPRINGS BLVD STE 200, Dulles, VA 20166-2267, 703-665-2677
Authorized officialMohammad Hoque (President)
Specialties
Internal Medicine, Gastroenterology (207RG0100X, primary)

Procedures billed

The specific codes behind the dollars. Medicaid figures come from T-MSIS (2018 to 2024) and are compared with every other provider billing the same code; Medicare figures come from the 2024 physician and supplier file and compare this provider's submitted charge with what Medicare allowed, against the usual ratio for that code.

Medicaid, largest codes
codewhat it ispaidshareper patient-monthtypicalrank among providers
99309Subsequent nursing facility care with moderate level of medical decision making, per day, if using time, at least 30 minutes$80K48%$144$21 (top 5% from $84)too few months to rank
99231Subsequent hospital care with straightforward or low level of medical decision making, per day, if using time, at least 25 minutes$45K27%$121$37 (top 5% from $103)too few months to rank
99307Subsequent nursing facility care with straightforward level of medical decision making, per day, if using time, at least 10 minutes$12K8%$58$7.86 (top 5% from $34)too few months to rank
99233Subsequent hospital care with moderate levelof medical decision making, if using time, at least 50 minutes$11K7%$112$96 (top 5% from $249)too few months to rank
99308Subsequent nursing facility care with straightforward level of medical decision making, per day, if using time, 20 minutes or more$11K7%$71$14 (top 5% from $58)too few months to rank
99221Initial hospital care with straightforward or low level of medical decision making, per day, if using time, at least 40 minutes$4K2%$42$50 (top 5% from $194)too few months to rank
99232Subsequent hospital care with moderate levelof medical decision making, if using time, at least 35 minutes$1K1%$122$67 (top 5% from $174)too few months to rank

In this area

3 providers in Loudoun County, VA carry an indicator in the public record, with $1.5M at stake between them. The most common is more hours than a day holds, on 2 of them, followed by part of a provider network on 1.

tierproviderat stakewhy
3CCSP NOVA LLC
Sterling, VA, ranked 2963
$0
  • Part of provider network D1-00136, ranked 136 nationally.
5ZAHRA HUSSAIN
Leesburg, VA, ranked 10061
$1.3M
  • Medicaid dollars per patient on code 90838 ($296 per patient-month) sit in the top 5% of every provider billing that code.
5AMR BEHIRI
Ashburn, VA, ranked 11471
$194K

Recent enforcement in VA

All releases

Department of Justice and HHS-OIG releases for this state, newest first. Each opens in a new tab.

DOJChargedJun 23, 2026
U.S. Attorney’s Office announces charges against three defendants in the Eastern District of Virginia as part of national health care fraud takedown
Three defendants were charged with fraudulently billing Medicaid for mental health services that were not provided and with submitting false claims to Medicare through a straw-owned durable medical equipment company.
DOJSentencedJun 5, 2026
Medicaid service providers sentenced for false statements resulting in overbilling
Wright and Winfield instructed CCR employees to falsely claim in progress notes that children received therapeutic day treatment services from 2:00pm to 7:00pm, including providing prefilled progress note templates, resulting in overbilling to Medicaid.
DOJCivil settlementApr 27, 2026
Tri-Area Community Health Agrees to Pay $513,000 to Resolve Medicare Billing Allegations
Tri-Area Community Health billed Medicare for Annual Wellness Visits provided by pharmacists without appropriate physician supervision that were billed under the names of physicians not involved with the visits.
DOJSentencedMar 17, 2026
Six Sentenced in Healthcare Fraud Conspiracy that Stole $10 Million from Medicaid Over Six-Year Period
Six defendants conspired to submit false claims to Virginia Medicaid on behalf of 1st Adult N Pediatric Healthcare Services for nursing and personal care services that were not provided, including falsifying records and paying parents or guardians of patients for blank, signed nursing notes.
DOJIndictedMar 11, 2026
Victim Advisory- Divine Youth Case Updates
Divine Youth Counseling submitted more than $11 million in fraudulent Medicaid claims for Crisis Stabilization and Mobile Crisis services by falsely claiming two mental health professionals provided Team Treatment services and paid more than $470,000 in kickbacks in the form of hotel rooms for Medicaid recipients.

Referral packet

The packet is a draft for a reviewer. It reads every public record behind this case, states what the records show with a citation for each finding, names the regulation each finding relates to, and lists the ordinary explanations to rule out first. It never asserts intent.

Ask this case

Answers come only from the evidence tables, and every sentence cites the record it used.