Skip to content
FonteumPublic-records evidence

← All sources Healthcare graph

OIG CIA

OIG Corporate Integrity Agreements

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General · Tier-1 · research-only (never on individual profiles)

Research-only

Corporate Integrity Agreements (CIAs) are federal compliance agreements healthcare entities enter — typically to resolve fraud or false-claims allegations while continuing federal-program participation. Fonteum holds 335 agreements across 333 distinct entities: 114 currently effective and 208 closed, spanning 2019-2026.

What Fonteum uses it for

How this source shows up on Fonteum.

Aggregate compliance-monitoring research and the 'compromised-anywhere' enforcement signal. The /data and /sources pages report status and agreement-type breakdowns only — no entity is named.

What this source does NOT mean

A Corporate Integrity Agreement is a negotiated compliance arrangement, not an exclusion and not a Fonteum judgment of wrongdoing — an entity under a CIA remains an eligible federal-program participant. The registry is entity-name-keyed and carries no provider NPI, so a CIA never attaches to an individual practitioner.

What this dataset answers

Research and data questions this source supports.

  • Track how many Corporate Integrity Agreements are currently effective versus closed.
  • Distinguish full Corporate Integrity Agreements from the lighter Integrity Agreement instrument.
  • Build a 'compromised-anywhere' compliance screen that flags entities under active federal monitoring.
  • Research the geographic spread of integrity agreements across states.

Dataset size: 335 integrity agreements across 333 entities (2026-06-13 snapshot)

Fields used

Per-field display contract.

Fields listed below show their configured `display_allowed` flag from the §94 provenance schema. Fields marked write-locked are captured for audit and are not rendered on profile pages.

Research-only — never on profiles

5 fields
agreement_typeAgreement type (Corporate Integrity Agreement / Integrity Agreement)
statusStatus (Effective / Closed)
effective_dateEffective date
closed_dateClosed date
stateState (USPS)
Limitations

What we can’t infer from this source.

  • Entity-name-keyed — there is no provider NPI; agreements are organizational, never practitioner-level.
  • 335 agreements is the current OIG registry, not a full historical record of every CIA ever signed.
  • Aggregate-only on these pages — no entity is named on the /data or /sources surface.
  • A CIA is a compliance arrangement, not an exclusion or a Fonteum assessment of any entity.
Source metadata

Authority, license, publisher cadence.

Authority

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General

Tier

Tier-1 · research-only (never on individual profiles)

Publisher / configured cadence

Declared or configured cadence: Monthly — OIG maintains a public browse-able CIA registry. Not evidence of the latest loaded source date.

License

U.S. government public-domain works (17 U.S.C. § 105). Federal compliance registry. Attribution required: 'Source: OIG Corporate Integrity Agreements · Snapshot {YYYY-MM-DD}'. License ↗

Attribution requirement

Source: OIG Corporate Integrity Agreements · Last checked {YYYY-MM-DD}

ToS & usage notes

What the source allows.

U.S. government public-domain works. OIG publishes the Corporate Integrity Agreements registry free for public use at oig.hhs.gov; redistribution is permitted with attribution. Snapshot and attestation fields must be read from the specific artifact; no provenance fact currently links deterministically to a signature.

Sample provenance

What a single field looks like in the graph.

This worked example shows the provenance shape used when a surfaced field has populated source, last-checked, display-rule, and confidence metadata. Individual fields may omit unavailable values.

Field

Status distribution (snapshot 2026-06-13)

Sample value

335 agreements · 333 entities · 114 effective · 208 closed

Provenance line

Source: OIG Corporate Integrity Agreements · Snapshot 2026-06-13 · Methodology oig-cia/v1 · Display rule: aggregate-only — counts and breakdowns render, never a named entity

How to access

Official API, bulk download, and Fonteum endpoints.

Official API / download

Official API endpoint ↗

Frequently asked

Common questions about OIG CIA.

What is a Corporate Integrity Agreement?
A Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) is a federal compliance agreement a healthcare entity enters with the HHS Office of Inspector General — typically to resolve fraud or false-claims allegations while continuing to participate in federal programs. The lighter Integrity Agreement is a related, less stringent instrument.
How many agreements does Fonteum hold?
As of the 2026-06-13 snapshot Fonteum holds 335 agreements across 333 distinct entities — 114 currently effective and 208 closed. By type there are 219 Corporate Integrity Agreements and 116 Integrity Agreements, spanning September 2019 to June 2026.
Is a CIA the same as an exclusion?
No. A CIA is a negotiated compliance arrangement, not an exclusion — an entity under a CIA remains an eligible federal-program participant. It is not a Fonteum judgment of wrongdoing.
Does this page name entities under a CIA?
No. This page is aggregate-only — it reports counts and breakdowns and never names an entity. The registry is entity-name-keyed and carries no provider NPI, so a CIA never attaches to an individual practitioner.
How can I cite this data?
Use 'Source: OIG Corporate Integrity Agreements' with the snapshot date. It is U.S. government public-domain data published free at oig.hhs.gov, with redistribution permitted under attribution.
Related

Related sources in the graph

See also
  • /sources → The generated source-catalog subset — documented datasets Fonteum cites.
  • /data-provenance → The provider graph — pipeline diagram, source-family clusters, field-level provenance examples, display rules.
  • /methodology → Documented sourcing, publisher cadence, observed freshness, and corrections policy.
  • /editorial-policy → Independence, sourcing, conflicts, corrections, retractions.

What’s on file, by the numbers

Platform snapshot · 2026-08-11

13.4Mproviders & companiesProviders, organizations, owners, and facilities on file
26.2Msource-linked factsSource-linked field facts in the dated platform snapshot
90sources with dataDistinct snapshot source IDs with at least one positive record count
73fresh sourcesDistinct source IDs whose latest positive-data snapshot falls within the preceding 45 days
111sources integratedActive registry rows; integration does not establish a load
13state Medicaid jurisdictionsDistinct states represented in the state-exclusions serving table

Integrated, with-data, and fresh-observation counts are separate. No platform-wide source-completeness count is published. Completeness is source-specific and must be evaluated against the named source's expected scope. State coverage is a separate jurisdiction measure.

Source authority is record-specific

Use the issuer named on the record.

Fonteum spans federal, state, and global public publishers. A source page or returned record identifies its issuer and dataset where that metadata is available. A platform registry count does not assign every page to one authority or establish loaded, fresh, or complete coverage.

Browse source records and their stated limitations →

Reproducible by design

Inspect the evidence each published figure actually supplies.

Source and date

Research pages expose the named public file and observation date where those fields are available. Source-file SHA-256 coverage is separate; facts do not currently link deterministically to signatures.

Available derivation

Studies with a retained release and committed derivation link the SQL or method used. Other studies state the evidence and reproduction limits they actually have.

Daily observations

Dated table row-count observations can detect local drift. They do not imply that an upstream publisher released or Fonteum ingested new data that day.

Named medical review

Reviewed by Jennifer Montecillo, MD, medical reviewer. Non-practicing medical reviewer.

Read the full provenance and attestation methodology →

Request access