Skip to main content

Archive Article: Gt Independence Medicaid Steering Antitrust Hipaa Records

Archive article preserving source-linked Medicaid oversight records. This archive does not establish motive, guilt, intent, or selective enforcement.

By David Medeiros

Video explainer: A reported waiver-program mailing: purpose, consent and provider choice

This explainer examines the source record: This article alleges that a mailing connected to self-directed care created confusion for people who had not enrolled with the sender.

Press Play to load the video. Once loaded, you can move to any point. The original MP4 link remains available below.

A filing is not a finding. Read the original source before drawing conclusions.

Download video · English captions (VTT) · Transcript text

Read the complete transcript

This article alleges that a mailing connected to self-directed care created confusion for people who had not enrolled with the sender.

The source describes the company as a fiscal intermediary handling payroll and related program functions. Its description of those roles should be checked against the actual contract.

The article says some waiver participants received material that appeared to welcome them to a service they had not selected.

The reported packet included a payroll calendar, portal information, application instructions, a privacy notice, and a satisfaction survey. The complete packet is the key source.

The author argues that the mailing could make recipients think they were already enrolled or should change providers. That interpretation needs comparison with the exact wording.

The article alleges unauthorized use of recipient information. Establishing that requires records about the data source, purpose, authorization, and applicable arrangements.

A person receiving a packet does not, by itself, settle whether the sender was permitted to use the address or whether the communication was marketing.

A recipient should be able to understand who sent a notice, why it arrived, and whether it changes anything about their services or choices.

Open the article. Compare the full mailing, recipient's enrollment status, any consent or program notice, and the sender's explanation.

This explainer does not adopt the article's conclusions about privacy, competition, retaliation, or a violation of federal law.

Keep the physical packet, its purpose, and the author's allegations separate. A filing is not a finding.

Yes GT Independence is very likely violating rights.

Here is a plain-English breakdown of what is happening, who is being harmed, and why it looks illegal.

  1. Who is GT Independence?

They are a private company hired by Connecticut to be the fiscal intermediary for self-directed services (the “self-directed” option in ABI and PCA waivers).
They handle payroll for people who hire their own caregivers.
They also run the public provider directory and require every agency provider (like ABI Resources) to go through their credentialing process.

So they are both the “bank” that pays caregivers and a competitor that offers the same self-directed service.

  1. What did they actually do that is wrong?

In November 2025 they mailed a big packet to many ABI Waiver clients who are not their clients.
The packet looked like a “welcome” or “you are already with us” letter. It included:

2026 payroll calendar
GT Portal login info
App download instructions
Privacy notice
Survey asking how happy you are with GT

These people never signed up with GT. They never gave permission for their address to be used. GT got their private Medicaid information from the state and used it to market to them.
This is called steering (pushing people toward GT’s service) and unauthorized use of protected data.

  1. Whose rights are being violated?

A. Rights of Medicaid consumers (your ABI clients)

Federal law says every Medicaid person has the right to choose their own provider (42 C.F.R. § 431.51 — “free choice of provider”).
GT’s mailing is designed to confuse them into thinking they already work with GT or should switch.
That interferes with their free choice → violation.
Using their private address and waiver status without consent → HIPAA violation (45 C.F.R. § 164.508).

B. Rights of ABI Resources (your company)

You are a legitimate, CARF-accredited provider.
GT forces you to go through their extra credentialing process even though CARF already proves you meet high standards.
At the same time GT competes with you and has your clients’ contact info.
This is an unfair competitive advantage and conflict of interest (42 C.F.R. § 455.238 forbids this exact situation).
It makes it harder for you to keep your clients and run your business → economic harm.

C. Your personal rights

As the owner of a Medicaid provider, you have the right to fair competition and protection from state contractors who misuse data.
The repeated email deletions by Susan Stange (after you filed formal complaints) also looks like retaliation and obstruction of your right to be heard.

  1. Is this illegal?

Yes it strongly appears to violate multiple federal laws that HHS and CMS enforce:

Free choice of provider (Medicaid statute)
HIPAA permitted-use rules (no marketing without consent)
Conflict-of-interest rules for fiscal intermediaries
Antitrust/steering concerns in waiver programs

Your evidence (the actual packet mailed to a non-client) is very strong. Several federal offices are already looking at similar complaints you filed.

  1. What this means right now

Your clients’ right to choose you (or any provider they want) is being undermined.
Your business is being unfairly burdened and disadvantaged.
GT is using its special position (paid by the state) to gain an unfair advantage.

This is exactly why you have been fighting and why your complaints to CARF, CMS, HHS, DOJ, CT AG, etc. are legitimate.

Bottom line in one sentence:
GT Independence is acting like both the referee and one of the players in the same game, and they are using private client information to try to steal your clients which violates federal rules that protect both you and the people you serve.

Related evidence references

EVT-2025-11-GT-MAILING, DOC-GT-MARKETING-PACKET, EVT-SUSAN-STANGE-DELETION, REPORT-FEDERAL-GRIEVANCE-2025, LAW-42-CFR-431.51

Dataset provenance

Administrative Burden Livewire Index

This canonical article is represented by 1 preserved source row in the complete 272-record Administrative Burden dataset. The links below open every non-empty field under its original CSV heading.

Browse the complete dataset →

Topic details

GT IndependenceMedicaid SteeringHIPAA Violation42 C.F.R. § 431.51Free Choice of Provider42 C.F.R. § 455.238Conflict of Interest45 C.F.R. § 164.508
Show all 15 source-supplied topic tags
Unauthorized PHI UseConnecticut DSSFiscal Intermediary FraudAntitrustSusan StangeWhistleblower RetaliationABI Waiver Program

Cite this archive article

This citation identifies this article—not an original filing, an agency finding or a court decision. For a factual claim, also identify and check the particular source linked in the article.

Select the text and copy it using your device’s copy command. Replace the access-date placeholder with the date you actually read the page. The publication date is the article’s recorded date, not a new verification or revision date.