CFExclusion Powered by C.F.A.I.

Guide

Why a clear exclusion result is still worth keeping on file

Reviewed against the source · HHS Office of Inspector General, SAM.gov

Our view: a clear exclusion result is worth keeping on file because it is dated evidence that a specific person was checked, on a specific date, against specific sources. This is our characterisation, not an HHS-OIG requirement: OIG's bulletin states that providers are not required by statute or regulation to check the LEIE at any particular frequency, and none of this makes documentation a legal requirement.

What would a review of your screening ask for?

Our characterisation: the question is not “did anyone match” but whether this person was checked, on this date, against these sources. A clear result — no record found — is exactly what belongs in a screening file: dated proof that the check happened and found nothing to report. The alternative is no record at all.

The gap that matters (our view). The gap in a screening file is not usually a person who matched and wasn't caught — the exclusion lists exist precisely to catch that. It is a person with no record of ever having been checked.

Why does the date on a clear result matter?

Because the list it was checked against changes. HHS-OIG's exclusions FAQ states that “both versions of the LEIE are generally updated by the middle of each month,” so a clear result checked against an earlier version is a true statement about that earlier version and doesn't speak to the current one. A dated record ties the result to the list version it was checked against — the same logic behind screening monthly rather than once (see what OIG's monthly screening guidance actually says).

Sources

Where this page says “our characterisation,” “our reasoning,” or “we measured,” the statement is CFExclusion's own rather than a government source's. CFExclusion is a private service and is not affiliated with HHS, OIG, CMS, or SAM.gov.

Check a name

Looking for a specific name? Search the HHS-OIG LEIE, SAM.gov exclusions, and Medicaid exclusion lists from 41 states — free, with no signup for your first 3 searches a day.

Adding a state or NPI lets us confirm a match with more confidence.

A $25 report turns that search into a dated, signed record: proof this name was checked against all 43 sources — HHS-OIG LEIE, SAM.gov, and 41 state Medicaid lists — on a specific date, clear or not. See a sample report →

A single check is a snapshot: HHS-OIG replaces the LEIE around the middle of every month, so a result from last month no longer reflects who's on the list today. OIG's own guidance recommends screening your full workforce and vendors on that same monthly cycle — a best practice it states plainly, not a legal mandate. What OIG's guidance actually says about monthly screening → · See the monthly screening service →

For new federal enforcement actions and court records every day, see CourtPulse (courtpls.com).

More guides

What OIG's monthly screening guidance actually says
HHS-OIG recommends screening every month but says providers are not required by statute or regulation to check the LEIE. What the guidance says, who counts as workforce and vendors, and what doing it properly involves.
What is the OIG LEIE, and who has to check it?
The federal List of Excluded Individuals/Entities: who maintains it, what HHS-OIG says about who must check it (no statute or regulation requires providers to), and what exclusion means.
What is the SAM.gov exclusions list?
SAM.gov's federal exclusions list covers contracting and financial assistance across every agency — broader than the LEIE. What it is, who is on it (our own measurement), and its identifiers.
LEIE vs. SAM: what's the difference?
Two federal exclusion lists, different scope, different agencies. How to tell which one matters for a given check, and why a clear result on one says nothing about the other.
How often must healthcare providers screen for exclusions?
HHS-OIG recommends checking the LEIE before hiring and then monthly, and states providers are not required by statute or regulation to check at any particular frequency.
What does exclusion reinstatement mean?
How someone comes off the LEIE, what the file does and doesn't retain, and why history matters even after reinstatement.
What happens if you employ an excluded provider?
What HHS-OIG says about civil monetary penalties and overpayment liability when an organization employs or contracts with an excluded person, including in non-clinical roles.
Exclusion screening by provider type: what OIG's guidance says
HHS-OIG frames screening scope by job category and contract rather than provider type. What its bulletin says, with its own examples for hospitals, pharmacies and contractors.
What is an NPI, and why does it matter for screening?
The National Provider Identifier is the one identifier that makes an exclusion match unambiguous.
State Medicaid exclusion lists vs. federal lists
State Medicaid programs can keep their own exclusion lists, separate from the LEIE and SAM. Which states' lists CFExclusion holds, and what a clear result does and doesn't cover.
How to read an exclusion type code
What the 1128(a) and 1128(b) codes on an LEIE record mean, per HHS-OIG's published exclusion authorities.
What "currently excluded" vs. a data-as-of date means
Every CFExclusion result carries the exclusion's own dates and a data-as-of date for our copy of each source. What each means, and why they differ.
Monthly vs. annual screening: what OIG's own guidance says
HHS-OIG recommends monthly LEIE screening, and says providers are not required by statute or regulation to check at any particular frequency. What that means for an annual cadence.
Why a clear exclusion result is still worth keeping on file
Our view on why a dated clear result is worth keeping: it shows a specific person was checked, on a specific date, against specific sources. Not a legal requirement.