determined that the Medicare system requires protection from illegal remuneration, kickbacks, misrepresentations, and wrongful payments and the peril to the program and to the public fisc that this conduct presents. Hanlester Network v. Shalala, 51 F.3d 1390, 1401-02 (9th Cir.1995). Moreover, Relator asserts that even the Columbia Defendants accept that the pecuniary injury element is satisfied by the government’s investigative and administrative costs caused by violations of the Stark Act and the Medicare Anti-Fraud Act. Relator points out that the Supreme Court has made clear that other expenditures of government funds in addition to those wrongfully paid to a claimant are sufficient to underlie an FCA cause of action. See also United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. at 445, 109 S.Ct. 1892 (<HOLDING>). Halper also noted that in Rex Trailer the
holding that bankruptcy court could not enter judgment for 7402564 under  107a for incurred costs when such costs had not been incurred holding limitation clause inapplicable where contractor incurred additional costs as a result of governments failure to perform holding that private individuals can assert the federal governments interests in a qui tam suit because they have their own pecuniary interest as partial assignees of the governments pecuniary claim recognizing that where fca forfeitures were allowed for numerous projects on which no actual pecuniary loss had been incurred the governments injuries of course included not merely the amount of the fraud itself but also ancillary costs such as the costs of detection and investigation that routinely attend the governments efforts to root out deceptive practices directed at the public purse recognizing that the contractor may recover costs when loss of productivity results from the governments actions