Medicaid

A settlement has been reached in a whistleblower class action lawsuit brought against Mylan Pharmaceuticals, UDL Laboratories, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals and Ortho McNeil Pharmaceutical.  They are accused of failing to pay appropriate rebates to state Medicaid programs for drugs paid for by those programs.

Mylan and UDL agreed to pay $118 million to resolve allegations that they underpaid their rebate obligations with respect to several Mylan drugs (nifedipine extended release tablets, flecainide acetate, selegiline HCL, Orphenadrine Citrate Aspirin and Caffeine tablets, Triamterene/Hydrochlorothiazide, Propoxyphene HCL, Propoxyphene HCL/Aspirin/Caffeine, Prophyxphene Napsylate/Acetaminophen, Ibuprofen tablets, Bumetanide, Cephalexin and Cefactor) and several UDL drugs (nifedipine extended release tablets, selegiline HCL, Triamterene & HCTZ, Propox Naps & APAP, Flecainide Acetate, Trihexyphenidyl, Ranitidine HCL syrup, Sucralfate Suspension, Selegiline HCL and Bumetanide). Because the Medicaid program is funded by both the federal and state governments, the federal government received $60,896,476.00, the states $49,824,389.00 of the settlement amount and $7,279,135.00 will be paid to entities that participated in the Public Health Service’s Drug Pricing Program.

Separately, AstraZeneca paid $2.6 million ($1.43 million to the federal government and $1.17 million to the states) to resolve allegations that it underpaid its rebate obligations with respect to Albuterol. Ortho McNeil paid $3.4 million ($1.87 million to the federal government and $1.53 million to the states) to resolve allegations that it underpaid its rebate obligations with respect to Dermatop.

The whistleblower will receive a $10,787,392 share of the total recovery.

Filed in 2010, the United States alleged that all four companies had sold innovator drugs that were manufactured by other companies and had classified those drugs as non-innovator drugs for Medicaid rebate purposes. As a result of the improper classification of these drugs, the companies underpaid their rebate obligations under the Medicaid Rebate Program. The Medicaid Prescription Drug Rebate Program was enacted by Congress in 1990 out of concern for the costs the Medicaid was paying for outpatient drugs. By agreeing to participate in the Medicaid Rebate Program and signing these rebate agreements, the four companies agreed to pay quarterly rebates to Medicaid that were based upon the amount of money that health care program paid for each company’s drugs. The precise amount of a rebate is determined in part by whether a drug is considered an "innovator" drug or a "non-innovator" drug. The rebate that must be paid for innovator drugs is higher than the rebate for non-innovator drugs.

According to the terms of the settlement, the state of New York will pay $440 million over time, partly in cash and partly by releasing its claim to payments withheld. New York City’s share of the settlement, $100 million, will also be paid over time. The whistleblower in this case will receive $10 million from the settlement.

The United States alleged that for the period 1990 to 2001, the state of New York knowingly failed to provide proper guidance to the districts and counties outlining the requirements for a service to be covered by the Medicaid program, failed to monitor the districts and counties for compliance as required by the program and passed on claims to the federal government for services it knew were not covered or properly documented, all to make the United States pay a larger share of New York’s Medicaid costs.

The government additionally asserted New York City submitted claims to the state for false speech services. The state then passed these claims on to the federal government for Medicaid reimbursement.

A settlement has been reached in a whistleblower class action lawsuit brought against Regency Nursing and Rehabilitation Centers Inc who is accused of submitting false claims to Medicare and the Texas Medicaid program.

Specifically the United States complaint alleged that Regency submitted claims for reimbursement to Medicare and Medicaid for rehabilitation and skilled nursing services that were not reimbursable because the nursing home residents were not qualified for the services, the services were not medically necessary, or they were not supported by adequate documentation.

A settlement has been reached in a whistleblower class action lawsuit brought against Aventis Pharmaceutical Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of sanofi-aventis U.S. LLC.  Aventis is accused of misreporting drug prices in order to reduce its Medicaid Drug Rebate obligations.

According to the settlement, the federal recovery is approximately $49 million. Aventis will also pay over $40 million to the Medicaid participating states, and over $6 million to certain public health services entities who paid inflated prices for the drugs at issue.

The United States complaint alleged that between 1995 and 2000, Aventis and its corporate predecessors knowingly misreported best prices for the steroid-based anti-inflammatory nasal sprays Azmacort, Nasacort and Nasacort AQ. Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Statute, Aventis was required to report to Medicaid the lowest, or "best" price that it charged commercial customers, and pay quarterly rebates to the states based on those reported prices.

In order to avoid triggering a new best price that would obligate it to pay millions of dollars in additional drug rebates to Medicaid, Aventis entered into "private label" agreements with the HMO Kaiser Permanente that simply repackaged Aventis’s drugs under a new label. As a result, Aventis underpaid drug rebates to the Medicaid program and overcharged certain Public Health Service entities for these products.

A settlement has been reached in a whistleblower class action lawsuit brought against San Mateo Medical Center (SMMC) who is accused of submitting false claims to the United States in connection with payments from the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

The whistleblower that filed the orignal complaint will receive $1,020,000.

The government alleges that SMMC falsely inflated its bed count to Medicare in order to receive higher payments under Medicare’s Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) adjustment. The DSH adjustment is an extra Medicare payment available to hospitals that meet certain requirements, including having 100 or more acute care beds.

In addition, the government alleges that San Mateo County improperly obtained federal payments under the Medicaid program for services provided to patients at Institutes of Mental Disease (IMDs) who were between the ages of 22 and 64. Such services are ineligible for federal funding, and San Mateo County was required to separately report them to the California Department of Mental Health so that the state could ensure that no federal funds were used to pay for them. Medicaid (known as Medi-Cal in California) is a program funded jointly by federal and state funds. The settlement covers conduct from 1997 to 2007.

A settlement has been reached in a whistleblower class action lawsuit brought against CareSource, CareSource Management Group Co and CareSource USA Holding Co. They are accused of causing Medicaid to make payments for assessments and case managements they failed to provide to children and adults.

The whistleblowers will receive a $3.1 million share of the government's recovery.

Originally filed in November 2006, the United States alleged that between January 2001 and December 2006, the CareSource entities knowingly failed to provide required screening, assessment and case management for adults, and children with special health care needs. As a result, it was alleged that CareSource received millions of dollars in Medicaid funds to which it was not entitled. The CareSource entities subsequently submitted false data to the state of Ohio so that it appeared they were providing these required services to improperly retain incentives received from Ohio Medicaid and to avoid penalties.

A settlement has been reached to resolve False Claims Act Allegations against BlueCross BlueShield of Illinois who is accused of  wrongly terminating insurance coverage and denying patient claims, among other claims.

Under the agreement, BlueCross BlueShield of Illinois will pay $14.25 million to the state of Illinois and $9.5 million to the United States. The company will also pay $1.25 million to Illinois for allegations under the state consumer fraud statute.

In detail, the United States contends that BlueCross BlueShield of Illinois wrongly terminated insurance coverage for private duty skilled nursing care for medically fragile, technologically dependent children, in order to shift the costs of such care to the Medicaid program. Medicaid funds a special program designed to provide home care for children at risk of institutionalization.

As a result, children whose specialized care should have been covered by BlueCross BlueShield of Illinois under the terms of existing insurance policies, were shifted to the government-funded Home and Community Based Services Medicaid program, operated by the Illinois Division of Specialized Care for Children under an agreement with the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. As a result, Medicaid spent millions of dollars providing care that should have been paid for by private insurance.

The settlement resolves claims that BlueCross BlueShield of Illinois denied patient claims based on internal, undisclosed guidelines that were more restrictive than the language provided to beneficiaries in plan policy materials. Additionally, the government alleged that BlueCross BlueShield of Illinois improperly told policy holders that children were not covered for private duty nursing during the claims review process sought after initial denials.

A settlement was reached to resolve False Claims Act allegations against Serono Laboratories Inc., EMD Serono Inc., Merck Serono S.A, and Ares Trading S.A. They are accused of paying health care providers to promote or prescribe Rebif, a recombinant interferon injectable that is used to treat relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. 

Under the terms of the agreemen, the proceeds from the settlement will be split between the federal government and various states, with the United States receiving $34.6 million to resolve the federal claims and the states receiving $9.7 million to settle their respective claims under Medicaid.

Serono is alleged to have made payments to providers for hundreds of speaker training meetings and programs, as well as payments for attending consultant, marketing and advisory board meetings, all at upscale resorts and other locations. Serono’s actions allegedly resulted in the submission of false claims to federal health care programs including Medicare and Medicaid for the payment of Rebif, i.e., claims that were tainted by kickbacks.

A settlement has been reached in a federal lawsuit brought by the United States against James W. Carell, CareAll Management LLC (formerly known as Diversified He alth Mana gement Inc.), C are All Inc., the James W. Car ell Family Trust, V IP Home Nursing and Reh abilitation Servi ces L LC, Professional Home He alth Care L LC, University Home H ealth, LLC and Elizabeth Vining (as representative of the Estate of Robert Vining).  They are accused of causing Medicare to pay out money through mistake of fact, and were unjustly enriched by falsely concealing the home health agencies’ relationship with their management company.

This settlement resolves the United States’ lawsuit alleging that the CareAll entities fraudulently submitted eight cost reports for fiscal years 1999, 2000 and 2001 to support their Medicare billings. The United States alleged that these cost reports were false because they knowingly hid the relationship between the management company and the home health agencies. According to the complaint the United States filed in this case, the cost reports should have disclosed that the management company was related to the home health agencies, which would have lowered the Medicare reimbursement for the management company’s services. During the relevant years, the United States alleged that James W. Carell owned the management company, and his friend Robert Vining – an attorney who lived in Missouri – served as the nominee or “sham” owner of the home health agencies.  

The United States further alleged in court filings that the management company exerted significant control over the home health agencies in a myriad of ways, including:  James. W. Carell’s key role in facilitating Robert Vining’s purchase of the home health agencies; loans worth millions of dollars from companies owned by James W. Carell to the home health agencies; cash transfers for millions of dollars from the management company to the home health agencies; the management company’s day to day control over the home health agencies’ operations; and Robert Vining’s role as a mere figurehead owner.  The United States also alleged in court filings that James W. Carell profited greatly from this “sham” owner relationship and that he monetarily rewarded Robert Vining for his participation in this scheme. 

A settlement has been reached in a whistleblower class action lawsuit brought against HCA Inc who is accused of violating the False Claims Act and the Stark Statute.

As part of the civil settlement, HCA has agreed to pay $16.5 million to the United States and the state of Tennessee, with the federal portion representing $15,693,000 of the settlement amount. The whistleblower will receive an 18.5 percent share.

The initial whistleblower lawsuit was filed in March 2008.  The United States alleged that during 2007, HCA, through its subsidiaries Parkridge Medical Center, located in Chattanooga, TN, and HCA Physician Services (HCAPS), headquartered in Nashville, TN, entered into a series of financial transactions with a physician group, Diagnostic Associates of Chattanooga, through which it provided financial benefits intended to induce the physician members of Diagnostic to refer patients to HCA facilities. These financial transactions included rental payments for office space leased from Diagnostic at a rate well in excess of fair market value in order to assist Diagnostic members to meet their mortgage obligations and a release of Diagnostic members from a separate lease obligation.