Pharmaceutical Manufacturers

On July 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Department of Health Human Services (HHS) in Pfizer’s landmark challenge against the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) interpretation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS).

Continue Reading Second Circuit Agrees that the Anti-Kickback Statute Does Not Contain a “Corruption” Element

Although this blog focuses mainly on the federal False Claims Act (FCA), other antifraud statutes feature in the qui tam relator and government enforcement toolkit. Key among them: the California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA).

Continue Reading The California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act: What to Know About California’s Powerful Commercial Health Insurance Fraud Statute

In a remarkable move, the Department of Justice (DOJ) recently sought dismissal of 11 False Claims Act (FCA) cases, each of which assert that patient assistance services supplied by pharmaceutical manufacturers constitute unlawful kickbacks. The 11 complaints were brought against various pharmaceutical companies by what DOJ described as “shell companies” backed by the National Healthcare Analysis Group, a company formed for the purpose of filing FCA cases. In seeking dismissal, DOJ argued that the suits ran counter to government interests and wasted “scarce government resources.”

According to the DOJ, the 11 lawsuits involved “essentially the same theories of FCA liability” concerning “white coat marketing,” free “nurse services,” and “reimbursement support services.” Specifically, in a motion to dismiss filed on December 17, 2018, in the Eastern District of Texas, DOJ seemingly defended these manufacturer programs noting the government’s “strong interest” in ensuring that “patients have access to basic product support related to their medication, such as access to a toll-free patient-assistance line or instructions on how to properly inject or store their medication.” The government further argued that the allegations “conflict with important policy and enforcement prerogatives” of federal healthcare programs, and asserted that the relators “should not be permitted to indiscriminately advance claims…against an entire industry that would undermine common industry practices the federal government has determined are, in this particular case, appropriate and beneficial to federal healthcare programs and their beneficiaries.”

Continue Reading DOJ Moves to Dismiss 11 Patient Assistance Services FCA Cases

DOJ recently reached settlements in connection with three long running enforcement efforts, amassing more than $1 billion in settlement funds. These settlements reflect the continued expansion of aggressive government enforcement in the healthcare industry. Since January 2009, DOJ claims recovery of more than $16.2 billion in healthcare-related FCA cases alone.

Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis AG agreed to pay $390 million to settle allegations that it provided unlawful rebates to specialty pharmacies to boost prescription refills for Novartis products. While Novartis did not admit that these rebates constituted illegal kickbacks, it did acknowledge providing rebates to three specialty pharmacies to incentivize an increase of prescription refills. This settlement comes at the conclusion of Novartis’ five-year CIA resulting from a settlement with DOJ in 2010. As part of its latest settlement, Novartis has agreed to extend its CIA for an additional five year period. Additionally, Novartis has agreed to amend its CIA to include obligations covering the company’s interactions with specialty pharmacies and to provide an annual report to DOJ detailing Novartis’ compliance with the CIA.

Continue Reading Recent FCA Settlements Bring Closure to Long Running Enforcement Efforts

In U.S. ex rel. Petratos v. Genentech, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a qui tam action claiming that Genentech underreported side effects of the widely-used cancer drug Avastin. In its opinion, the district court reiterated that the FCA is not intended to reach wrongful behavior that does not lead to a false claim or regulatory violations not tied to payment.

Relator’s complaint alleged that defendants made false submissions to the FDA by relying on patient databases that contained inadequate information about drug risks and side effects and otherwise refused to provide data regarding such risks to a Key Opinion Leader based upon defendants’ false assertion that this information was unavailable. The relator claimed that this conduct cost taxpayers “hundreds of millions of dollars,” because fewer doctors would have prescribed Avastin if defendants had provided complete and accurate information, and government payers would have reimbursed for fewer Avastin indications, for lower dosages, or not at all.

Continue Reading No FCA Liability Where There Is No False Claim – Qui Tam Suit Against Maker of Avastin Dismissed

We recently authored an article on False Claims Act (FCA) enforcement actions brought against pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers during the past year. In the article, we analyzed the recent settlements for Ansun Biopharma, Inc. (formerly known as NexBio, Inc.); Smith & Nephew, Inc.; McKesson Corporation; and Stryker Corporation and Alliant Enterprises.

The article, “