Bristol-Myers Squibb settles with DOJ on range of illegal practices
Compliance Monitor, October 10, 2007
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) will pay more than $515 million for a wide assortment of illegal drug marketing and pricing practices. The government alleged that from 2000 through mid-2003, BMS paid illegal remuneration to healthcare providers and physicians to persuade them to buy BMS drugs, and maintained false, inflated prices for various oncology and generic drugs.
The government also alleged that BMS promoted the sale and use of Abilify for pediatric patients and to treat dementia-related psychosis, which are off-label uses. BMS was also accused of misreporting its lowest price for Serzone, an anti-depression drug.
The federal recovery in the settlement is more than $328 million; with more than $25 million coming from fines associated with BMS's off-label promotion of Abilify. BMS will pay more than $187 million to the Medicaid participating states and $124,000 to specific Public Health Service bodies.
As part of the settlement, the company entered into a corporate integrity agreement with the OIG and the Department of Health and Human Services.
To read more click here.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
Related Products
-
Strategies for Health Care Compliance
News and real-life examples to increase the effectiveness of your compliance program. Strategies for Health Care Compliance...
-
Compliance Monitor
This HTML e-mail newsletter delivers news on Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse, as well as recent documents and targets...
-
Medicare Weekly Update
Each issue of Medicare Weekly Update includes the latest CMS proposed and final rules, CMS manual revisions, and...
-
Medicare Update for Physician Services
Medicare Update for Physician Services is a free, monthly e-zine that delivers news and information to help physician...
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Q&A: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q/A. One injection code or two?
- ED-to-inpatient transfers are flawed with safety gaps
- Searched