Schering-Plough settles pricing case in Missouri
Pharma Compliance Alert, November 5, 2008
Schering-Plough agreed to pay $31 million to resolve allegations of pricing fraud in Missouri, according to a release from the state Attorney General’s (AG) Office.
The settlement comes after a jury found Schering-Plough owed the state $7.3 million in compensatory damages after a two-week trial in St. Louis City Circuit Court. The settlement resolves all allegations against the company and is the largest amount the state of Missouri ever obtained in a legal case against a pharmaceutical company.
The Missouri AG filed suit against Schering-Plough in May 2005, alleging the company overcharged the Missouri Medicaid program. The AG claimed the reported average wholesale prices for drugs were often substantially higher than the prices providers actually paid, costing Missouri taxpayers millions of dollars.
Dey Pharmaceuticals paid $2.9 million to settle similar allegations in April 2006. Milan Laboratories, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Watson Pharmaceuticals, and Boehringer Ingelheim are also facing similar allegations in Missouri.
Comments
0 comments on “Schering-Plough settles pricing case in Missouri ”
Related Products
-
Briefings on The Joint Commission
Briefings on The Joint Commission will help you with all of your accreditation and survey preparation needs. Every month...
-
ePharm5 InDepth
EPharm5 e-mail newsletter delivers the top 5 developments in pharma business innovation, with original research, interviews...
-
The CMS Survey Coordinator's Handbook
There is no reason to struggle with CMS requirements. HCPro has teamed up with former contracted CMS surveyor Jeff Coleman...
-
Stark Law, 2nd edition: A user's guide to achieving compliance
This updated version of HCPro's Stark Law best seller, first published in 2005—and now co-authored by former CMS Stark...
-
The Compliance Officer's Handbook, 2nd Edition
This revised edition is packed with even more practical tools, case studies, tips and tools, sample audits, and sample...
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
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- 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
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Joint Commission Center announces handoff communication solutions
- Inside best practice: Reduce patient falls with a stoplight
- Identify modifiable risk factors to prevent patient falls
- Hospitalist-surgeon comanagement has no effect on outcomes
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Case Management Monthly, June 2012
- Searched