Bayer Pays $97.5M To Settle Kickback Charges
5 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // November 25th, 2008 // 4:22 pm
The drugmaker reached a settlement with the US Department of Justice, which alleged Bayer paid kickbacks to diabetic suppliers, prompting them to submit false claims to Medicare. The feds claimed Bayer engaged in a ‘cash-for-patient’ scheme by paying 11 diabetic suppliers to convert their patients to Bayer products from products - such as glucose monitors and testing strips - made by competitors.
According to the Justice Department Bayer allegedly paid Liberty Medical Supply, one of the largest direct-to-patient suppliers, approximately $2.5 million to convert patients to Bayer supplies. The alleged kickbacks were based on the number of patients that Liberty successfully converted to Bayer products and were disguised as payments for advertising. In addition, Bayer allegedly paid kickbacks of approximately $375,000 to 10 other diabetic suppliers to convert patients to Bayer supplies (DOJ statement).
Under the terms of the agreement, Bayer will pay $97.5 million to the government, plus interest, and enter into a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General. The Bayer divisions covered by the CIA sell products to federal agencies, such as the Veterans’ Administration, and sell products for which claims are submitted for reimbursement. These units include Bayer HealthCare Diabetes Care, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Medrad (including Possis), Intendis and Viterion TeleHealthcare.
In a statement, Bayer maintains a deal was struck to “avoid the time, uncertainty, and expense of litigation” and that “compliance processes have undergone continuous improvement in all areas of the company in the past years…and Bayer HealthCare will review and enhance these compliance programs and employee training.”
“We are satisfied that the issues in question in Bayer HealthCare Diabetes Care have been resolved. The last several years have been a period of continuing positive change and growth for our company,” Bayer chairman Arthur Higgins says in the statement, “and we are eager to move forward, focus on our current business and most importantly, continue to be a valued and respected Health Care provider.”
Justice in MI
In a statement, Bayer maintains a deal was struck to “avoid the time, uncertainty, and expense of litigation” and that “compliance processes have undergone continuous improvement”…..yadayadayada.
Has anyone ever seen a corporate integrity agreement make a significant difference beyond the short term?
Former SP
In cases I’ve seen, it doesn’t even make a difference in the short-term. Companies continue to disregards rules and regulations and hope they don’t get caught. It’s business as usual for Big Pharma. Is it any wonder that nobody trusts them anymore?
Dan A.
Some companies have multipile CIAs, and I don’t think it alters their tactics. Bayer has at least two. Think Schering has three CIAs.
Anne PME
CIA’s have been fewer and farther between these last few years. Maybe that will change. Let’s hope so.
One of the things that would likely make companies comply with CIA’s is if the company that signed the agreement was required to properly disclose and disseminte CIA agreement info to stockholders and analysts, and if board members were interviewed by members of the financial press and questioned about how they will help the company comply with the CIA.
I don’t know about any of you, but I am getting too old to read about CIA’s in the fine print of Q (or K) footnotes or buried in a line in the legal proceedings section…wouldn’t SEC filings would be a lot more fun to read if Ed wrote summaries of them?
jdav
what happened to the companies that accepted the kickbacks as this is illegal also ?