ILNews

AG announces largest-ever health care fraud settlement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana will receive its largest-ever health care fraud settlement as part of a $2.2 billion agreement with Johnson & Johnson for illegal off-label marketing and kickbacks to promote Risperdal, Invega and other drugs, according to a statement from Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller.

The refunds are the result of whistleblower lawsuits initiated in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts and joined by Indiana, other states and the federal government. The settlement resolves claims that the company and related companies defrauded Medicare, Medicaid and other programs. Johnson & Johnson will plead guilty to a single count of drug misbranding.
 
In total, the Indiana Medicaid program will receive $16.9 million for its state share of the settlements – the largest amount Indiana has received in such a settlement in an illegal drug-marketing case, according to the AG’s office. Counting federal recovery specific to Indiana, the two settlements total $44.5 million in combined federal and state money for the Indiana Medicaid program, the largest such amount the program has received.

Risperdal is approved to treat symptoms in patients with mental disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Invega replaced Risperdal when its patent expired. The lawsuits alleged J&J companies engaged in a pattern of illegal payment to doctors and long-term care pharmacies to induce them to promote Risperdal and other J&J drugs instead of less-expensive generic drugs for unapproved uses, such as for pediatric patients or elderly patients suffering from dementia.

The $16.9 million settlement boosts the attorney general’s state-level recovery of Medicaid funds through settlements of lawsuits against drug companies to nearly $54 million since January 2009, according to the statement.

More information about how whistleblowers can file qui tam lawsuits under the False Claims Act is available here.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT