ILNews

Zoeller: Indiana to get $6.3 million in drug-maker settlement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana will receive more than $6.3 million as part of a national Medicaid fraud settlement with drug-maker GlaxoSmithKline, Attorney General Greg Zoeller said in a statement Monday.

The $2 billion national settlement is the largest recovery in a healthcare fraud investigation in U.S. history, according to the AG’s office. The civil settlement stems from allegations that GSK wrongly billed the state’s Medicaid program for ineligible claims and for illegal drug marketing practices brought to light by four whistle-blower lawsuits filed under the False Claims Act.

Zoeller said the settlement “sends a powerful message that state governments and our federal partners will not tolerate overbilling and wrongful billing of Medicaid.”

In addition to the civil settlement, GSK agreed to plead guilty and pay a $1 billion fine to settle federal criminal charges that it violated the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The charges alleged GSK introduced Wellbutrin and Paxil into interstate commerce when the drugs were misbranded, meaning they contained labels not in accordance with their Food and Drug Administration approvals, and that GSK failed to report certain clinical data regarding Avandia to the FDA, the AG’s office said.

The whistle-blower suits that resulted in the civil settlement alleged GSK illegally used “off-label” marketing of its antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin, the respiratory drug Advair, the anti-seizure drug Lamictal and the anti-nausea drug Zofran to induce physicians to prescribe them for uses not approved by the FDA, according to the AG’s office.

The suits also alleged GSK offered illegal kickbacks for promoting and prescribing those drugs as well as four other GSK products – Imitrex, Lotronex, Flovent and Valtrex.

The settlement also resolves allegations that GSK failed to comply with federal “best price” requirements for drug reimbursements by underpaying rebates to state Medicaid programs, according to the AG’s office. GSK agreed to pay $300 million in the national settlement, from which Indiana Medicaid will receive $1.22 million.

Money the state recovers through the civil settlement will go back into the Indiana Medicaid program and pay for investigations of other providers. Zoeller said whistle-blowers are entitled to about $245,000 of Indiana’s portion of the recovery and a portion of the national award not yet calculated.

 

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. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. If the end result is to simply record the spoke word, then perhaps some day digital recording may eventually be the status quo. However, it is a shallow view to believe the professional court reporter's function is to simply report the spoken word and nothing else. There are many aspects to being a professional court reporter, and many aspects involved in producing a professional and accurate transcript. A properly trained professional steno court reporter has achieved a skill set in a field where the average dropout rate in court reporting schools across the nation is 80% due to the difficulty of mastering the necessary skills. To name just a few "extras" that a court reporter with proper training brings into a courtroom or a deposition suite; an understanding of legal procedure, technology specific to the legal profession, and an understanding of what is being said by the attorneys and litigants (which makes a huge difference in the quality of the transcript). As to contracting, or anti-contracting the argument is simple. The court reporter as governed by our ethical standards is to be the independent, unbiased individual in a deposition or courtroom setting. When one has entered into a contract with any party, insurance carrier, etc., then that reporter is no longer unbiased. I have been a court reporter for over 30 years and I echo Mr. Richardson's remarks that I too am here to serve.

  3. A competitive bid process is ethical and appropriate especially when dealing with government agencies and large corporations, but an ethical line is crossed when court reporters in Pittsburgh start charging exorbitant fees on opposing counsel. This fee shifting isn't just financially biased, it undermines the entire justice system, giving advantages to those that can afford litigation the most. It makes no sense.

  4. "a ttention to detail is an asset for all lawyers." Well played, Indiana Lawyer. Well played.

  5. I have a appeals hearing for the renewal of my LPN licenses and I need an attorney, the ones I have spoke to so far want the money up front and I cant afford that. I was wondering if you could help me find one that takes payments or even a pro bono one. I live in Indiana just north of Indianapolis.

ADVERTISEMENT