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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT