Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Drug and Medical Device Manufacturers

By William Hoffman and Gregory J. Wallance
July 28, 2005

Following a guilty plea last year by a major pharmaceutical company, Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum declared that “[t]he Department of Justice is committed to rooting out and prosecuting health care fraud. It is of paramount importance that the Department use every legal tool at its disposal to assure the health and safety of the consumers of America's health care system.” The tools — the variety of different criminal statutes and theories used to prosecute drug and device manufacturers — are so diverse as to defy easy summary. At one end are the general, long-established offenses, such as the Civil War-era statute criminalizing the submission of false claims to a department or agency of the United States, 18 U.S.C. ' 287 (the “criminal False Claims Act”) or the mail and wire fraud statutes. At the other are highly focused statutes, such as the federal health care “Antikickback Statute,” 42 U.S.C. ' 1320A-7b(b); see also 21 U.S.C. '' 331(t), 333(b) (drug importation and marketing violations), which prohibit, inter alia, “remuneration” to physicians to use drugs or devices that are reimbursable by a federal health care program. See also 68 Fed. Reg. 23,731, 23,734-38 (May 5, 2003) (identifying anti-kickback “risk areas”).

The tools have been wielded effectively. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has obtained staggering criminal, regulatory, and civil fines from pharmaceutical companies. In October 2001, for example, TAP Pharmaceuticals agreed to pay $875 million to resolve criminal charges and civil liabilities, under the Antikickback Statute and other laws, arising from the company's distribution of thousands of free samples of Lupron', a prostrate cancer treatment, to induce doctors to write prescriptions.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Judge Rules Shaquille O'Neal Will Face Securities Lawsuit for Promotion, Sale of NFTs Image

A federal district court in Miami, FL, has ruled that former National Basketball Association star Shaquille O'Neal will have to face a lawsuit over his promotion of unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency tokens and that he was a "seller" of these unregistered securities.

Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Blockchain Domains: New Developments for Brand Owners Image

Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.

Supreme Court Rules Rejection of Trademark License Does Not Rescind Rights of Licensee Image

Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC The question is whether a debtor's rejection of its agreement granting a license "terminates rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor's breach under applicable nonbankruptcy law."