Former Daytona Beach Chiropractor Will Spend More Than 15 Years Behind Bars

8 Indest-2008-5By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

A former Daytona Beach chiropractor will spend more than 15 years in federal prison for an alleged health care fraud scheme and illegally prescribing pills, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Jacksonville Division. He was also ordered to pay more than $2 million in restitution to his victims. The former chiropractor was sentenced on November 29, 2012, by a United States District Judge who called his fraud scheme “sophisticated.”

Click here to read the press release from the FBI.

I previously wrote about this scheme in August 2012, when the former chiropractor was found guilty. To read that blog, click here.

Complex Scheme Involved a Number of Co-Conspirators.

According to the Daytona Beach News Journal, the former chiropractor is thought to have worked with five other doctors in a scheme. The group allegedly split the money they collected from sending inflated bills to insurance companies, including Medicare.

Former Chiropractor Allegedly Prescribed Controlled Substances to Patients.

FBI investigators also accused the former chiropractor of writing prescriptions for controlled substances. Since the man could not prescribe controlled substances, he would use the names of medical doctors who most likely knew their names were being used illegally. It’s believed that there were about a dozen patients who overdosed on controlled substances prescribed by the former chiropractor, according to the Daytona Beach News Journal.

Click here to read the entire Daytona Beach News Journal article.

Effects of Voluntarily Relinquishing a Professional License.

Back in December of 2011, the former chiropractor voluntarily relinquished his license. We almost always counsel our clients to refrain from voluntarily relinquishing their licenses. A voluntary relinquishment of a license in the face of a pending investigation is treated, for all practical purposes, the same as a disciplinary revocation.

The consequences will usually include:

1. Mandatory report to the National Practitioner Data Base (NPDB) (Note:  Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank or HIPDB recently folded into NPDB) which remains there for 50 years.

2. Any other states or jurisdictions in which the client has a license will also initiate action against him or her in that jurisdiction.  (Note:  I have had two clients who had licenses in seven other states).

3. Action to revoke, suspend or take other action against the clinical privileges and medical staff membership of those licensed health professionals who may have such in a hospital, ambulatory surgical center, skilled nursing facility, or staff model HMO or clinic.

4. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will take action to exclude the provider from the Medicare Program.  If this occurs (and most of these offenses require mandatory exclusion) the provider will be placed on the List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (LEIE) maintained by the HHS OIG.

5. If the above occurs, the provider is also automatically “debarred” or prohibited from participating in any capacity in any federal contracting and is placed on the U.S. General Services Administration’s (GSA’s) debarment list.

6. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will act to revoke the

 professional’s DEA registration if he or she has one.

7. The board certified health professional’s certifying organization will act to revoke his or her certification.

For more reasons why a health care provider should not relinquish a professional license, click here.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty.

Remember, all person are presumed innocent until convicted in a court of law. In this case, the chiropractor has been convicted in a court of law.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Handling Medicare Audits.
Medicare fraud is a serious crime and is vigorously investigated by the FBI, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Often other state and federal agencies, including the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), state Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFCUs) and other law enforcement agencies participate. Don’t wait until it’s too late. If you are concerned of any possible violations and would like a confidential consultation, contact a qualified health attorney familiar with medical billing and audits today.

The Health Law Firm’s attorneys routinely represent physicians, nurses, chiropractors, medical groups, clinics, pharmacies, home health care agencies, nursing homes, group homes and other healthcare providers in Medicaid and Medicare investigations, audits and recovery actions.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

Do you think this sentence is too steep? Do you think the doctors the former chiropractor worked with will receive the same sentence? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Pavuk, Amy. “Chiropractor gets 15 Years Prison for Illegally Writing Prescriptions and Healthcare Fraud.” Orlando Sentinel. (November 28, 2012). From: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-chiropractor-painkillers-sentence-20121128,0,60766.story

Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Former Daytona Beach Chiropractor Sentenced to More Than 15 Years in Federal Prison.” FBI. (November 29, 2012). From: http://www.fbi.gov/jacksonville/press-releases/2012/former-daytona-beach-clinic-owner-sentenced-to-more-than-15-years-in-federal-prison

Longa, Lyda. “Judge Sentences Chiropractor Joseph Wagner to 15-Year Term.” Daytona Beach News Journal. (November 28, 2012). From: http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20121128/NEWS/311289998/1025?p=2&tc=pg

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law.  He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice.  Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area.  www.TheHealthLawFirm.com  The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone:  (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.

Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By |2024-03-14T10:00:41-04:00June 1, 2018|Categories: DEA, Medicare, Medicare Fraud, The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on Former Daytona Beach Chiropractor Will Spend More Than 15 Years Behind Bars
Read More

Supreme Court Rules that Government Regulators Can Sue Over Pay-for-Delay Agreements Between Brand and Generic Drug Manufacturers

George F. Indest III, Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

George F. Indest III, Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 17, 2013, that pay-for-delay agreements between brand name and generic drug manufacturers are subject to anti-trust scrutiny. These pay-for-delay agreements, or reverse payments, are usually a form of settlement between the two manufacturers in patent litigation. The Supreme Court decided that each instance must be considered on a case-by-case basis. This verdict rewrites the rules governing the release of generic drugs. It is likely to increase the number of generic drugs in the marketplace and reduce the price of generic drugs.

To read a previous blog on pay-for-delay agreements, click here.

What is a Pay-for-Delay Agreement?

Pay-for-delay agreements came as the result of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act gives generic drug manufacturers an incentive to challenge brand name drug patents because the first generic drug manufacturer to received U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to launch a generic copy of a brand name drug can receive a 180-day marketing exclusivity period for the product. The FDA cannot approve any other generic applications for the same drug until the first-to-file generic manufacturer has sold its product for 180 days or has given up its exclusivity period. Click here to read the Hatch-Waxman Act.

Brand name manufacturers often challenge generic drug manufacturers who try to sell their product prior to patent expiration. This results in litigation to determine whether the generic manufacturer is violating the brand name manufacturer’s patents.

Instead of going to court over this, brand name manufacturers often choose to pay a settlement to the generic drug manufacturers for agreeing to delay the launch of its competing product.

Why the Supreme Court Overruled Court of Appeals Decision.

The 5-3 vote overruled the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that said pharmaceutical companies can’t be sued unless the patent litigation is a sham or a generic drug maker agrees to delay introduction of a generic drug into the market even after the patent has expired.

A Med Page Today article lists the Supreme Court’s five reasons why the appellate court made a mistake in giving blanket immunity to pay-for-delay agreements from the decision written by Justice Stephen Breyer:

–  “A reverse payment, where large and unjustified, can bring with it the risk of significant anticompetitive effects.”

–  “One who makes such a payment may be unable to explain and to justify it.”

–  “Such a firm or individual may well possess market power derived from the patent.”

–  “A court, by examining the size of the payment, may well be able to assess its likely anticompetitive effects along with its potential justifications without litigating the validity of the patent.”

–  “Parties may well find ways to settle patent disputes without the use of reverse payments.”

Click here to read the entire Med Page Today article.

Pay-for-Delay Agreements Allegedly Cost Patients Millions of Dollars a Year.

According to Bloomberg, the high court’s decision may discourage brand name and generic pharmaceutical companies from reaching settlements. It’s been found that pay-for-delay agreements can delay a generic drug almost 17 months before it can be put on the market. In the meantime, patients must pay higher prices for the brand name version. This also impacts Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) claims pay-for-delay agreements cost consumers $3.5 billion a year in the form of higher drug prices.

To read the Bloomberg article, click here.

The Case of the FTC v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals.

The Supreme Court case center around AndroGel, a treatment for low testosterone in men, made by Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The FTC sued Solvay and three generic drug companies. According to Bloomberg, the FTC said that a payment made by Solvay, the holder of a patent on AndroGel, to the generic drug manufacturers represented an unlawful restraint of trade because it was intended to keep cheaper, generic versions of AndroGel off the market until 2020.

FTC Enthusiastic About the Decision.

In a statement, the FTC Chairwoman said the Supreme Court’s decision is a “significant victory for American consumers, American taxpayers and free market.” She also stated, “The court made it clear that pay-for-delay agreements are subject to antitrust scrutiny.”

Click here to read the full statement from the FTC.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Pharmacies and Pharmacists.

The Health Law Firm represents pharmacists and pharmacies in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, inspections and audits. The firm’s attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

What do you think of the Supreme Court’s ruling? Do you agree or disagree? What effect do you think it will have on the pharmaceutical industry? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Stohn, Greg. “Drugmakers Opened to ‘Pay for Delay’ Suits by High Court.” Bloomberg. (June 17, 2013). From: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-17/drugmakers-opened-to-pay-for-delay-suits-by-high-court.html

Frieden, Joyce. “Supreme Court Split on Pharma ‘Pay for Delay’ Deals.” Med Page Today. (June 17, 2013). From: http://bit.ly/18SfhKb

Kaplan, Peter. “Statement of FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc.” (June 17,2 013). From: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/06/actavis.shtm

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By |2024-03-14T10:00:49-04:00June 1, 2018|Categories: Appeal, Health Care Industry, In the Know, In the News, Pharmaceutical Drugs, Pharmacy, The Health Law Firm Blog|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on Supreme Court Rules that Government Regulators Can Sue Over Pay-for-Delay Agreements Between Brand and Generic Drug Manufacturers
Read More

Supreme Court to Determine if Pay-for-Delay Agreements Between Brand and Generic Drug Manufacturers are Legal

7 Indest-2008-4By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

The Supreme Court is currently looking into whether brand name drug manufacturers may pay generic drug manufacturers to keep the generic drugs off the market. These payments, often called pay-for-delay, are usually a form of settlement between the two manufacturers in patent litigation. The Supreme Court’s decision may be worth billions to pharmaceutical companies and consumers.

In January 2013, the American Medical Association (AMA) teamed up with the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and other organizations seeking to eliminate pay-for-delay agreements. The groups filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court case.

Click here to read the friend-of-the-court brief.

History of Pay-For-Delay Agreements.

Pay-for-delay agreements came as the result of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act gives generic drug manufacturers an incentive to challenge brand name drug patents because the first generic drug manufacturer to received U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to launch a generic copy of a brand name drug can receive a 180-day marketing exclusivity period for the product. The FDA cannot approve any other generic applications for the same drug until the first-to-file generic manufacturer has sold its product for 180 days or has given up its exclusivity period. Click here to read the Hatch-Waxman Act.

Brand name manufacturers often challenge generic drug manufacturers who try to sell their product prior to patent expiration. This results in litigation to determine whether the generic manufacturer is violating the brand name manufacturer’s patents.

Instead of going to court over this, brand name manufacturers often choose to pay a settlement to the generic drug manufacturers for agreeing to delay the launch of its competing product.

The Impact of Pay-For-Delay Agreements.

It’s been found that pay-for-delay agreements can delay a generic drug almost 17 months before it can be put on the market. In the meantime, patients must pay higher prices for the brand name version. This also impacts Medicare and Medicaid programs.

According to an article on National Public Radio (NPR), the number of pay-for-delay agreements is increasing. Click here to read the entire NPR article.

Legalized Extortion Causes Patients to Pay High Drug Prices.

This type of legalized extortion does nothing more than drive up drug prices for all patients by keeping generic drugs off the market. On the other hand, it vastly increases the profits made by big name pharmacy companies who are able to derive even more money from expired patents.

AMA Fights to Get Rid of Pay-for-Delay Agreements.

According to a press release, AMA, AARP, the National Legislative Association for Prescription Drug Prices and the U.S. Public Interest Research Groups all signed onto the friend-of-the-court brief filed in the Supreme Court.

The AMA is concerned that pay-for-delay agreements extend patent monopolies, increase health care costs and restrict doctors’ ability to treat patients. To read the entire press release from the AMA, click here.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Pharmacies and Pharmacists.

The Health Law Firm represents pharmacists and pharmacies in investigations, regulatory matters, licensing issues, litigation, inspections and audits. The firm’s attorneys include those who are board certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law as well as licensed health professionals who are also attorneys.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Comments?

As a health care professional, how do you feel about pay-for-delay agreements? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Sources:

Mills, Robert. “AMA Joins Other Groups Seeking to Overturn Pay-for-Delay Drug Agreement.” American Medical Association. (January 30, 2013). From: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2013-01-30-amicus-brief-ftc-vs-watson-pharmaceuticals.page

Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Case Number 12-416. Brief for AARP, American Medical Association, National Legislative Association for Prescription Drug Prices and U.S. Public Interest Research Groups as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner. January 29, 2013. From: http://www.thehealthlawfirm.com/uploads/2013-01-29-amicus-brief-ftc-vs-watson-pharmaceuticals.pdf

Purvis, Leigh. “Pay-for-Delay Agreements and Prescription Drug Costs.” AARP. (May 13, 2013.) From: http://blog.aarp.org/2013/05/13/pay-for-delay-agreements-and-prescription-drug-costs/

Totenberg, Nina. “Supreme Court Hears ‘Pay to Delay’ Pharmaceutical Case.” National Public Radio. (March 25, 2013). From: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/25/175043758/supreme-court-hears-pay-to-delay-pharmaceutical-case

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.

Copyright © 1996-2012 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By |2024-03-14T10:01:12-04:00May 15, 2018|Categories: Pharmacist, Pharmacy, Pharmacy Law|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |1 Comment
Read More

DEA Offers New Prescription Drug Return Policy

3 Indest-2009-2By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

Looking to improve the prescription drug abuse epidemic in the United States, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced September 8, 2014, that it would permit patients to return their unused prescription medications to pharmacies. This new rule, covering all types of prescription drugs, will give patients the option of mailing unused prescriptions to an authorized collector using packaging provided by the pharmacy.

Hopefully this will help to eliminate many of the problematic situations that pharmacists and physicians found themselves in when they accumulated returned or unused medications from patients for destruction.

This move intends to address the rising number of injuries and deaths associated with controlled substance drugs, particularly opioids. Reducing the stockpile of unneeded prescription drugs from American homes will limit teenagers’ accessibility to their parents’ medications and reduce burglaries for such substances. According to The New York Times, this demographic is known to be the most prevalent abuser of such controlled substances.

To read the full story from The New York Times, click here.

Prior Methods of Prescription Drug Disposal.

Under the Controlled Substances Act, patients were only allowed to dispose of unused drugs themselves or surrender them to law enforcement. Personal disposal of controlled substances typically means flushing pills down a toilet or throwing them in the trash. Because this can pose a risk toward animals and clean drinking water, these methods are frowned upon by environmentalists and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Drug “take back” programs are another option when it comes to disposing of unused prescription drugs. These events are organized by the DEA and are held twice a year at local police departments across the country. During these programs, citizens can anonymously drop off any unused prescription drugs. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reported that a nationwide event in April 2014 brought in 390 tons of prescription drugs at more than 6,000 sites. In the past four years, these collection events have removed from circulation more than 4.1 million pounds of prescription medication from across the country.

Although these events prove successful, many healthcare professionals are optimistic for the bigger impact the pharmacy “take back” programs may have. Providing consumers convenient year-round access to medication disposals will be positive reinforcement to regularly dispose of unused prescription medications. This method is believed to be more likely to accomplish the mission of shrinking the pool of unused and potentially fatal controlled substances in American homes.

To read the full article from The Wall Street Journal, click here.

Ironing Out Details of the New Plan.

There are many logistics to consider to ensure these pharmaceutical “take back” programs will be successful. The programs will not be mandatory, as the decision to take part will be the under the sole discretion of each company. The pharmacies must voluntarily choose to register with the DEA in order to start receiving the leftover prescriptions. In the past, pharmacies have not generally wanted to accept the hassle of offering such a program. However, the DEA expects many pharmacies to jump on the bandwagon to showcase good-faith effort of keeping drugs out of the wrong hands.

DEA-approved organizations collecting the unused drugs will include hospital pharmacies, narcotic treatment programs, and companies contracted by other collectors to destroy controlled substances.

There are concerns circling the initiative. Some pharmacies do not have the resources required to accommodate incinerators, thus limiting the locations available to consumers. In addition, professionals are concerned with the lack of regulations listed in the new plan. There are no set requirements on how the prescriptions should be destroyed. The rules simply mandate that the drugs are altered into a permanent, irreversible state.

The burden of payment has also not been discussed or outlined in the new plan. Who will cover the cost of packaging and disposal has yet to be decided. Also, to be considered is the challenge of keeping the returned prescriptions safe until destruction. An unsecured, unmonitored return site containing stock piles of addictive drugs would be a gold mine for many addicts and criminals. Should a theft occur at one of these drop-off receptacles, who would be held liable? The American Pharmacists Association has already expressed concern of pharmacy legal liability.

The biggest obstacle of all, however, may be convincing the general public that returning unused pills is a necessary moral obligation.

Comments?

Would you participate in this type of prescription drug return program? As a pharmacist or someone who works at a pharmacy, what are your concerns with this take back program? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Consult With A Health Law Attorney Experienced in the Representation of Pharmacists and Pharmacies.

We routinely provide deposition coverage to pharmacists, pharmacies and other health professionals being deposed in criminal cases, negligence cases, civil cases or disciplinary cases involving other health professionals. We can review business referral arrangements and provide legal counsel on whether they are not in violation of federal and state anti-referral laws. The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are experienced in both formal and informal administrative hearings and in representing physicians, physician assistants and other health professionals in investigations and at Board of Pharmacy hearings.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Barrett, Devlin. “U.S. to Allow Pharmacies to Take Back Unused Prescription Drugs.” The Wall Street Journal. (September 08, 2014). From: http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-allow-pharmacies-to-take-back-unused-prescription-drugs-1410186602

Saint Louis, Catherine. “D.E.A. to Allow Return of Unused Pills to Pharmacies.” The New York Times. (September 08, 2014). From: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/health/unused-pills-return-to-pharmacies.html?_r=0

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2014 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By |2024-03-14T10:01:40-04:00May 15, 2018|Categories: Pain Management, Pharmacist, Pharmacy, Pharmacy Law|Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |Comments Off on DEA Offers New Prescription Drug Return Policy
Read More
“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A.
The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2022 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.
FacebookInstagramLinkedInTwitterYouTube
Toggle Sliding Bar Area
Go to Top