On its website, ABC News (1/20, Ruppel, Thomas) reported, "FORBA Holdings LLC, the parent company of the nationwide pediatric dental chain 'Small Smiles,' reached a $24 million settlement with the Department of Justice Wednesday for allegedly performing medically unnecessary or substandard procedures on children insured by Medicaid, to turn a profit."
ABC World News (1/20, story 8, 2:00, Thomas) reported that the government describes the scheme "as an assembly line approach by a healthcare company where dollars apparently mattered more than children." Daniel Levinson, HHS, was shown saying, "This was a matter of profit over compassion." Thomas continued, "The government claims in many cases, Small Smiles Dental Services, which has 68 clinics in 22 states, did procedures on children that were completely unnecessary, including removing teeth, x-rays, anesthesia, even root canals."
CQ HealthBeat (1/20, Reichard) reported, "Federal officials depicted the company as putting great pressure on its dentists to bill Medicaid for dental services and that dentists responded by doing shoddy work and performing unnecessary procedures to boost company revenues."
Bloomberg News (1/20, O'Reilly) reported, "The company admitted no wrongdoing," although Assistant US Attorney General Tony West said that "FORBA fired some dentists for failing to meet standards as a result of the investigation." The Denver Business Journal (1/20) reported, "As part of the settlement, FORBA signed an agreement to change policies at its clinics and establish procedures to detect and ultimately avoid performing unnecessary dental work."
Friday, January 22, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
J&J issues recall of over-the-counter drugs.
The New York Times (1/17, Singer) reported that "McNeil Consumer Healthcare, a division of Johnson & Johnson, announced the recall of several hundred batches of popular over-the-counter medicines" after "receiving consumer complaints about moldy-smelling bottles of Tylenol Arthritis Relief caplets." According to a warning letter from the FDA, the move "came 20 months" after the company "began receiving the complaints." Consumers have since "also reported temporary digestive problems like nausea, vomiting, and stomach pain, the agency said."
The AP (1/18) reported that the recall "includes some batches of regular and extra-strength Tylenol, children's Tylenol, eight-hour Tylenol, Tylenol arthritis, Tylenol PM, children's Motrin, Motrin IB, Benadryl Rolaids, Simply Sleep, and St. Joseph's aspirin." The products include "caplet and geltab products sold in the Americas, the United Arab Emirates, and Fiji." The odor "is caused by small amounts of a chemical associated with the treatment of wooden pallets, [J&J] said."
CQ HealthBeat (1/16, Norman) reported that the FDA "criticized McNeil Consumer Healthcare for failing to act more quickly to expand" the recall following consumer complaints. The warning letter from the agency cited "multiple violations of current good manufacturing practice requirements, and said the company didn't report quality problems to the agency." The Wall Street Journal (1/16, Favole, Dooren) and the Financial Times (1/16, Kirchgaessner) also covered the story.
The AP (1/18) reported that the recall "includes some batches of regular and extra-strength Tylenol, children's Tylenol, eight-hour Tylenol, Tylenol arthritis, Tylenol PM, children's Motrin, Motrin IB, Benadryl Rolaids, Simply Sleep, and St. Joseph's aspirin." The products include "caplet and geltab products sold in the Americas, the United Arab Emirates, and Fiji." The odor "is caused by small amounts of a chemical associated with the treatment of wooden pallets, [J&J] said."
CQ HealthBeat (1/16, Norman) reported that the FDA "criticized McNeil Consumer Healthcare for failing to act more quickly to expand" the recall following consumer complaints. The warning letter from the agency cited "multiple violations of current good manufacturing practice requirements, and said the company didn't report quality problems to the agency." The Wall Street Journal (1/16, Favole, Dooren) and the Financial Times (1/16, Kirchgaessner) also covered the story.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
J&J accused of drug kickback scheme.
The New York Times (1/16, B2, Singer) reported, "Johnson & Johnson paid kickbacks to the nation's largest nursing home pharmacy to increase the number of elderly patients taking" several of its medications, "according to a complaint filed...by the office of the United States attorney in Boston." The complaint alleges that Omnicare received "tens of millions of dollars...to buy and recommend Risperdal [risperidone]," as well as "prescription pain relievers Duragesic and Ultram, and the antibiotic Levaquin."
The Washington Post (1/16, Hilzenrath) reported that Omnicare received payments that were "sometimes disguised as grants or educational funding" to use "its influence with doctors to get prescriptions switched, the government said." As a result, the drugmaker "allegedly caused false or fraudulent claims to be filed with Medicaid." The government claims that between 1999 and 2004, "Omnicare increased its annual drug purchases from [J&J], from about $100 million to more than $280 million."
The Wall Street Journal (1/16, Rockoff) reported that J&J paid Omnicare rebates for switching prescriptions. Under federal law, rebates are legal unless Medicaid does not receive the same benefit. The complaint alleges that J&J disguised its rebates to Omnicare as physician-prescriber-data payments in order to avoid reporting them.
The AP (1/16) reported that US Attorney Carmen Ortiz's office "is seeking triple damages, restitution and other penalties under the federal False Claims Act and other laws. The damages would be based on the amount of false claims charged to Medicaid, which paid for about two-thirds of the claims on the care submitted for J&J drugs."
Forbes (1/16, Swanekamp) reported that the "Department of Justice said that [J&J] was aware of the influence Omnicare representatives have on the recommendations of nursing home doctors, claiming the drug manufacturer knew Omnicare suggestions were accepted about 80 percent of the time."
The Washington Post (1/16, Hilzenrath) reported that Omnicare received payments that were "sometimes disguised as grants or educational funding" to use "its influence with doctors to get prescriptions switched, the government said." As a result, the drugmaker "allegedly caused false or fraudulent claims to be filed with Medicaid." The government claims that between 1999 and 2004, "Omnicare increased its annual drug purchases from [J&J], from about $100 million to more than $280 million."
The Wall Street Journal (1/16, Rockoff) reported that J&J paid Omnicare rebates for switching prescriptions. Under federal law, rebates are legal unless Medicaid does not receive the same benefit. The complaint alleges that J&J disguised its rebates to Omnicare as physician-prescriber-data payments in order to avoid reporting them.
The AP (1/16) reported that US Attorney Carmen Ortiz's office "is seeking triple damages, restitution and other penalties under the federal False Claims Act and other laws. The damages would be based on the amount of false claims charged to Medicaid, which paid for about two-thirds of the claims on the care submitted for J&J drugs."
Forbes (1/16, Swanekamp) reported that the "Department of Justice said that [J&J] was aware of the influence Omnicare representatives have on the recommendations of nursing home doctors, claiming the drug manufacturer knew Omnicare suggestions were accepted about 80 percent of the time."
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
JAMA Focuses on Fallout from Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations
Physician's First Watch
Several commentaries in JAMA focus on the controversial 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations on breast cancer screening.
In one, a former member of the task force reminds readers that the organization does not represent the government. He faults the recommendation's "poor wording" as one cause of the controversy and observes that it was "unwise" for the task force not to plan for the inevitable political fallout.
In another brief essay, two experts in health outcomes research examine the real harms of overdiagnosis and decry the politicization of healthcare. "Promoting screening irrespective of the evidence may garner votes," they write, "but will not create healthier voters."
There are two other commentaries. One argues for better prescreening assessment and discussion of possible screening harms. The other commentary, by a breast-imaging radiologist, argues for annual screening after age 40 among those "willing to accept the downsides of false positives" -- a willingness, she writes, shared by "the overwhelming majority of women."
Physician's First Watch coverage of the USPSTF recommendations (Free)
Several commentaries in JAMA focus on the controversial 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations on breast cancer screening.
In one, a former member of the task force reminds readers that the organization does not represent the government. He faults the recommendation's "poor wording" as one cause of the controversy and observes that it was "unwise" for the task force not to plan for the inevitable political fallout.
In another brief essay, two experts in health outcomes research examine the real harms of overdiagnosis and decry the politicization of healthcare. "Promoting screening irrespective of the evidence may garner votes," they write, "but will not create healthier voters."
There are two other commentaries. One argues for better prescreening assessment and discussion of possible screening harms. The other commentary, by a breast-imaging radiologist, argues for annual screening after age 40 among those "willing to accept the downsides of false positives" -- a willingness, she writes, shared by "the overwhelming majority of women."
Physician's First Watch coverage of the USPSTF recommendations (Free)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)