|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 2 hours, 44 minutes
|
Bill the gov
#28282637 - 04/17/23 07:33 PM (9 months, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Think this is a really big case before the SC....as it has many repercussions on the ability for the government to get a fair price(looking at you, health care).....or is it to shaft private companies profit?
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/17/1169367263/supreme-court-looks-at-whether-medicare-and-medicaid-were-overbilled-under-fraud
Supreme Court looks at whether Medicare and Medicaid were overbilled under fraud law
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday in a case that could undermine one of the government's most powerful tools for fighting fraud in government contracts and programs.
The False Claims Act dates back to the Civil War, when it was enacted to combat rampant fraud by private contractors who were overbilling or simply not delivering goods to the troops. But the law over time was weakened by congressional amendments.
Then, in 1986, Congress toughened the law, and then toughened it again. The primary Senate sponsor was — and still is — Iowa Republican Charles Grassley.
"We wanted to anticipate and block every avenue that creative lawyers ... might use to allow a contractor to escape liability for overcharging," Grassley said in an interview with NPR.
He is alarmed by the case before the Supreme Court this week. At issue is whether hundreds of major retail pharmacies across the country knowingly overcharged Medicaid and Medicare by overstating what their usual and customary prices were. If they did, they would be liable for triple damages.
What the pharmacies charged
The case essentially began in 2006, when Walmart upended the retail pharmacy world by offering large numbers of frequently used drugs at very cheap prices — $4 for a 30-day supply — with automatic refills. That left the rest of the retail pharmacy industry desperately trying to figure out how to compete.
The pharmacies came up with various offers that matched Walmart's prices for cash customers, but they billed Medicaid and Medicare using far higher prices, not what are alleged to be their usual and customary prices.
Walmart did report its discounted cash prices as usual and customary, but other chains did not. Even as the discounted prices became the majority of their cash sales, other retail pharmacies continued to bill the government at the previous and far higher prices.
For example, between 2008 and 2012, Safeway charged just $10 for almost all of its cash sales for a 90-day supply of a top-selling drug to reduce cholesterol. But it did not report $10 as its usual and customary price. Instead, Safeway told Medicare and Medicaid that its usual and customary price ranged from $81 to $109.
How the whistleblowers responded Acting under the False Claims Act, two whistleblowers brought suit on behalf of the government alleging that SuperValu and Safeway bilked taxpayers of $200 million.
But the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the chains had not acted knowingly, even if they "might suspect, believe, or intend to file a false claim." And the appeals court further said that evidence about what the executives knew was "irrelevant" as a matter of law.
Medicare tests a solution to soaring hospice costs: Let private insurers run it
"It's just contrary to what we intended," Grassley said. "That test just makes a hash of the law of fraud."
The statute is very specific, he observes. It says that a person or business knowingly defrauds the government when it presents a false or fraudulent claim for payment. And it defines "knowingly" as: "actual knowledge," "deliberate ignorance" or "reckless disregard of the truth or falsity" of the claim.
"These are three distinct mental states," Grassley said, "and it can be any one of them."
The companies' defense
SuperValu and Safeway would not allow their lawyers to be interviewed for this story, but in their briefs, they argue that a strict intent requirement is needed to hold businesses accountable under the statute. That is to ensure that companies have fair notice of what is and is not legal. The companies are backed by a variety of business interests, among them defense contractors represented by lawyer Beth Brinkmann in this case.
Brinkmann maintains the False Claims Act is a punitive law because it imposes harsh monetary penalties for wrongful conduct without clear enough agency guidance. Ultimately, she argues, the question is not one of facts.
"If there's more than one reasonable interpretation of the law," Brinkmann said, "you don't know it's false."
Tejinder Singh, representing the whistleblowers, scoffs at that interpretation, calling it an after-the-fact justification for breaking the law.
"It has nothing to do with what you believe at the time you acted," Singh said, "and has everything to do with what you make up afterwards."
A decision in the case is expected by summer.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
Edited by SirTripAlot (04/17/23 07:34 PM)
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
What do you think? Do you think that companies should be able to offer cash discounts while billing the government more? It does give the underprivileged a leg up.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
jack_straw2208
Doctor



Registered: 02/12/07
Posts: 3,115
Loc: Earth
|
Re: Bill the gov [Re: Enlil]
#28282919 - 04/17/23 11:19 PM (9 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
It should be against the law for government employees and corporations to not have to pay their taxes!
-------------------- If you can’t tell what you desperately need, it’s probably sleep.
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 2 hours, 44 minutes
|
Re: Bill the gov [Re: Enlil]
#28282934 - 04/17/23 11:43 PM (9 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
Who gets to sets the price, the government? They have a stockpile of cash via a coercive but nesscary taxation. This sum of money is more than adequate to pay for just about anything. The difference in the billing to the consumer to that of the government seems like the government is funding healthcare, to an extent.
Additionally, a company is providing goods the government needs its citizens to have access to. Anytype of "savings" for the government would seem like a nice talking point..... but it is negligible compared to the access of said medicine. Cheaper prices could also yield lower quality based of the companies desire for adequate profit margins.
Unless there are those that want the government involved in the inner workings of the entire process, soup to nuts. No proven track record the government could deliver likewise.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Quote:
jack_straw2208 said: It should be against the law for government employees and corporations to not have to pay their taxes!
That's irrelevant to this discussion though.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
|
Quote:
SirTripAlot said: Who gets to sets the price, the government? They have a stockpile of cash via a coercive but nesscary taxation. This sum of money is more than adequate to pay for just about anything. The difference in the billing to the consumer to that of the government seems like the government is funding healthcare, to an extent.
Additionally, a company is providing goods the government needs its citizens to have access to. Anytype of "savings" for the government would seem like a nice talking point..... but it is negligible compared to the access of said medicine. Cheaper prices could also yield lower quality based of the companies desire for adequate profit margins.
Unless there are those that want the government involved in the inner workings of the entire process, soup to nuts. No proven track record the government could deliver likewise.
I feel the same. Sure, this is a violation of the law, but the end result is that more people are getting cheaper medicine on the government's dime. Obviously, this isn't the way that the law is designed, but I don't see the government rushing toward universal healthcare, either.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,357
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 9 hours, 21 minutes
|
Re: Bill the gov [Re: Enlil]
#28283493 - 04/18/23 09:46 AM (9 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
Yeah I mean this is basically the extent to which we can provide healthcare if we’re going to refuse to actually, you know, provide healthcare. Subsidize the fuck out of the privatized system, which will in turn take every opportunity to maximize profits.
--------------------
|
|