Merck
Pays $400 Million In National Medicaid Fraud Settlement;
New Investigation
Model Ends Seven-Year Qui Tam Whistleblower Case

Home

Medicaid & The States

About
Medicaid

Rebate
Act & Best Price

How
Best Price Is Reported

The Case

Our News Release

Introduction

The
Company

The
Nevada Case

The Allegations

MD
Kickbacks

Consultant
Meetings

Free
Drug Kickbacks

Best
Price

The New
Model

The Attorneys

Steven
Cohen

Mark
Kleiman

BethAnne
Yeager

Timeline: A
Seven-Year Ordeal

Federal Case Documents

EDPA Complaint

EDPA Settlement Agreement

EDPA CIA

EDPA Orders

EDPA Notice of Intervention

EDPA Stipulation of Dismissal

The Drugs

The Drugs

Drug
Expert Greg Hamilton, Sr.

Whistleblowers

$20
Billion-Plus Recovered

Federal,
State and Local Laws

Industries,
Goods & Services

News & Info

Our News Release

USDOJ Release

EDPA Release

States

Company

Other
News and Blogs

Glossary

Taxpayers Against Fraud

About Taxpayers
Against Fraud

Our
Attorneys & TAF

TAF Web site

The Medicaid Rebate Act and "Best Price" Provisions

Dean Steinke, the qui tam whistleblower who brought this False Claims
Act case to whistleblower attorneys Steve Cohen and Mark Kleiman, alleged
that Merck & Co., Inc., had submitted false price reports in order to
reduce the rebates Merck was required to pay back to the States under the
Medicaid Rebate Act, 42 U.S.C. §1396r-8. The Nevada
federal court's decision that Merck's price reports were false and
should have included marketing discounts Merck extended to hospitals but
not to Medicaid was key to bringing about the settlement that is the
subject of this Web site.

In 1990 Congress passed the Medicaid Rebate Act in response to
increasing Medicaid expenditures for prescription drugs. (See a history of the Medicaid Rebate Program.) The
legislation's goal was to stop drug companies from overcharging Medicaid
by giving taxpayers (who fund Medicaid) the best discounts that other
purchasers negotiated. (See How the Medicaid Rebate on Prescription Drugs Affects
Pricing in the Pharmaceutical Industry, Congressional Budget Office
Paper (January 1996), Chapter II, the Medicaid Rebate Program, at 11.)

The mechanism Congress designed to achieve this goal requires drug
companies that seek Medicaid payments for their prescription drugs to pay
a rebate to each State each quarter that is based on the difference
between the price that the State paid and any lower price paid by other
purchasers, other than HMOs or government entities, known as the Best
Price, or a rebate based upon a 15.1% discount off the Average
Manufacturing Price (AMP), whichever provides the greatest rebates to the
States. According to pharmaceutical pricing expert, Greg
Hamilton, the overwhelming majority of manufacturer drug rebates are
Best Price-based, not the flat 15.1% rebate.

The rebates are based upon quarterly price reports the drug companies
submit to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS").
Using these price reports and the States' prescription drug-use data, CMS
calculates the rebates owed by the drug companies to each State. Not
surprisingly, the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, which oversees CMS, has recognized that,
"...manufacturers have a strong financial incentive to hide de
facto pricing concessions to other purchasers to avoid passing on the
same discounts to the states" in the form of higher rebates based on a
Best Price that would otherwise have included these discounts. (See OIG Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers, 68 Fed. Reg. 23,731, 23,735 (2003)).

Even though the Medicaid Rebate Act requires Best Price reporting to
include (a) cash discounts; (b) free goods contingent on other purchase
requirements; (c) volume discounts; and (d) any other rebates, Best Price
reporting does not include discounts that are "merely nominal" in amount.
Merck thus devised a "nominal price" discount to market Vioxx® and Zocor®
to hospitals, a discount the hospitals qualified for so long as they
purchased set amounts. Merck excluded these large discounts of more than
90% of AMP from its Best Price reporting, claiming that so long as the
discount resulted in a price of less than 10% of AMP, as CMS defined
nominal price, the discount could be excluded from Best Price
reporting.

However, the legislative history of the Medicaid Rebate Act indicates
that nominal price exclusion to Best Price reporting was intended to
protect special purchasers, such as penny-a-pack birth control pills sold
to Planned Parenthood. (See 136 Cong. Rec. 25,145 at S12954-01, *S12962
(1990)). Congress was also clear that the overarching purpose of the
Medicaid Rebate Act was to put Medicaid (the States, and the taxpayers) on
par with all other commercial purchasers, such as hospitals. The Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 further delineated the nominal price exclusion, and
as of Jan. 1, 2007, only certain sales for less than 10% of AMP
qualify.

Contact PRforLAW, LLC
| Legal Notices and
Disclaimers

©
Copyright 2008 PRforLAW.
LLC. All rights reserved. This Web site and any of its pages may not be
copied, electronically stored or deep linked without written permission from us.
In the case of material we have reprinted with permission, contact the copyright
holder of that document/work. Inactive links represent expected data not yet
received.