X hits on this document

549 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

70 / 147

would have to pay to the Plaintiff States for their preferred medications.

244.

The Defendant Manufacturers know, and have known at all times relevant to the

complaint, that the price it has charged Omnicare, inclusive of their kickback payments made

pursuant to the Market Share Agreements, must be disclosed in their mandatory quarterly price

reports submitted directly to the CMS.

245.

In

violation

of

the

Medicaid

Rebate

Act,

the

Defendant

Manufacturers

purposefully did not report the off-invoice kickback price Omnicare was afforded under the

Market Share Agreements. Instead, the Defendant Manufacturers knowingly and deliberately

concealed the price they charged Omnicare when they calculated best prices for their preferred

medications.

246.

Had the Defendant Manufacturers truthfully reported to the CMS the best prices

for their prefelTed medications, the Defendant Manufacturers would have owed the govemment

rebates of a much higher amount.

247.

By submitting false claims reports to the govemment for the purpose of avoiding

their obligation to make higher rebate payments to the government, the Defendant Manufacturers

violated the federal and Plaintiff States' False Claims Acts.

248.

Each

false

best

price

report

the

Defendant

Manufacturers

submitted

to

the

govemment constitutes a violation of 31 U.S.C. §3729(a)(7). The Defendant Manufacturers

have failed to accurately report their best prices for their preferred medications for each quarter

of the last several years.

249.

Each of the Defendant Manufacturers' intentional and fraudulent failures to report

accurate best price information meant that the prices charged the federal govemment for

medications paid for by PHS entities were artificially high. Every PHS entity invoice therefore

66

Document info
Document views549
Page views549
Page last viewedThu Dec 08 16:18:24 UTC 2016
Pages147
Paragraphs7751
Words41508

Comments