Court limits False Claims Act liability for whistleblowers

Share this article:
In a ruling that provided comfort to drug companies defending dissident former employees' whistleblower suits, the US Supreme Court said in June that False Claims Act liability is limited to acts done with an intent that the government itself pay a false claim. 

The court held that the federal government's position that defendants may be held liable under the act's false statements and conspiracy sections upon proof that a private entity paid a claim using funds received from the government impermissibly deviated from the law's language. 

Sidley Austin attorneys said this decision has implications for manufacturers and other companies subject to whistleblower suits because it “significantly narrows the scope of potential False Claims Act liability.”

In making its ruling, the Supreme Court rejected a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals holding that defendants could be held liable for false statements made to private entities. Thus, drug companies would have been subject to False Claims Act claims on the theory that their promo activities were intended to cause pharmacists or physicians to dispense products for which claims were paid with federal funds by a Medicaid managed care or Medicare Part C organization.

The attorneys also say the ruling calls into doubt the federal government's theory that off-label promotion by drug companies may give rise to False Claims Act liability. The government has argued that a “statement urging a physician to prescribe a drug for an unapproved, off-label use could…satisfy the false statement requirement” of the act.  
Share this article:
You must be a registered member of MMM to post a comment.

Next Article in Features

Email Newsletters


Patient access to pharmaceuticals is a tale of two worlds—affordability has improved for the majority, while the minority is hampered by cost, distribution and red tape. To provide marketers with a well-rounded perspective, MM&M presents this e-book chock full of key insights. Click here to access it.

More in Features

Read the complete September 2014 Digital Edition

Read the complete September 2014 Digital Edition

Click the above link to access the complete Digital Edition of the August 2014 issue of MM&M, with all text, charts and pictures.

Medical marketing needs mainstream Mad Men

Medical marketing needs mainstream Mad Men

Agencies must generate emotional resonance with the target audience, not unlike Apple, Pepsi or Nike

Are discounts cutting out co-pays?

GSK's decision to cut Advair's price spurred some PBMs to put it back on formulary. Will drugmaker discounts diminish the need for loyalty programs? How can these programs stay relevant beyond giving co-pay assistance?