The Anti-Kickback Statute should be broadly interpreted as a bar to any kind of payment in exchange for health care services paid for by the government, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Philadelphia argued in a qui tam suit brought against a pharmaceutical company called Allergan.
Among its arguments that the suit—brought under the Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act—should be dismissed, Allergan said the programs and services it had offered to physicians were speech that would be protected by the First Amendment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
