-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
Supreme1 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 enacted3 to combat rampant4 fraud by private contractors6 who were overbilling or simply not delivering goods to the troops. But the law over time was weakened by congressional amendments7.
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 contractor5 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 retail8 pharmacies9 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 essentially10 began in 2006, when Walmart upended the retail pharmacy11 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 desperately12 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 alleged13 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 cholesterol14. 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
Acting15 under the False Claims Act, two whistleblowers brought suit on behalf of the government alleging16 that SuperValu and Safeway bilked taxpayers17 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 "irrelevant18" as a matter of law.
The whistleblowers appealed to the Supreme Court, joined by the federal government, 33 states and Sen. Grassley.
"It's just contrary to what we intended," Grassley said. "That test just makes a hash of the law of fraud."
The statute19 is very specific, he observes. It says that a person or business knowingly defrauds20 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."
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 punitive22 law because it imposes harsh monetary23 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 interpretation24 of the law," Brinkmann said, "you don't know it's false."
Tejinder Singh, representing the whistleblowers, scoffs25 at that interpretation, calling it an after-the-fact justification26 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.
1 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 transcript | |
n.抄本,誊本,副本,肄业证书 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 enacted | |
制定(法律),通过(法案)( enact的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 rampant | |
adj.(植物)蔓生的;狂暴的,无约束的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 contractor | |
n.订约人,承包人,收缩肌 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 contractors | |
n.(建筑、监造中的)承包人( contractor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 amendments | |
(法律、文件的)改动( amendment的名词复数 ); 修正案; 修改; (美国宪法的)修正案 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 retail | |
v./n.零售;adv.以零售价格 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 pharmacies | |
药店 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 essentially | |
adv.本质上,实质上,基本上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 pharmacy | |
n.药房,药剂学,制药业,配药业,一批备用药品 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 desperately | |
adv.极度渴望地,绝望地,孤注一掷地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 alleged | |
a.被指控的,嫌疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 cholesterol | |
n.(U)胆固醇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 acting | |
n.演戏,行为,假装;adj.代理的,临时的,演出用的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 alleging | |
断言,宣称,辩解( allege的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 taxpayers | |
纳税人,纳税的机构( taxpayer的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 irrelevant | |
adj.不恰当的,无关系的,不相干的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 statute | |
n.成文法,法令,法规;章程,规则,条例 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 defrauds | |
v.诈取,骗取( defraud的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 defense | |
n.防御,保卫;[pl.]防务工事;辩护,答辩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 punitive | |
adj.惩罚的,刑罚的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 monetary | |
adj.货币的,钱的;通货的;金融的;财政的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 interpretation | |
n.解释,说明,描述;艺术处理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 scoffs | |
嘲笑,嘲弄( scoff的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 justification | |
n.正当的理由;辩解的理由 | |
参考例句: |
|
|