Indian physician, Richard Arjun Kaul sues State of New Jersey in India

Kaul sues State of New Jersey in India

On May 2, 2021, Indian physician, Richard Arjun Kaul, filed a lawsuit (Kaul v State of New Jersey/Allstate/Christie-K11-5) in the Indian High Court, against the State of New Jersey, Allstate Insurance Company and ex-New Jersey Governor, Christopher J. Christie, in which Kaul accuses the Defendants of engineering policies of racial discrimination against Indian physicians. The action details the way the Defendants targeted ethnic minority physicians for civil and criminal prosecution, in order to eradicate debt and increase corporate/executive profit, and the disproportionate number of Indian physicians in American jails. Kaul brings attention to the unseen carnage caused to the physicians’ families by the Defendants crimes, and how, through judicial corruption, they have evaded justice in America.

“… Defendant Allstate, in approximately 1998 commenced the engineering of a policy of racial discrimination, that selectively targeted successful Indian healthcare providers for civil and criminal prosecutions for alleged healthcare fraud.”

“Defendant, Allstate, in seeking to attempt to conceal its crimes of racial discrimination/judicial corruption/bribery/political corruption/fraud/kickbacks has manufactured its own Internet Service Provider, and maintains its own servers, through which it conducts the affairs of its criminal enterprise.”

“Defendant Allstate uses Allstate India, and thus the nation of India, to launder the proceeds of its American criminal enterprise. Defendant Allstate, a corporation linked to Lloyd’s of London, is attempting to exact the same injury on India, as was covertly conducted by the English East India Company in the 17th century, in which India was robbed of its mineral resources.”

K11-5 seeks monetary compensation in excess of $9 billion, ninety-percent (90%) of which will be used to establish educational/healthcare programs in India, Africa and the US.

 

NP Thyroid by Acella has once again been recalled!

NP Thyroid by Acella has once again been recalled!

https://stopthethyroidmadness.com/2021/04/30/np-thyroid-by-acella-has-once-again-been-recalled

Yup. It’s happened again. The following lots of NP Thyroid by Acella Pharmaceuticals LLC have been recalled due to sub-potency! 15-mg, 30-mg, 60-mg, 90-mg and 120-mg NP Thyroid®

And as the creator of Stop the Thyroid Madness (STTM) patient-to-patient movement, I’m not surprised.

Since Acella brought NP Thyroid back after the recall(s) in 2019, there have STILL been complaints by some hypothyoid or Hashimoto’s patients!! No, not all. But enough to cause concern. The complaints have occurred in thyroid groups directly associated with STTM…and even in groups that are not directly associated with STTM. I was hearing those complaints in STTM coaching calls. I was hearing about them from many patient volunteers who contact me!

What were the continued complaints? They revolved around not being able to fully get out of one’s hypothyroid state.

And this is the second time for a recall of NP Thyroid

The first recall(s) happened in 2019. And you can read my blog post about it here. You will read that in some patients, their newly obtained NP Thyroid prescription was causing problems in the Summer of 2019. Then by Fall of 2019, there were obvious changes along with a return of hypothyroid symptoms, like a “cat piss” or “ammonia-type: smell. Patients reported back then:

  1. It now smells and tastes horrible, worse than before.
  2. The tablets look different from previous ones
  3. I’m feeling much worse now on the same dose that made me feel great. Symptoms are back.

Then in the same blog post, you will read about the recall due to sub-potency, then later “super potency”. Either way, it was clear that too many patients were NOT feeling well on it anymore. Even those who said they still did feel well, didn’t have labs to prove it would last.

So what do you do now if you had returned to using NP Thyroid since it came back out again?

Still to this day for what appears to be the majority of hypothyroid patients, Armour desiccated thyroid is working (even though there have been periods in the past where it had problems, but they seem to have been corrected a few years ago). So is using synthetic T4 with synthetic T3. Examples of the two synthetics are Tirosint for T3 with Cytomel or Sigma Pharm for T3. Honestly, all the brands have worked.

BUT….we as patient learned that to make either work correctly, we have to have the following:

1) The right amount of cortisol, otherwise we get hyper-like symptoms when raising. You can read this page to see clues that you might not have the right amount of cortisol. i.e. some levels being too low, others too high. All can cause hyperlike symptoms when raising a product with T3 in it. It’s the results of pooling.
2) The right amount of iron levels, otherwise we get rising RT3 (reverse T3), an inactive hormone which can block us from achieving the right amount of T3.
3) Optimal free T4 and optimal free T3. Optimal is NOT midrange. Optimal is not below midrange. Optimal is not just slightly above midrange

 

Should Dying Cancer Patients Suffer From Under treated Pain Because of ‘Concerns Regarding Addiction’?

Should Dying Cancer Patients Suffer From Under treated Pain Because of ‘Concerns Regarding Addiction’?

https://reason.com/2021/04/27/should-dying-cancer-patients-suffer-from-undertreated-pain-because-of-concerns-regarding-addiction/

Two recent studies show how ham-handed efforts to reduce opioid prescriptions undermine medical care.

Two recent studies show how the attempt to curtail drug abuse by discouraging and restricting opioid prescriptions has hurt bona fide patients by depriving them of the medication they need to ease their pain. The harm inflicted on these innocent bystanders, which would not be morally justified even if the opioid crackdown did what it was supposed to do, is all the more appalling because limiting legal access to these drugs seems to have accelerated the upward trend in opioid-related deaths by driving nonmedical users toward black-market substitutes.

Jon Furuno, an associate professor of pharmacy practice at the Oregon State University College of Pharmacy, looked at prescribing patterns among 2,648 terminal patients who were transferred from an academic medical center to hospice care from January 2010 through December 2018. During that period, regulators and legislators responded to the “opioid crisis” by directly and indirectly limiting analgesic prescriptions, often in ham-handed ways. While that was happening, the study found, the share of hospice-bound patients who had opioid prescriptions when they were discharged fell from 91.2 percent to 79.3 percent—a 13 percent drop.

Furuno and his co-authors, who reported their results this month in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, controlled for age, sex, diagnosis, and the location of hospice care, so changes in those factors do not account for the decline in opioid prescriptions. Furthermore, “prescribing of non-opioid analgesic  medications increased over the same time period,” meaning that pain was more likely to be treated with less effective but still potentially dangerous drugs.

The average age of these patients was 66. Nearly three-fifths had cancer diagnoses, and all of them were expected to die soon, meaning that treatment should have been focused on making them as comfortable as possible in their remaining time.

“Even among patients prescribed opioids during the last 24 hours of their inpatient hospital stay, opioid prescribing upon discharge decreased,” Furuno noted in a press release. “It seems unlikely that patients would merit an opioid prescription on their last day in the hospital but not on their first day in hospice care, and it’s well documented that interruptions in the continuity of pain treatment on transition to hospice are associated with poor patient outcomes.”

Furuno noted that “pain is a common end-of-life symptom, and it’s often debilitating.” He added that more than 60 percent of terminal cancer patients report “very distressing pain.”

In this context, it is especially striking that Furuno and his colleagues cite “patient and caregiver concerns regarding addiction” as one obstacle to adequate pain treatment. The risk of addiction is exaggerated and overemphasized even when physicians are treating chronic pain in patients who may have years or decades to live. When patients on the verge of death are suffering severe pain that could be relieved by opioids, “concerns regarding addiction” seem like a cruel joke.

Furuno et al. also mention “policies and practices aimed at limiting opioid use in response to the opioid epidemic,” which are based on similar fears and reinforce them. In particular, Furuno cites the opioid prescribing guidelines that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued in 2016.

U.S. Supreme Court Has an Important Issue Before It — and There’s a Lot at Stake for Pain Management Specialists, Physicians Prescribing Pain Medicine

Image showing assorted pain medications in someones hands.

U.S. Supreme Court Has an Important Issue Before It — and There’s a Lot at Stake for Pain Management Specialists, Physicians Prescribing Pain Medicine

https://www.chapmanlawgroup.com/scotus-supreme-court-pain-medicine-naum/

The High Court Could Decide a Groundbreaking Issue in Pain Management: How the Standard of Care Should Apply to Criminal Charges That Involve Prescriptions. Now’s Your Chance to Help

In the fight for ethical pain management, the federal courts have had difficulty interpreting and applying the medical standard of care when it comes to physicians’ prescription-related criminal matters. Now, the nation’s highest court has the chance to correct this. And if you are a pain management specialist or you have a vested interest in how prescription-related criminal cases are decided, this is your chance to weigh in. 

Before the Supreme Court of the United States is an argument that pain management clinics, specialty physicians, and other healthcare providers involved in pain medicine have waited all too long to be decided. With your amicus support, we can educate the justices on why this is important for the practice of medicine and the prevention of a suffering patient population.

The Feds Continue to Use a Troublesome Standard of Care to Criminalize Pain Management Physicians, Wrongfully Pushing Them Into Role of Drug Pusher

For most of the 21st century, the federal government’s methods for criminalizing malpractice have put physicians, particularly those who specialize in pain management, in a troublesome, often career-ending place.

Why? Because the feds have changed the phrase “the bounds of professional practice” — and, similarly, “legitimate medical purpose” and “course of professional practice” — to mean a departure from nationally recognized standards and fully into the drug trafficking arena. As a result, physicians who simply want to ease their patients’ long-lasting pain symptoms are paying the price criminally and professionally.

Traditionally, drug trafficking charges are only levied against physicians who cease acting as a physician (i.e., acts “outside the bounds of medical practice”), and instead engage in unlawful drug transactions (i.e., drug pushing or diversion). Yet, over the last 10-plus years, the federal government has criminalized violations of nationally recognized standards of care — standards that physicians already disagree on when it comes to pain management. Because the fields of pain management and addiction medicine are rapidly evolving, the standards constantly shift with them.

As CDC Guidelines Make the Standard of Care Harder to Follow, the Federal Courts Are Throwing Their Hands Up — and Pain Patients Are Left Suffering

Making matters much worse has been the release of the Centers for Disease Control Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain. These went from being suggested guidelines to full-blown standards adopted into state and federal administrative codes. As a result, the standard of care has become heightened, more complex, and difficult to follow — to the point where several federal circuits are unable, or have refused, to interpret the applicable standard when it comes to criminal liability.

Is the standard objective or subjective? Disjunctive or conjunctive? Are the meanings “legitimate medical purpose” and “usual course of professional practice” one and the same? These are questions with which the courts have been wrestling, often coming up with vague, if any, answers.

As this is happening, the practice of medicine is left hanging in the balance. From pain management specialists to addiction medicine practitioners, and even general family doctors, physicians remain fearful of prescribing out of liability concerns. Meanwhile, their patients are turning to illicit drugs to ease their pain, further fueling the true cause of the opioid epidemic.

For Future of Pain Medicine and How Pain Management Specialists Can Best Help Patients, It’s Critical You Let Your Voice Be Heard Before the High Court

If your practice or organization feels threatened by this shift, you now have the chance for your voice to be heard before the nation’s highest court.

The Supreme Court of the United States is considering Naum v. United States, a case that calls for putting a definitive standard in place for prescribing controlled substances in the U.S. This would address the vagueness of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04 and eliminate any ambiguity when federal circuits are asked to consider whether a pain management specialist (or any other practitioner) ceased to act as a physician and instead served as a drug dealer.

The argument is authored by Ronald W. Chapman II, who represents the defendant in Naum. As chairperson of the White Collar Defense & Government Investigations practice at Chapman Law Group, Chapman has faced this legal argument in several federal circuits. In Naum, the U.S. Supreme Court has a case that is representative of why a definitive standard must be put in place.

We are calling on you to show your support of this crucial legal issue, by way of an Amicus Brief. This is an issue that affects you and your constituents directly, and it will clarify how the criminal law procedure applies to the practice of not just pain medicine, but overall medical practice.

You may find the brief for Naum v. United States here. We appreciate your consideration in helping the high court understand how much is at stake for the many members of pain management medical community, and, just as important, the patients who rely on them.

 

Reckless Endangerment (Legal Definition: All You Need To Know)

Can anyone think of how this might apply to pts getting ESI’s, having their pain meds/controlled substance reduced/stopped – especially at- or near – cold turkey withdrawal… by prescriber, pharmacist, insurance/PBM industry and many other issues where the pt ends up being harmed ?

Reckless Endangerment (Legal Definition: All You Need To Know)

What Is Reckless Endangerment

 

Reckless endangerment is a term used to refer to acts or omissions constituting crimes under criminal laws exposing another to serious risk of injury or physical harm.

For an act, behavior, conduct, or omission to be considered as “reckless endangerment”, the offender’s intention to cause harm is not relevant to the crime.

What’s relevant is that the accused acted or behaved in a way that exposed others to a substantial risk of severe physical injury.

For example, under the New York penal code, “reckless” behavior is defined as a criminal act or conduct that:

  • Creates an unjustifiable risk of serious physical injury to another person
  • The accused is aware that will expose others to serious risk and disregards the risks
  • Constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of a reasonable person 

The NY reckless endangerment statute then defines physical injury to include:

  • Loss or protracted impairment of the function of any bodily organ 
  • Protracted impairment of health 
  • Protracted and serious disfigurement
  • An impairment of a person’s physical condition which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death 

Legal Definition

What does reckless endangerment mean?

How do you define reckless endangerment?

Reckless endangerment is a type of “endangerment” crime whereby the offender’s wrongful action, conduct, or behavior is likely to expose others to a significant risk of bodily injury or even death.

This type of criminal offense is designed to prohibit reckless or wanton conduct exposing others to serious injury.

Criminal Intention 

When dealing with a reckless conduct charge, it’s important to consider the criminal intent aspect of the crime.

In criminal law, the prosecutor has a duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused “acted” in a criminal way and had the “intention” to act in that fashion (this is referred to as the criminal intent or mens rea).

However, for a person to be convicted of a reckless endangerment crime, the prosecutor must prove that the accused acted carelessly and did not care for the foreseeable consequence of his or her actions.

Charge

A reckless endangerment charge may be filed against a person in the context of domestic abuse cases, car accidents, child abuse, or other types of abuse such as nursing home abuse or hospital abuse.

In the United States, an endangerment charge can go from a misdemeanor to a felony depending on the state laws and circumstances of the crime.

For example, in the state of Washington, under Section 9A.36.050 Revised Code of Washington, “A person is guilty of reckless endangerment when he or she recklessly engages in conduct not amounting to drive-by shooting but that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person”.

The law defines reckless endangerment to be a gross misdemeanor. 

Legal Defense

Every case will have unique elements a criminal defense attorney will consider when preparing a defense.

Typically, a person charged with felony reckless endangerment, misdemeanor endangerment or any type of criminal endangerment charge may file a defense by establishing that:

  • The act or behavior did not expose others to risk or the victim was not exposed to serious physical injury or death (depending on the charge)
  • The severity of risk or injury does not reach the level of seriousness required for a person to be found guilty of this crime 

Sentence

The sentence or punishment for criminal reckless endangerment can vary based on the facts of the case and other factors.

For example, in the state of Tennessee, the charge can be classified from a Class A misdemeanor all the way to a Class C felony.

The reckless endangerment law in Tennessee provides for Class A misdemeanor to be punished by imprisonment and fines that are not greater than eleven months and twenty-nine days in jail or a fine of $2,500 (or both).

In New York, life endangerment crimes can be classified as Class A misdemeanor or Class D felony.

Reckless endangerment felony charges will tend to have a more severe sentence than reckless engagement misdemeanor charges.

The court will also consider the history of the offender to determine the most appropriate sentence to issue.

In Alabama, a person arrested for this offense can face a Class A misdemeanor charge exposing the offender to a jail sentence of up to a year and a fine of up to $6,000.

Examples

What are some examples of reckless endangerment crimes?

Many behaviors can lead to a reckless endangerment accusation or charge, such as:

  • Reckless endangerment driving
  • Placing a child in a potentially harmful situation through negligence or misconduct
  • Placing an animal in a potentially harmful situation 
  • Discharging a firearm
  • Drag racing 
  • Drinking and driving 
  • Driving at high speeds
  • Eluding the police 

What’s more, the accusation of “reckless endangerment” does not necessarily involve a victim.

If the law enforcement officer considers that a person’s conduct exposes others to a serious risk of suffering injuries, the individual may be arrested and charged.

Reckless Assault vs Reckless Endangerment

The terms reckless assault and reckless endangerment are often used interchangeably although they mean different things.

Typically, an assault charge consists of a deliberate or intentional act intended to knowingly cause bodily harm to another or cause the other person to fear bodily harm.

A more serious type of assault charge is aggravated assault where the assault occurs with a weapon.

Reckless endangerment involves an act or behavior that can potentially cause bodily harm to another.

Although every jurisdiction will have its own statutory definition of reckless endangerment, you will typically find different types of endangerment charges such as public endangerment, child endangerment, or animal endangerment.

Reckless Endangerment Takeaways 

So, what is the definition of reckless endangerment? 

What is criminal endangerment?

Is reckless endangerment a felony?

Let’s look at a summary of our findings.

Reckless Endangerment:

  • Reckless endangerment is a type of crime where a person is accused of acting or behaving in a way exposing others to a high risk of bodily harm
  • There are different types of “endangerment” crimes such as public endangerment, child endangerment, animal endangerment, and reckless endangerment 
  • Many acts or omissions can be considered as “reckless” leading to a misdemeanor or felony charge such as reckless driving, putting a child’s life in danger, misusing a firearm, evading the police using a vehicle, hospital abuse, nursing home abuse, and more 

An accused can attempt to defend against such a charge by establishing that others were not exposed to serious risk of physical injury even if the alleged conduct was true (factual impossibility) or the prosecution did not establish the proper degree of injury (the crime requires the risk of “serious” physical injuries)

Insurer Humana moves deeper into home care with $5.7B deal

Insurer Humana moves deeper into home care with $5.7B deal

https://www.whas11.com/article/news/nation-world/humana-home-care-deal/507-6496bc0c-3a02-417f-b348-0746b3402416

The insurer said it will buy the rest of Kindred at Home, which sends nurses, physical therapists and other care providers to home bound patients.

Humana is spending $5.7 billion to jump deeper into delivering care at home, a trend that took off during the pandemic and one the health insurer expects will continue to grow.

The insurer said Tuesday that it will buy the rest of Kindred at Home after initially acquiring a 40% stake in the care provider a few years ago.

Kindred at Home sends nurses, physical therapists and other care providers to patients who are deemed homebound by doctors. The company serves more than half a million patients annually.

Humana specializes in Medicare Advantage, the privately run version of the government’s Medicare program for people aged 65 and older and for the disabled. The insurer has seen a jump in care delivered at home since COVID-19 set in last year as patients — especially those with several health problems — tried to avoid the virus.

Humana executives expect that interest in home care to last partly due to the aging U.S. population and because many patients were exposed to that type of care during the pandemic.

“COVID has only really accelerated the interest in providing care in the home,” said Susan Diamond, president of the insurer’s home care business.

Humana says it pairs Kindred’s care with services the insurer provides in an attempt to improve patient health.

The goal is to keep people out of expensive hospitals or prevent return visits. That’s done partly by focusing on issues that aren’t directly related to a patient’s care.

Humana says Kindred’s nurses or therapists, for instance, can determine on a home visit whether a patient has enough healthy food or if there are potential problems like a rug that might pose a tripping hazard.

The insurer can then help fix those issues. Nurses also can check a cancer patient undergoing chemotherapy for signs of dehydration and give them fluids and anti-nausea medicine to help prevent a trip to the hospital.

Technology and advances in telemedicine have allowed for more care to be performed at home, which patients often prefer.

“Like telemedicine it seems like one of those things that can be a win-win for patients and insurers,” said Cynthia Cox, a vice president at the non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation who studies health care cost and quality.

She noted, though, that there are limits to how much care can be performed at home before quality suffers.

Louisville, Kentucky-based Humana Inc., which reports its first-quarter results Wednesday, expects the Kindred deal to close in the third quarter.

1950’s drugs and violence: Juvenile-Delinquency: Nostalgic Myths & Historical Reality

Pharmacist Almost Commits Suicide Until Former Patient Saves Her Life

PODCAST: Pain doctor Dr. Dan Laird on chronic pain and Phillip Adams murder case

Heidi Harris Show Podcast #272: Pain doctor Dr. Dan Laird on chronic pain and Phillip Adams murder case

Las Vegas pain doctor (and attorney) Dr. Dan Laird joined me to discuss the issue of chronic pain, and how people who legitimately have pain are treated like addicts. Phillip Adams, a former NFL player who recently killed his pain doctor and many of his family members, was, according to some reports, upset that his pain medicine has been cut off. We don’t know all the details of course, but it is a subject worth discussing. We also talked about the dangers of cheap fentanyl and pill press machines.

DEA can create “fake crimes” because they have immunity

The government has stooped to a whole new low. This is going to be the end of the medical profession if people don’t do something effective. The new low is using the False Claims Act against physicians for legitimate prescribing. There is no end to how this will be used against us. It makes taking any government insurance a noose around every doctor’s neck. The law must be amended. We are creating a survey for physicians, but we need contact information. Please share that. Read this case and see how rogue the government has become because they have immunity for even creating a fake crime.
Share..share…share. By copying and pasting or going to my personal page and share from there. Make this post be on the top of any google search.

Dr. Gregory Gerber, MD, 55, is a physical medicine & rehabilitation specialist in Sandusky, OH with over 30 years of experience in the medical field. After a 3 year wait for the government to construct a crime, he was indicted April 16 with 51 counts of distribution of controlled substances and two counts of health care fraud.

History of the Case:  Gregory Gerber, MD vs. US Government.

In August 2018, federal agents raided Dr. Gregory Gerber’s office, one of the few pharmacies still filling his prescriptions, his home and a storage unit. They confiscated documents and materials. Was there a warrant with just cause for them to have the authority to do that?  Probably not.

Point #1:  We need to take away actual immunity from these government agents that break the law to construct an illegal case against US citizens.

Justin Herdman, the U.S. Attorney for Northern Ohio, accused Gerber of prescribing opioids without accepted medical reasons and accepting payments from pharmaceutical companies.

Point #2: According to the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), only the doctor can determine what is legitimate medical practice.

Point #3: Being paid for speaking for a pharmaceutical company is not illegal. It’s accepted business.

In 2018, Herdman secured a temporary restraining order in Toledo’s U.S. District Court to prevent Gerber from prescribing controlled substances. This was a landmark move by the government.

Assistant U.S. attorneys Gene Crawford and Chelsea Rice told Dr. Gerber’s attorneys they intended to prosecute him for the same conduct alleged in the civil case. They offered him a plea agreement to avoid prosecution that was “take it or leave it.” He left it.

Investigation of Gregory Gerber, MD

The investigation was conducted by the FBI, DEA and the Ohio Board of Pharmacy. At one point, an undercover agent posed as a patient and allegedly received opioids when she “wasn’t in pain”. But while in the exam room, she probably stated she had pain.

Point #4: Government agents getting opioids fraudulently by claiming they have pain when they don’t are the ones breaking the law.  They should be charged with fraud.

Creating Crime Where There Is None

Finally, the Feds have created a crime. After the standard 3 years of combing the records in order to create a crime, acting U.S. Attorney Bridget M. Brennan announced the indictment.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost says “More Ohioans are dying from opioid overdoses than at any point in this devastating epidemic.”

Point #5: The cause of this is these outrageous attacks on doctors, forcing legitimate pain patients to the streets for self-treatment.

The indictment uses the standard government cookie cutter misuse of the Controlled Substance Act, stating that Dr. Gerber prescribed controlled substances “outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose”.

Then, in order to confiscate more money from him than the government paid ( like 3x more than he was paid), they go for Medicare fraud for “medically unnecessary prescriptions”.   They do this, because they get back what the doctor charged, not what the doctor was paid.  And in the case of prescriptions, the doctor wasn’t paid anything, so all the money they confiscate back from him is bonus money.

Point #6: If there are actual laws in this country allowing this to happen, they need to be changed and the legislators need to be held accountable.

The press release on the indictment states:

  1. Defendant improperly performed patient physical and historical examinations, failed to establish evidence-based, objective diagnoses, and used these diagnoses to prescribe excessive doses of controlled substances for long periods of time without evidence of efficacy and while ignoring signs of addiction and drug abuse among his patients.
  2. Defendant wrote over approximately 835 prescriptions for Subsys that were medically unnecessary and for patients who did not have cancer pain.
  3. Defendant received compensation from Insys by participating in the company’s speakers bureau, a program that paid representatives to engage with other medical professionals and promote the Subsys medication.
  4. A defendant is entitled to a fair trial in which it will be the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The False Claims Act (FCA)

Dr. Gerber can be remembered for being the first-ever civil injunction filed by the Justice Department as a new avenue to use the laws inappropriately to attack doctors for money.  In August 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice announced allegations against him for violating the False Claims Act (FCA).

Dr. Gerber is indicted for 173 prescriptions for Subsys for patients with no cancer diagnosis. So these prescriptions are labeled “unnecessary” and should not have been covered under Medicare Part D.

Now, any time a doctor prescribes opioids to a government-insured patient, it could give rise to FCA claims, since the government would claim these drugs are “unnecessary”

Speaking for Drug Companies

The government is also using another front to attack doctors—the speakers for drug companies teaching other doctors about their products.  This is a tried and true method to get new information out to the working physician—dinner and a presentation.  Naturally, the speaker must have his expenses paid, and be paid for his time.  The government is now calling that a “kickback”.  NOT!!!

Doctors don’t have time to listen to drug reps in the office. These speaking dinners are an efficient and good way to get the word to the doctor. And if you think a free meal is going to buy a doctor’s decision-making, you are crazy.  Doctors do what is best for their patient (If they are independent. Sorry, but hospital-owned doctors do what is best for their employer—the hospital. This is why most doctors being attacked are independent and minority).

So now, any doctor who serves as a speaker for a drug company and prescribes that drug, will be charged with the FCA. And since you don’t get the invite to speak without prescribing the drug, that ends the #1 method for doctors to learn about drugs. That’s great. Thanks a lot, government.

Another problem with this is that doctors are being charged for doing this in the past, before this became an option for the government to charge them with a crime.  We are supposed to have a law in America called ex post facto. Meaning that you have to know about a law to be charged with it. They can’t come back at you in later years and charge you with a crime for something you did when that action was legal.

Need Your Help

We have to stop these illegal attacks on doctors and the creation of laws for the simple means of government confiscation of doctor’s assets.  Most of the doctors being attacked are independent, minority physicians.

We need a bill for Congress to amend these laws being used against legitimate physicians. Discrimination here is rampant. So we are creating a survey.  We will need this survey to go out to every medical doctor available.  Please send us email addresses for organizations and individual physicians to get this survey out to as many people as possible. Use the Contact Us button below. Thanks.