Whistleblower for Urgent PC

64555 hasn't been used since January 2011 when the FDA cleared the devise and the AUA supported the new code of 64566.

Physicians on the West coast continued to use 64555 until the new code was approved. NONE of them used 64999 - if that would have been the case, the company would have folded.
How else do you explain that they NEVER saw a decrease in their sales figures when the rest of the country went into the toilet? Palmetto may be looking into it because they realized they have been paying for Urgent PC all this time even when the recommendation was the unlisted code.
 






How to encourage the right kind of whistleblowers

June 15, 2011: 12:15 PM ET


Dodd-Frank critics argue that offering larger payouts for whistleblowers will cause an uptick in financially-motivated tips, but the concerns are misguided.

By Eleanor Bloxham, contributor


SEC headquarters in Washington, D.C.

FORTUNE -- Following in the footsteps of other agencies with successful bounty programs like the IRS, the Dodd-Frank Act has required the SEC to implement protections for whistleblowers and payments of what could be large sums for valuable information related to corporate fraud. While the SEC has been offering these protections and rewards since the Dodd-Frank Act's passage, on May 25, the SEC established rules that will govern these procedures going forward.

Today, most companies have internal mechanisms that allow employees to blow the whistle. For these systems to work, however, companies need to understand what motivates employees to report wrongdoing internally. And because of the SEC's new whistle blower program, this is needed now more than ever before.

In response to the new whistleblower requirements, the Greek chorus of Dodd-Frank naysayers stepped forward to lament, "The sky is falling," as is so often the case with each new Dodd-Frank rule requirement.

"Employees will go for the money" the chorus says. "The bounties provide too much of an incentive. Instead of using corporate whistle blower programs, they'll go to the SEC. Employees should be forced to use internal channels first."

Responding to these concerns, the SEC's new procedures will offer individuals even greater sums if they go through internal corporate channels first and lesser sums if they do not, providing added encouragement for internal reporting as a first step.

But is the Greek chorus right? Has the offer of large payouts lead to a big uptick in reports to the SEC?

Since Dodd-Frank's passage, John Nester, SEC spokesperson says the rate of new tips hasn't increased from "the 100 a day the SEC has always received." The quality of the information SEC is receiving, however, has changed for the better, Nester says.

Higher quality information could mean that tips may be coming from individuals with more access to the details of potential wrongdoing, and perhaps people in higher positions of authority within a given company.

Is money the motive? While the Greek chorus may be correct that bounties have an impact, a closer look reveals that this motivation does not apply equally to all whistleblowers.

Recent research by University of San Diego law professor Orly Lobel shows that protections to the whistleblower can be just as, if not more, important than monetary rewards to some employees. Lobel says that, on average, women are more likely to the blow the whistle than men, and for women, small monetary payments will actually "crowd out" their desire to report wrongdoing.

What women do care about (and more than men) are protections if they do decide to blow the whistle; they seek social support, Lobel says. In addition, women prefer to not confront the offender or offenders directly. In other words, safety is an important factor for women considering whether and how to blow the whistle.

For corporations reassessing their internal programs with an eye to making them the first-choice destination for those with relevant information, it is important to understand the range of motivations in detail rather than make blanket assumptions about the impact of monetary rewards.

The new procedures for the whistle blowing program provide a number of assists in encouraging employees to choose internal whistle blowing first, in addition to the added monetary benefits. "The whistleblower who had first reported internally will be considered the first whistleblower who came to the Commission," as long as they subsequently report to the SEC within 120 days, the new rules state. By reporting internally, whistleblowers increase their odds of receiving an award.

All of this is a real win for corporations who want employees to use internal mechanisms to report wrongdoing.

Still, corporations and boards will need to consider the impact of lack of job mobility and worker dissatisfaction in addressing this complex issue.

Regarding SEC matters, the more boards can establish a culture of accountability, particularly at the top, the less employees will view reporting to the SEC as their only alternative to correct the wrongs. (Corporate fraud, the purview of the SEC, often involves actions by individuals at the very top of organizations.)

If there is real, ongoing concern at corporations, watch and see what innovations companies and boards will be making in their corporate cultures from top to bottom. If this is an issue of real concern, corporations will be renewing efforts to do all they can to prevent situations that require whistle blowing in the first place. And they'll be taking actions to ensure that, should a real problem arise, that they know first, can move quickly to address issues, and can self-report to the SEC rather than create incentives for employees to report solely to the SEC instead.

If the Greek chorus' lament is simply talk, expect no action at all.

Encourage whistleblowing?? You would think a BIG OLE CHECK would be even. LOL.
 






























Physicians on the West coast continued to use 64555 until the new code was approved. NONE of them used 64999 - if that would have been the case, the company would have folded.
How else do you explain that they NEVER saw a decrease in their sales figures when the rest of the country went into the toilet? Palmetto may be looking into it because they realized they have been paying for Urgent PC all this time even when the recommendation was the unlisted code.

WOW!!
 


















What happened with Dr. Lang in TN (the physician that was doing PTNS in nursing homes)?

Pfizer And Endo Pay $50M To Settle Fraud Cases
14 Comments
By Ed Silverman // January 7th, 2013 // 8:20 am


Yet another case has been settled in which drugmakers were accused of defrauding a state Medicaid program. This time around, Pfizer (PFE) and Endo Pharmaceuticals (ENDO) agreed to pay a total of $50 million to the state of Texas, the US government and a whistleblower for deliberately reporting inflated prices for various generic drugs.

As a result of the incorrect pricing, the state Medicaid program was overcharged for certain medicines, according to settlements reached late last week and announced by the Texas attorney general. The investigation initially targeted Pharmacia, Lederle, ESI Lederle and other related entities, which are now owned by Pfizer (the Pfizer and Endo settlements can be here and here).

The case was the result of a lawsuit filed by a whistleblower, Ven-A-Care, a specialty pharmacy based in Florida, whose allegations have led to similar settlements with many other drugmakers over the past few years with the federal and state governments (you can read more about the pharmacy and its whistleblowing here).

Ven-A-Care, in fact, has filed so many whistleblower lawsuits that states are settling more cases than ever and recovering taxpayer money at record amounts, according to a report issued last fall by the Public Citizen watchdog group. Whistleblowers were responsible for initiating 21 federal settlements and $6 billion in penalties under the False Claims Act during the period studied, and almost half were attributed to Ven-A-Care (read more here).

A Pfizer spokesman send us this statement: “Pfizer’s subsidiaries are resolving this investigation to avoid the further time and cost of litigation. The majority of the Texas investigation focused on reporting that took place prior to the subsidiaries being acquired by Pfizer. The company remains committed to providing accurate pricing information to the Texas Medicaid program and providing quality pharmaceutical products to the citizens of Texas.”