CancerNetwork Members: Login | Register
Become a fan on  Facebook  Add us on  Google Plus Follow us on  Twitter Join us on LinkedIn Sign up for our Newsletters Subscribe to our RSS Feed

 

CancerNetwork SearchMedica Medline Drugs

Powered by SearchMedica

 
PUBLICATIONS
NEWS
PODCASTS
TOPICS
BLOGS
NURSES
PATIENTS
JOBS
CONFERENCES
CME
SUPPLEMENTS
 

Home » NEWS

Oncology NEWS International. Vol. 8 No. 11
 

Government Lawsuit Seeks Billions From Tobacco Industry

November 1, 1999

WASHINGTON—By imposing taxes on tobacco products and mandating health warnings on cigarette pack-ages, did the federal government, in effect, collaborate with the tobacco industry in causing smoking-related diseases in millions of Americans?

That legal theme will likely play out in the coming months and in any trial that results from the civil lawsuit filed by the US Justice Department against major cigarette makers. The federal government seeks to reclaim some portion of the money, now about $20 billion a year, that it has paid out over four decades to treat tobacco-associated illnesses.

The lawsuit, filed in US District Court, Washington, DC, accuses the defendants of conspiring since the 1950s to defraud and mislead the American public and to conceal information about the ill effects of cigarette smoking.

“For more than 45 years, the cigarette companies conducted their business without regard to the truth, the law, or the health of the American people,” Attorney General Janet Reno said in announcing the lawsuit. “Smoking is the nation’s largest preventable cause of death and disease, and the American taxpayers should not have to bear the responsibility for the staggering cost.”

The companies named in the suit vowed to vigorously defend themselves against the federal action and not to settle it. Philip Morris called the Justice Department filing “politically motivated” and suggested that the federal mandate for health warnings showed the government was well aware of the health risks of cigarettes.

The new challenge to cigarette makers is similar to the lawsuits filed by the attorneys general of 46 states against the tobacco industry and settled for $246 billion. However, that settlement covered only reimbursement of funds spent for treating Medicaid recipients with smoking-related illnesses. The new action aims to recover money paid out through strictly federal programs, such as Medicare.

“This suit represents the most serious legal threat the tobacco industry has ever faced, a threat that dwarfs those posed by the state cases,” said Bill Novelli, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

The Justice Department alleges in its suit that the defendants:

  • Made untrue and misleading statements to create a false controversy about whether smoking causes disease, even though they knew that it did.
     

  • Falsely promised to undertake or sponsor research to determine whether smoking causes disease.
     

  • Sponsored research designed not to resolve the issue of smoking and disease; promoted biased research that would aid them in defending lawsuits brought by smokers; and suppressed research that suggested that smoking causes disease.

  • Knowingly and falsely denied that nicotine(Drug information on nicotine) is addictive.

  • Failed to warn consumers about the ill effects of smoking, including the addictive nature of cigarettes.

  • Purposely refrained from developing, testing, and marketing less hazardous products.

  • Denied marketing to and targeting children, while activly seeking to capture the youth market.

Fraud and More Fraud

The Justice Department said it based its allegations on internal tobacco company documents that have become public in recent years as the result of lawsuits, particularly those filed by various states.

“We allege that the cigarette companies knew exactly what they were doing at all times—that their false and misleading statements would keep people smoking,” said David W. Ogden, acting assistant attorney general for the Civil Division. “Even when the truth began coming out, the cigarette companies responded with more fraud and deception.”

The government based its legal claims on three federal laws, the Medical Care Recovery Act, the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statue, known as RICO.

The RICO law allows the government to recover ill-gotten gains. The government alleges that the defendants engaged in more than 100 instances of mail and wire fraud, including making false and misleading statements to the public using the mails and wire transmissions to further their fraudulent scheme.

The Justice Department said that a special team, which began working in early 1999 on a plan to recover federal health-care costs, developed the federal lawsuit. The department said it had no criminal investigations of the tobacco industry pending.

 

Join the Conversation

Want to join the conversation? If you're a healthcare professional, we'd like to hear your comments. Just sign in or register today to become part of our growing, online community.






 
TOPIC INDEX

Cancer Types

 
  • Breast
  • Breast (HER2+)
  • Breast (Triple-Negative)
  • CML
  • Colorectal
  • Gastrointestinal
  • GIST
  • Genitourinary
  • Gynecologic
  • Head & Neck
  • Hematology
  • Kidney (Renal Cell)
  • Leukemia
  • Lung
  • Lymphoma
  • Melanoma
  • Multiple Myeloma
  • Ovarian
  • Prostate
  • Sarcoma

Supportive Care

More Topics

  • Bone Metastases
  • End-of-Life Care
  • Palliative Care
  • Ethics in Oncology
  • Practice Management
  • Practice & Policy


All Topics 


 
FROM PHYSICIANS PRACTICE
Key Differences between FQHCs and RHCs
Chastity Werner, RHIT, June 13, 2013
FQHCs and RHCs take up a unique niche among physician practices. And that affects compensation and billing.
Improving Care Coordination in Your Practice
Susanne Madden,  June 12, 2013
Practices are feverishly working to control the rising costs of healthcare - effective care coordination can help.
Refunding Overpayments: Two Options for Medical Practices
Ericka L. Adler,  June 12, 2013
Medicare and Medicaid providers must return overpayments once identified. Here are two different refund approaches for practices to consider when necessary.
Four Easy Ways to Boost Patient Time of Service Collections
Aubrey Westgate,  June 12, 2013
Simple ways your medical practice staff can increase the likelihood patients will pay when presenting for appointments.
iPad Alternatives for Mobile Physicians
Marisa Torrieri, June 11, 2013
As more physicians are seeing the merits of media tablets, the market is expanding, too.
 

 

 
MOST POPULAR
  • Most Popular
  • Most Emailed
  • Most Recent
  • Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Targeted Therapies
  • Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma
  • Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Who Is Benefiting?
  • ASCO: Long-Term Tamoxifen Benefit for Breast Cancer Confirmed
  • Lower Back Pain in an Elderly Man With a History of Localized Prostate Cancer
  • Cannabis Linked to Decreased Bladder Cancer Risk
  • Breast Cancer Screening, Risk, and Options for High-Risk Women
  • Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: An Update on Treatment
  • Rising PSA Level in a 46-Year-Old Man
  • ASCO: Long-Term Tamoxifen Benefit for Breast Cancer Confirmed
  • Bladder Cancer Recurrence High, Better Follow-Up Care Needed
  • ASCO: Post-Surgery Surveillance Found Safe in Seminoma
  • Fertility Preservation in Women With Breast Cancer: Challenges and Opportunities
  • Addressing Fertility Concerns in Women Diagnosed With Breast Cancer: Will Serial Reserve Screening Help?
  • Postmenopausal Hormone Receptor–Positive Advanced Breast Cancer
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter


CancerNetwork on Facebook


CancerNetwork | ConsultantLive | Diagnostic Imaging | Musculoskeletal Network | OBGYN.net | PediatricsConsultantLive |
Physicians Practice | Psychiatric Times | SearchMedica | Medical Resources

© 1996 - 2013 UBM Medica LLC, a UBM company
Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Advertising Information - Editorial Policy Statement - UBM Medica Network Privacy Policy