A Medical Device Daily

Baptist Health South Florida (Miami) has agreed to pay the U.S. $7,775,000 to settle claims that it violated the False Claims Act and the Stark Statute between 2003 and 2005, by paying excessive compensation to an oncology group that was a source of patient referrals to two of Baptist's hospitals, the Department of Justice (DoJ) reported. The payments were made as part of a contract under which the oncology group provided physics and dosimetry services to the two hospitals, the DoJ said.

Under the Stark Statute, Medicare providers like Baptist are prohibited from billing the federal healthcare program for referrals from doctors with whom the providers have a financial relationship, unless that relationship falls within certain exceptions. In February 2006, Baptist submitted a report to the Department of Health and Human Service's Office of Inspector General. The report described a contract under which Oncology Hematology Group of South Florida, a community-based medical group, provided physics and dosimetry services to Baptist Hospital of Miami and South Miami Hospital, two facilities owned by Baptist. Physicists and dosimetrists assist radiation oncologists in planning radiation treatments for cancer patients. In its report, Baptist stated that between 2003 and 2005, it had "inadvertently run afoul" of the Stark Statute by paying more than fair market value for the oncology group's services.

"The resolution of this matter yielded a substantial recovery for taxpayers, and it underscored our commitment to vigorous enforcement of the Stark Statute," said Gregory Katsas, acting assistant attorney general for the department's Civil Division.

The Civil Division and the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services handled the case.

In other legal action: The Canadian Federal Court has dismissed a lawsuit against Boston Scientific (Natick, Massachusetts), according to the company, and found one of Johnson & Johnson's (J&J; New Brunswick, New Jersey) patents invalid.

J&J had accused Boston Scientific's NIR stent of infringing two J&J Palmaz patents. The court dismissed the suit; found that the NIR stent did not infringe one J&J patent and found that the other J&J patent was invalid, the company reported. The trial took place earlier this year. Boston Scientific still faces a second lawsuit in Canada to defend its Express and Taxus Express stents, which also are accused of infringing the same two J&J patents.