Health Law Alliance is pleased to announce the successful resolution of numerous federal and state cases involving significant inventory shortfalls, including the dismissal of criminal charges and civil settlements for fractions of the dollar amount on claims paid.
As discussed below, Health Law Alliance (HLA)’s attorneys specialize in the defense of PBM audits and inventory discrepancies. We could not be more pleased to obtain the outcomes discussed below on behalf of clients.
PBM Audit Case Study #1
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Pharmacy & Owner. Following a PBM audit that noted significant inventory discrepancies, the State of Massachusetts Attorney General's Office opened an investigation.
After a lengthy investigation, Owner and pharmacy were both indicted and charged with criminal offenses that carried penalties involving lengthy prison sentences and exclusion. The 14-count indictments alleged that Owner billed Medicaid and other insurance plans almost $500,000 for 37,000 units of Zegerid, a heartburn medicine, even though the pharmacy's records indicated that the pharmacy had only purchased 12,000 units, a discrepancy of 25,000 units.
In addition, the indictments charged Owner with crimes relating to the dispensing of controlled substances, including accepting cash for prescriptions covered by MassHealth.
Following the criminal charges, the HLA team determined that the best strategy was to win in court, and pushed for an immediate trial. As a result of HLA's work, the Attorney General's Office dismissed all 14 counts in both indictments completely, permitted the pharmacy to remain in network, and did not exclude Owner.
PBM Audit Case Study #2
United States v. Pharmacy & Owner: Following PBM audits that noted inventory discrepancies, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, DEA and HHS-OIG opened an investigation.
After a review of the evidence, federal prosecutors alleged that Owner and his pharmacies had billed Medicare for approximately $6.5 million in compound creams across multiple pharmacies even though the pharmacy’s records indicated that they had never purchased the APIs in those creams.
In addition, the government alleged that Owner had violated laws relating to controlled substances, including Schedule II substances.
Following these threatened charges, the HLA team determined that the best strategy was to convince federal prosecutors not to file criminal charges and resolve the case. As a result of HLA's work, Owner was not charged criminally and instead settled the matter civilly for $2.5 million (62% less than the alleged discrepancy), admitted no wrongdoing, and was not excluded.
PBM Audit Case Study #3
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Pharmacy & Owner: Following PBM audits that noted inventory discrepancies, the State of Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office opened an investigation.
After a lengthy investigation, the Attorney General moved to indict both the pharmacy and Owner on criminal felony charges for billing Medicaid nearly $600,000 for dispensing medications that were never provided to customers, either because the pharmacy never had them in stock or had sold them to another company for financial gain.
After analyzing the case, our HLA team determined that the best strategy was to negotiate the most favorable resolution possible. As a result of HLA's work, the Attorney General's Office declined prosecution of Owner, a particularly noteworthy accomplishment given his citizenship status.
Instead, as part of the settlement, the Attorney General's Office agreed to charge the corporate entity, which permitted Owner to avoid criminal charges and exclusion. Happily, Owner now can look forward to a life in this country with his family.
HLA Specializes in PBM Audit Defense
Finally, please note that the above cases are public matters, and HLA cannot discuss the numerous other inventory cases that have been resolved successfully before they became public. Here, at the Health Law Alliance, our firm’s mission is simple: use unmatched experience and insight to defend our clients against insurance conglomerates, the federal government, and state agencies. We used to work for them. Now let us fight for you. Contact us today for a consultation. We can help.
MORE ARTICLES BY CATEGORY
California Hospice Fraud Crackdown: What it Means for Providers & How to Protect Your Business
California’s hospice fraud crackdown is only the beginning of what CMS and Medi-Cal regulators have claimed will be many more cases brought against hospice facilities and home health agencies. Providers who do not timely respond to a suspension or revocation may waive important rights. Act now to protect your business and reputation from governmental overreach based on data mining and other unreliable sources.
Read More >>The WISeR Model: A New Era of Prior Authorization and Audit Risks for Wound Care
On January 1, 2026, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) officially launched the Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction (WISeR) Model. This initiative is not just another administrative hurdle; it is a technology-driven enforcement overhaul aimed directly at the wound care industry.
Read More >>OMIG Audit Defense New York: What the 2026 Work Plan Means for Providers
Every year, the New York Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG) releases its Work Plan outlining enforcement priorities. The 2026 plan sends a clear signal that Medicaid providers in New York are entering a far more aggressive enforcement environment.
Read More >>PBM Member Denial Audit Findings: A Growing Threat to Pharmacies
Pharmacies undergoing a Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) audit are typically prepared to address inventory discrepancies and documentation issues. What many are not prepared for, however, is the increasing use of PBM member denial findings, allegations that a patient claims they did not receive and/or did not authorize the dispensing of a medication for which a claim was submitted.
Read More >>
