Menu Close

First Comp Providers Finally Join Opiod Lawsuits

Two Illinois-based nonprofit risk pools, who provide more than 203 local municipalities and other public entities with workers’ compensation and employee healthcare insurance, filed a joint lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County against leading opioid manufacturers, distributors, professional associations, and prescribers. It is the first opioid lawsuit brought by insurance risk pools in Illinois.

The Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency (IRMA) and Intergovernmental Personnel Benefit Cooperative (IPBC), seek injunctive relief and financial compensation from defendants to recoup substantial costs resulting from the far-reaching impact of the over-prescription and abuse of opioid medication. IPBC’s costs include vast expenditures on hospitalizations due to overdose, addiction treatment services, and overdose reversal medications, while IRMA has paid millions of dollars in cases involving injured workers who were unnecessarily given long-term opioid prescriptions to treat chronic pain.

The suit alleges opioid manufacturers, including Purdue Pharma, Allergan, and Teva, engaged in aggressive and deceptive marketing campaigns; distributors including AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson failed to act as gatekeepers against overprescribing the addictive narcotics; professional organizations including Chicago-based American Academy of Pain Medicine and American Pain Society deceptively promoted the use of opioids for chronic pain management; and suburban Chicago doctors Paul Madison and Joseph Giacchino served as “pill mills,” doling out opioids to anyone who came through the door of their clinic.

The 217 page civil complaint  alleges that the defendants’ plan to flood the Illinois market with opioid medication worked: in 2015, eight million opioid prescriptions were filled in Illinois, the equivalent of 60 prescriptions per 100 people.

The lawsuit is the latest step in a proactive multi-pronged strategy IPBC and IRMA have enacted to address and reduce opioid abuse in their members’ employee communities.

“This lawsuit is about real costs incurred directly as a result of the opioid epidemic. We have seen fully employed, respectable public employees with work injuries who were prescribed opioids unnecessarily and became addicted, ultimately rendering them unable to return to work and costing our members millions,” said IRMA Executive Director Margo Ely. “Opioid abuse and addiction has cost our members through not only lost productivity, but very sad stories of lost careers and lives.”

“As a taxpayer-supported health insurance provider to public entities across Illinois, we have a fiduciary obligation to aggressively seek to recoup the millions of dollars in claim costs that have been wasted due to over-prescription of opioid medications and addiction treatment,” said IPBC Executive Director Dave Cook. “The impact of long-term opioid use and abuse has been significant to our organization financially, and to many of our members who have suffered as a result of defendants’ egregious behavior.”

Founded in 1979, the Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency (IRMA) was the first municipal risk pool in Illinois, and today, provides comprehensive risk management services, including workers’ compensation coverage, for 72 municipal groups in northeastern Illinois.

The Intergovernmental Personnel Benefit Cooperative (IPBC) is a public risk entity pool established in 1979 by Chicago area municipalities to administer some or all of the personnel benefit programs offered by participating members to employees and retirees.

First Comp Providers Finally Join Opioid Lawsuits

Two Illinois-based nonprofit risk pools, who provide more than 203 local municipalities and other public entities with workers’ compensation and employee healthcare insurance, filed a joint lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County against leading opioid manufacturers, distributors, professional associations, and prescribers. It is the first opioid lawsuit brought by insurance risk pools in Illinois.

The Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency (IRMA) and Intergovernmental Personnel Benefit Cooperative (IPBC), seek injunctive relief and financial compensation from defendants to recoup substantial costs resulting from the far-reaching impact of the over-prescription and abuse of opioid medication. IPBC’s costs include vast expenditures on hospitalizations due to overdose, addiction treatment services, and overdose reversal medications, while IRMA has paid millions of dollars in cases involving injured workers who were unnecessarily given long-term opioid prescriptions to treat chronic pain.

The suit alleges opioid manufacturers, including Purdue Pharma, Allergan, and Teva, engaged in aggressive and deceptive marketing campaigns; distributors including AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson failed to act as gatekeepers against overprescribing the addictive narcotics; professional organizations including Chicago-based American Academy of Pain Medicine and American Pain Society deceptively promoted the use of opioids for chronic pain management; and suburban Chicago doctors Paul Madison and Joseph Giacchino served as “pill mills,” doling out opioids to anyone who came through the door of their clinic.

The 217 page civil complaint  alleges that the defendants’ plan to flood the Illinois market with opioid medication worked: in 2015, eight million opioid prescriptions were filled in Illinois, the equivalent of 60 prescriptions per 100 people.

The lawsuit is the latest step in a proactive multi-pronged strategy IPBC and IRMA have enacted to address and reduce opioid abuse in their members’ employee communities.

“This lawsuit is about real costs incurred directly as a result of the opioid epidemic. We have seen fully employed, respectable public employees with work injuries who were prescribed opioids unnecessarily and became addicted, ultimately rendering them unable to return to work and costing our members millions,” said IRMA Executive Director Margo Ely. “Opioid abuse and addiction has cost our members through not only lost productivity, but very sad stories of lost careers and lives.”

“As a taxpayer-supported health insurance provider to public entities across Illinois, we have a fiduciary obligation to aggressively seek to recoup the millions of dollars in claim costs that have been wasted due to over-prescription of opioid medications and addiction treatment,” said IPBC Executive Director Dave Cook. “The impact of long-term opioid use and abuse has been significant to our organization financially, and to many of our members who have suffered as a result of defendants’ egregious behavior.”

Founded in 1979, the Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency (IRMA) was the first municipal risk pool in Illinois, and today, provides comprehensive risk management services, including workers’ compensation coverage, for 72 municipal groups in northeastern Illinois.

The Intergovernmental Personnel Benefit Cooperative (IPBC) is a public risk entity pool established in 1979 by Chicago area municipalities to administer some or all of the personnel benefit programs offered by participating members to employees and retirees.

First Comp Providers Finally Join Opioid Lawsuits

Two Illinois-based nonprofit risk pools, who provide more than 203 local municipalities and other public entities with workers’ compensation and employee healthcare insurance, filed a joint lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County against leading opioid manufacturers, distributors, professional associations, and prescribers. It is the first opioid lawsuit brought by insurance risk pools in Illinois.

The Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency (IRMA) and Intergovernmental Personnel Benefit Cooperative (IPBC), seek injunctive relief and financial compensation from defendants to recoup substantial costs resulting from the far-reaching impact of the over-prescription and abuse of opioid medication. IPBC’s costs include vast expenditures on hospitalizations due to overdose, addiction treatment services, and overdose reversal medications, while IRMA has paid millions of dollars in cases involving injured workers who were unnecessarily given long-term opioid prescriptions to treat chronic pain.

The suit alleges opioid manufacturers, including Purdue Pharma, Allergan, and Teva, engaged in aggressive and deceptive marketing campaigns; distributors including AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson failed to act as gatekeepers against overprescribing the addictive narcotics; professional organizations including Chicago-based American Academy of Pain Medicine and American Pain Society deceptively promoted the use of opioids for chronic pain management; and suburban Chicago doctors Paul Madison and Joseph Giacchino served as “pill mills,” doling out opioids to anyone who came through the door of their clinic.

The 217 page civil complaint  alleges that the defendants’ plan to flood the Illinois market with opioid medication worked: in 2015, eight million opioid prescriptions were filled in Illinois, the equivalent of 60 prescriptions per 100 people.

The lawsuit is the latest step in a proactive multi-pronged strategy IPBC and IRMA have enacted to address and reduce opioid abuse in their members’ employee communities.

“This lawsuit is about real costs incurred directly as a result of the opioid epidemic. We have seen fully employed, respectable public employees with work injuries who were prescribed opioids unnecessarily and became addicted, ultimately rendering them unable to return to work and costing our members millions,” said IRMA Executive Director Margo Ely. “Opioid abuse and addiction has cost our members through not only lost productivity, but very sad stories of lost careers and lives.”

“As a taxpayer-supported health insurance provider to public entities across Illinois, we have a fiduciary obligation to aggressively seek to recoup the millions of dollars in claim costs that have been wasted due to over-prescription of opioid medications and addiction treatment,” said IPBC Executive Director Dave Cook. “The impact of long-term opioid use and abuse has been significant to our organization financially, and to many of our members who have suffered as a result of defendants’ egregious behavior.”

Founded in 1979, the Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency (IRMA) was the first municipal risk pool in Illinois, and today, provides comprehensive risk management services, including workers’ compensation coverage, for 72 municipal groups in northeastern Illinois.

The Intergovernmental Personnel Benefit Cooperative (IPBC) is a public risk entity pool established in 1979 by Chicago area municipalities to administer some or all of the personnel benefit programs offered by participating members to employees and retirees.

California Comp Costs Moves One Step From Worst

Workers’ compensation premium rates fell considerably nationwide, while California continued to see among the worst rates in the nation, according to a new study out from the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services. The department puts out its Oregon Workers’ Compensation Premium Rate Ranking Summary report every two years. The full report is due out in about two months, and is expected to include details such as classification code rankings for each state.

“We’ve noticed that generally everyone’s still moving down,” said Jay Dotter, who authored the report along with Chris Day. ‘It’s the most we’ve seen for a while.”

Day noted that majority of states saw rates move down on the index. He couldn’t say exactly why that was, but offered some possible explanations.  ‘For (National council on Compensation Insurance) states, loss costs have been dropping,’ Dotter said. ‘We’ve been seeing that the losses due to medical and indemnity have been going down.’

California was behind only New York as the state with highest index rate. New York was in third place in the prior study, and moved up to worst in the nation, which resulted in California moving to second worst.

According to the report in the Insurance Journal, the California Department of Workers’ Compensation, which has touted the success of system-wide changes that have been ongoing over the past six years, took issue with the state’s ranking.

“Oregon’s study is based on the industrial mix in their state and does not reflect actual costs in California’s workers compensation system,” a statement provided by a DWC spokesperson reads.

The Oregon report compares 50 classification codes with the largest losses for Oregon only and is based on payroll figures over a three-year period in that state from 2012 to 2014. This gives an overall index rate for the state based on state rates by class code weighted by premium. The authors of the report use a common set of class codes so they are comparing the rates without a class codes difference added in, since class codes vary broadly from state to state. However, the index rates are based on each state’s rates as of Jan. 1, 2018.

Since the 2012 workers’ comp reforms were enacted, California has seen a reduction in costs to employers while increasing injured workers’ benefits and improving access and quality of evidence-based care, according to the DWC statement.

“This is the result of our work to identify and reduce high litigation and administrative costs,” the statement continues.

The statement also notes that as a result of these changes, the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau has for the past three years consistently recommended that pure premium costs be lowered.

The WCIRB in August submitted to the insurance commissioner proposed advisory pure premium rates to be effective Jan. 1, 2019 that average $1.70 per $100 of payroll. That indicated average pure premium is 4.5 percent less than the average approved July 1, 2018 advisory pure premium rate of $1.78 and 20 percent less than the corresponding industry average filed pure premium rate of $2.13 as of July 1, 2018.

New York was the worst ranked state $3.08, or 181 percent of the study median. New Jersey ($2.84), Alaska ($2.51) and Delaware ($2.50) followed.

Oregon’s $1.15 index rate ranked 46th. North Dakota (.82 cents), Indiana (.87 cents), Arkansas (.90 cents), West Virginia ($1.01) were the top ranked states with the lowest index rates.

Oregon ranked 43rd on the previous list, the best performance since the list first started to be complied in the late 1980s, according to Dotter.  The state ranked 6th on the first report. Oregon later initiated reforms that included reducing litigation and sending contested workers’ comp cases through newly created administrative review processes, according to Dotter.

PD Apportionment Has Two-Prong Burden

Stephen Hom, a San Francisco police officer, suffered an initial industrial injury to his lumbar spine in 2012 in a prior case. The parties in this prior case settled with Stipulations and Request for a permanent disability Award in the amount of 20% permanent disability based on the findings of Primary Treating Physician Dr. William Campbell, who used using the DRE Metric of the AMA Guides to determine the rating.

In 2013, after his initial injury to his lumbar spine, Officer Hom suffered a second admitted industrial injury to his lumber spine, when he was struck by an oncoming vehicle, while on traffic duty. This second injury is the subject of the current litigated case ADJ10658104.

Dr. David Pang served as the AME in the second case. Dr. Pang utilized the ROM method of the AMA Guides to rate applicant’s current whole person impairment (WPI) at 14%, which rates out to 30% PD.

The primary issue at trial was whether defendant has sustained their burden of proof under LC §4664(b) to allow subtraction of applicant’s prior 20% PD award (calculated using the DRE method) regarding his 2012 injury to his lumbar spine, from his current PD level of 30% (calculated using the ROM method) regarding his 2013 injury to his lumbar spine. WCJ found that “apportionment under LC §4664(b) is not applicable in this case.”

The employer petitioned for reconsideration contending that the WCJ erred by not finding overlap between applicant’s two lumbar spine injuries, The WCJ should have subtracted the 20% Permanent Disability (PD) from the first award, from the 30% PD in the second per the apportionment rule set forth in LC §4664(b). Reconsideration was denied in the panel decision of Hom v City and County of San Francisco.

Labor Code §4664(b) provides, “If the applicant has received a prior award of permanent disability, it shall be conclusively presumed that the prior permanent disability exists at the time of any subsequent industrial injury. This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof.”

Case law has repeatedly held that defendant has a two-prong burden of proof regarding apportionment under LC §4664(b): (1) Defendant must first prove that a prior award to the same body part exists, AND (2) Defendant must also prove that there is “overlap” of permanent disability between the initial and subsequent injury. This legal standard was set forth in the 3rd DCA case of Kopping v. WCAB (2006) 71 Cal Comp Cases 1229.

In Kopping, the DCA provided an extensive analysis of the seemingly contradictory language of LC §4664(b) and came up with the only interpretation that made sense to them, which was that the defendant has a two-prong burden of proof under LC §4664(b). “…The burden of proving overlap is part of the employer’s overall burden of proving apportionment, which was not altered by section 4664(b), except to create the conclusive presumption that flows from proving the existence of a prior permanent disability award.”

The WCAB affirmed this two-prong analysis for defendant’s burden of proof under LC §4664(b) in the panel decision of Laster v. City and County of San Francisco, 2014 Cal. Wrk. Comp. PD LEXIS 201.

In the writ denied case of Contra Costa County Fire Protection v. WCAB, (Minvielle), (2010), the WCAB interpreted the burden of proving “overlap” of disabilities to mean that the defendant must use the same metric to measure PD on both the initial and subsequent injuries.

Unfortunately, Dr. Pang, has not accurately understood the correct legal theory to apply in this case.

DWC Proposes Revisions to WCIS Implementation Guide

The Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) has posted a revised version of the Workers’ Compensation Information System (WCIS) California Electronic Data Interchange Implementation Guide for First and Subsequent Reports of Injury (FROI/SROI) on its rulemaking forum.

Members of the public are encouraged to review the proposed regulatory revisions in the guide, and submit written comments. The comment period is open until 5 p.m. on Tuesday, October 30.

California’s WCIS uses electronic data interchange to collect comprehensive information from claims administrators to help the Department of Industrial Relations oversee the state’s workers’ compensation system. This information helps facilitate evaluation of the system and measure adequacy of benefits for injured workers and their dependents, and provides statistical data for research.

The revised implementation guide contains updates and corrections to the first reports of injury and subsequent reports of injury (FROI/SROI) reporting rules of the current version that took effect in March 2018. The proposed changes address the manner of transmitting data to WCIS, the filing of SROI, requirements for specific data elements and data edits.

Written comments can be emailed to DWCRules@dir.ca.gov, or mailed to: Division of Workers’ Compensation, P.O. Box 420603, San Francisco, CA 94142 – Attn: WCIS Rulemaking Forum.

The forum can be found on the DWC forums web page under “current forums.”

Apple Develops Knee and Hip Replacement Monitoring App

As Apple pushes deeper into health care with the Apple Watch, CNBC reports that the company is developing a plan to help people who are recovering from knee and hip replacement surgeries.

Apple announced a partnership with medical device company Zimmer Biomet, to combine a new app along with health-tracking data from the smartwatch to help determine why certain patients recover faster than others from the procedures. The companies are also working together on a clinical study.

Apple has its sights set square on the $3 trillion U.S. health-care sector and is continuously exploring medical applications for the watch, most recently adding an FDA-cleared EKG sensor. When it comes to orthopedics, more than than 1 million Americans get knee and hip replacements every year, and Zimmer Biomet is among the biggest manufacturers of reconstructive products.

Apple and Zimmer Biomet have created a mobile app called mymobility, which aims to help guide patients through their surgery to improve their experience, as well as their health outcomes. It includes educational resources, exercise videos and a way for patients to contact their surgeon and care team with questions and concerns.

The Apple Watch will track steps and heart rate data, allowing patients to share that information with their doctors to provide a clearer picture of how they’re doing after surgery and to analyze potential setbacks. For example, if a patient is concerned about the level of pain, the care team could see that the patient walked five miles the previous day, so the problem may be overexertion rather than a serious complication.

Apple and Zimmer Biomet are hoping to enroll 10,000 people in the U.S. in the study. The app is initially available only to patients who enroll in the study, but it will eventually be rolled out to everyone, a spokesperson for Zimmer Biomet told CNBC. Participants who don’t own an Apple Watch will receive one for the duration of the project. Fitbit has also looked at using its fitness trackers to monitor patients after surgery.

Zimmer Biomet CEO Bryan Hanson said in a statement that the partnership with Apple marks “one of the largest evidence-gathering clinical studies in orthopedic history.”

Apple Chief Operating Officer Jeff Williams said in a separate statement that the new app lets patients and doctors connect in a way that was “not previously possible through traditional in-person visits.”

The study is the second of its kind for Apple. In September 2017, the company kicked off its Heart Study in partnership with Stanford University, testing to see if it could detect in people a type of heart health irregularity called atrial fibrillation.

Williams told CNBC in November that Apple is open to working with some of the largest health-care companies in the space and said, “We have taken a thoughtful approach to this and embraced the medical community.”

Apple is tackling among the biggest and fastest growing segments of medicine. Given the aging of the population, the number of people who receive knee and hip replacement surgeries is expected to rise in coming years.

Dan Williamson, Zimmer Biomet’s group president for joint reconstruction, told CNBC a goal for the study is to “reduce anxiety for the patient and make sure the surgeon has the level of visibility they need.”

The company worked with Cedars Sinai hospital in Los Angeles to figure out the optimal amount of activity for people recovering from hip and knee replacements. They reported a magic number of 1,000 steps, meaning those that reached the milestone in the days after the procedure were usually discharged sooner than those who fell short.

In another medical use for the Apple Watch, the company said recently it is donating 1,000 watches for a new study to track binge eating.

DEA Approves Importing Cannabis for Medical Research

It’s no secret that the world is growing accustomed to the business of cannabis, but for $9.6 billion Canadian medical marijuana producer Canopy Growth, the future is approaching faster than many expect.

Canopy – which has gained traction on news of several-billion-dollar investments from Corona parent Constellation Brands – announced that it had shipped cannabis to the United States from Canada for medical research, a milestone in the U.S. government’s acceptance of what it considers to be a Schedule 1 drug.

Under [Drug Enforcement Administration] approval, we shipped, for the first time, legally – and I highlight ‘legally’ – cannabis from Canada to the U.S,” Bruce Linton, the co-founder, Chairman and CEO of Canopy Growth, told CNBC’s Jim Cramer.

“The DEA-approved partner, which we haven’t announced yet, can actually begin to do medical research, clinical trials if necessary, [and] create the data set that enables people to know when, what, where, and maybe it can become federally regulated in the U.S. with some input that way,” Linton said in an interview on “Mad Money.”

Canopy’s news comes less than one month after competing Canadian marijuana producer Tilray announced DEA approval to import cannabis to the United States for medical research at the University of California San Diego Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research.

California is one of eight states, excluding the District of Columbia, to fully legalize medical and recreational marijuana use. Thirty U.S. states currently have laws legalizing medical marijuana use in some form.

Today, the world has its eyes on Canada, where full legalization of adult marijuana use is set to take effect on Oct. 17. While the windfall will likely be massive for producers like Canopy, Linton is focused on the longer-term global opportunity.

Canada’s legalization could be Canopy’s key to seizing on that opportunity more than it already has, Linton added.

“Last week I was in the EU, the U.K. They know about Oct. 17 intimately and they’re trying to figure out, ‘Hm, if we’re a government or businesses, how do we quit ignoring cannabis and govern it, regulate it, tax it and turn it into something that might be medicinal and for sure a much better formatted product for a party?'” he said.

“And so what’s going to be the big bump isn’t just Canada,” he said. “If we do it right, Canopy leads. That gives us the position globally that then, all of a sudden, you add a zero or two to the number of people we’re trying to serve.”

U.S. shares of Canopy, the first cannabis company to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange, gained 5.64 percent Friday trading as the rest of the stock market recovered from its multi-day losing streak.

October 8, 2018 Edition


Rene Thomas Folse, JD, Ph.D. is the host for this edition which reports on the following news stories: MSP Class Action Rejected in Court of Appeals, Employer Has Only 30 Days to Appeal DOSH Citation, 5 Doctors and 4 “Body Brokers” Face Fraud Charges, MRI Operator Sam Solakyan Indicted for $284M Fraud, So. Cal. Restaurant Workers Recover $1M for Wage Theft, AmerisourceBergen Settles Fraud Case for $625M, DWC Amends Pharmaceutical Fee Schedule, DWC Adds New Chapters to MTUS, Congress Passes $8.5B Opioid Addiction Package, New Injection Stops Knee and Spine Osteoarthritis.

CVS/Aetna Must Divest Aetna’s Part D Prescription Drug Plan

The Department of Justice announced that it is requiring CVS Health Corporation and Aetna Inc. to divest Aetna’s Medicare Part D prescription drug plan business for individuals in order to proceed with their $69 billion merger.  The proposed divestiture to WellCare Health Plans, Inc. (WellCare), an experienced health insurer focused on government-sponsored health plans, including Medicare Part D individual prescription drug plans, would fully resolve the Department’s competition concerns.

“Today’s settlement resolves competition concerns posed by this transaction and preserves competition in the sale of Medicare Part D prescription drug plans for individuals,” said Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division.  “The divestitures required here allow for the creation of an integrated pharmacy and health benefits company that has the potential to generate benefits by improving the quality and lowering the costs of the healthcare services that American consumers can obtain.”

The Department’s Antitrust Division, along with the offices of five state attorneys general, today filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to enjoin the proposed transaction, along with a proposed settlement that, if approved by the court, would fully resolve the Department’s competitive concerns.  The participating state attorneys general offices represent California, Florida, Hawaii, Mississippi, and Washington.

CVS, the nation’s largest retail pharmacy chain, and Aetna, the nation’s third-largest health-insurance company, are significant competitors in the sale of Medicare Part D prescription drug plans to individuals, together serving 6.8 million members nationwide.

According to the Department’s complaint, the combination of CVS, which markets its Medicare Part D individual prescription drug plans under the “SilverScript” brand, and Aetna would cause anticompetitive effects, including increased prices, inferior customer service, and decreased innovation in sixteen Medicare Part D regions covering twenty-two states.  The complaint alleges that the loss of competition between CVS and Aetna would result in lower-quality services and increased costs for consumers, the federal government, and ultimately, taxpayers.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Aetna must divest its individual prescription drug plan business to WellCare and allow WellCare the opportunity to hire key employees who currently operate the business.  Aetna must also assist WellCare in operating the business during the transition and in transferring the affected customers through a process regulated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

CVS, headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island, operates the nation’s largest retail pharmacy chain, owns a large pharmacy benefit manager called Caremark, and is the nation’s second-largest provider of individual prescription drug plans, with approximately 4.8 million members.  CVS earned revenues of approximately $185 billion in 2017.  

Aetna, headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut, is the nation’s third-largest health-insurance company and fourth-largest individual prescription drug plan insurer, with over two million prescription drug plan members.  Aetna earned revenues of approximately $60 billion in 2017.  

As required by the Tunney Act, the proposed consent decree, along with the Department’s competitive impact statement, will be published in the Federal Register.  

Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed settlement within 60 days of its publication to Peter Mucchetti, Chief, Healthcare and Consumer Products Section, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC 20530.  At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the court may enter the final judgment upon a finding that it serves the public interest.