1. Explain the Anti- Kickback Statute. How did Olympus violate that statute?

Anti-kickback statute (AKS) bans medical providers from receiving or paying anything of value in exchange to get referrals for patients who need medical attention that will get paid by the government. Olympus Corp. of the Americans (OCA) violated the anti-kickback statute for years by failing to comply with the set rules and regulations that would have helped the company avoid the substantial bribes and kickbacks. OCA violated the AKS by giving hospitals and doctor’s kickbacks. Examples of the kickbacks entailed; first, the company granted a hospital 5,000 dollars grant, which facilitated it to get a sale worth 750,000 dollars. Secondly, Olympus held a $50,000 research grant up to when a hospital signed a deal to confirm that they would purchase equipment from the hospital. Thirdly, OCA financed a trip for three doctors who traveled to Japan in 2007 in exchange for the hospital shifting from a competitor and working with Olympus instead. Similarly, a doctor who had a vital role in the buying decisions of New York medical center was given equipment worth $400,000 free of charge for personal use. Furthermore, OCA gave several other hospitals and doctors kickbacks like consulting payments, free endoscopes, lavish meals, facilitation of foreign travel, and grants worth millions of dollars,

1. What is the importance of mentioning in the press release that Olympus did not have a training and compliance program?

The press release will create awareness to other public members on the importance of training and compliance to the anti-kickback statute because it will help them avoid getting into a situation that they have to pay such a large fine.

Additionally, the press relies on will help the public understand the adverse impact of OSK because a patient or health facility can end up using overpriced or inferior equipment, which increases the cost, or results to substantial recovery for taxpayers.

1. What were the terms of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) between the U.S. Department of Justice and Olympus? Were the terms ultimately met?

The terms of DPA between Olympus and the U.S. Department of Justice were ultimately met. The DPA required that OCA needed to adopt numerous compliance measures to rectify their issue. Firstly, Olympus needed to enhance its compliance training and always adhere to an efficient compliance program. Secondly, OCA needed to maintain a confidential website and hotline for the company clients and workers to report any misconduct. Thirdly, the corporation’s CEO and BOD had to certify every year that the program was working as expected; lastly, OCA needed to maintain an executive financial recoupment program that required executives that engaged in wrongdoings or failed to promote compliance had to forfeit performance pay up to three years.

1. What is a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA), and how was it applied in the case against Olympus?

CIA refers to a document that outlines the obligations which a firm involved in health care in the U.S. needs to adhere to improve the quality of care. Notably, OCA, together with its subsidiaries, gave kickbacks that threatened impartiality in decision making in the U.S. medical fields and the financial integrity of Medicaid and Medicare… Consequently, the CIA would endure the company meets the minimum standards in the health care industry.

1. What is a monitor, and how was it used in the Olympus case?

Monitor refers to evaluating and overseeing compliance. In Olympus, the U.S. Attorney selected an independent monitor under the department guidelines, which was then approved by the Deputy Attorney General.

1. What is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), and how did the Olympus subsidiary, Olympus Latin America (OLA), violate the Act?

FCPA is a policy that gives U.S. based organizations a chance to mitigate corruption abroad. OLA violated this Act by bribing government hospitals and healthcare workers in South and Central America to get business and sell their equipment illegally. The acts in South America were said to reflect how Olympus conducted business in the U.S.

1. What penalty did OLA face?

OLA had to pay a criminal penalty amounting to 22.8 million dollars. OLA was given a 20% decrease for its penalty because they cooperated in the internal investigation.

1. How was the matter against OLA resolved?

The matter at OLA was received by the company getting a 20% decrease in their penalty for cooperating through the internal investigation. The investigation entailed translating several foreign language documents and collecting, analyzing, and organizing various voluminous evidence.

1. According to Chapter 8 of your text, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines include factors that can reduce the ultimate punishment a company can receive. Which of these factors helped reduce OLA’s penalty?

Markedly, OLA was cooperative throughout the investigation, including the translation of the several language documents and collection, analyzing, and organization of the voluminous evidence. Consequently, the company was awarded a 20% decrease in the penalty.

What role did John Slowik play in the case(s) against OCA?

1. What is the False Claims Act, and how did he use that Act? (See attached Kenney & McCafferty article and also the L.A. Times article).

John Slowik acted as a whistleblower who led to the discovery of the impunity at OCA. Markedly, Slowik was a former chief compliance officer at OCA, and he filed a lawsuit that led to this civil settlement. Consequently, Mr. Slowik will get approximately 44 million dollars from the federal share and 7 million dollars from the state share upon the civil settlement. From the civil settlement, Olympus agreed to pay $ 310.8 million to the state and federal authorities to resolve the claim that the company’s payment of kickbacks resulted in false claims getting submitted to the Tricare, Medicaid, and Medicare. Thus was a violation of both the AKS and many other state False Claims Acts. Consequently, Olympus had to pay 43, 512, and 053 million dollars to the states contributing to the falsely claimed medical payments.