>Even still it's not clear why that's an issue. As in you don't understand the need for the anti-kickback statute? I am not hear to defend it, but I happened

>Even still it's not clear why that's an issue. As in you don't understand the need for the anti-kickback statute? I am not hear to defend it, but I happened to be an attorney on a Qui Tam case (i.e. whistle blower case, which are some of the judgments in the US) revolving around anti-kickback and stark laws. In short "Russian money" was being funneled into the US to set up pharmacies in Russian immigrant neighborhoods, the engaged in some real bad behavior (patients didn't pick up Rx, they would still bill medicare, then they would relabel and fill future Rx with the already paid med and get a 2nd payment for the meds...other acts included cash payments to doctors to send patients their way). They also engaged in what I felt was not "bad" behavior, they would deliver meds and give the patients a "goody bag" with things from the old country (caviar, hometown news papers, etc...). One pharmacist noticed their supervisor the acts violated the law, and he was fired in retaliation (he is the whistle blower). Before the lawsuit CVS bought the Russian backed chain for well over $100M. I myself never thought the free goody bag was so outrageous and even think that it is good customer service, but its still unlawful. The law has nothing to do with the type of Rx, or really the Rx at all, its about the unlawful bribe/rebate.