In this case, it is alleged that Hayat Pharmacy submitted false claims to Medicare and Medicaid for a cream (iodoquinol-hydrocortisone-aloe) called Azesco. The pharmacy company was accused of switching patients from lower-costing medicine to Azesco without a prescription or medical need. The case was settled with Hayat paying over $2 million and agreeing to have yearly training for topics related to the case.

In this case, the whistleblower did the right thing by coming forward. Cases of fraud within the healthcare system have become more common. If someone suspects something, that person needs to come forward so that the company can be investigated. The company still denies that act of wrongdoing; however, without the whistleblower, this would not have been caught as quickly as it was. Neither of the articles I found stated whether the whistleblower tried to resolve the fraudulent activity before coming forward.

In your responses to peers post above, be sure to address the following:

• Do you agree with your peer's response on whether the situation was handled correctly? Why or why not?
  • If you agree, refer to specific examples and justify your response.
  • If you do not agree, provide at least one constructive suggestion on how to handle the situation.