To the Editor: Faunce and colleagues wisely called for the introduction of legislation modelled on the United States False Claims Act (FCA) in the Australian health care setting.1 Indeed, whistleblowers require protection and reward.2 The authors stated that the “key strengths of the US qui tam anti-fraud regime ... lie in its recovery of large amounts of public monies, its encouragement of good corporate practice” and noted that it is “largely compensatory or remedial rather than punitive”.2 However, the non-punitive nature of the regime is problematic.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Faunce TA, Urbas G, Skillen L. Implementing US-style anti-fraud laws in the Australian pharmaceutical and health care industries. Med J Aust 2011; 194: 474-478. <MJA full text>
- 2. Braillon A. Whistleblowing: neither reward, nor protection. J Public Health Policy 2010; 31: 278-279.
- 3. Pfizer: the profits climb [French]. Trader–Finance [Internet] 2011; 3 May. http://bourse.trader-finance.fr/Pfizer+les+benefices+grimpent+ 432370 (accessed Sep 2011).
- 4. Almashat S, Preston C, Waterman T, Wolfe S; Public Citizen’s Health Research Group. Rapidly increasing criminal and civil monetary penalties against the pharmaceutical industry: 1991 to 2010. Public Citizen [Internet] 2010; 16 Dec. http://www.citizen.org/hrg1924 (accessed Mar 2011).
I am a senior tenured consultant in public health who was dismissed in 2010 from Amiens University Hospital by the French Ministry of Health against the advice of the National Statutory Committee.