Policy: Whistleblower
Manual: Corporate Compliance Chapter: Workplace Conduct and Employer-Employee Practices
Review responsibility: ___________________________________________________ of IPPC Pharmacy
and IPPC Pharmacy, ___________________________________________________.
By: _________________________ Reviewed: ____________________ Revised: ________________
Policy applies to: All (x) All clinical staff ( )
Committee Endorsement:
(If applicable)
Approval: _______________________________, President
POLICY: The purpose of this policy is to state clearly and unequivocally that IPPC Pharmacy prohibits discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation against any employee who provides information or otherwise assists in an investigation or proceeding regarding any conduct which he or she reasonably believes to be a violation of any federal and/or state law, rule or regulation, including, but not limited to, the federal false claim act, the Anti-Kickback statute, federal or state Pharmacy self-referral laws (i.e. Stark and Codey), EMTALA, New Jersey Pharmacy Licensing Standards, the Social Security Act and/or state Medicaid Act, or federal and/or state laws regarding mail and wire fraud.
Everyone at IPPC Pharmacy is responsible for assuring that the workplace is free from all forms of discrimination, harassment and retaliation prohibited by this policy. However, this does not mean that an employee can avoid corrective action or other form of discipline for poor work or wrongful acts by reporting his or her own inadequate performance. It does mean that the consequence of poor performance may not be more severe because an employee has made the report on his or her own. No officer, employee, agent, contractor or subcontractor of IPPC Pharmacy has the authority to engage in any conduct prohibited by this policy. Therefore, it is the policy of IPPC Pharmacy that no retaliatory action (including termination, suspension, demotion, discrimination, or harassment) shall be taken against an employee because the employee undertakes any of the following:
1. Discloses, or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of IPPC Pharmacy or another employer, with whom IPPC Pharmacy has a business relationship, that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of a law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law.
2. Provides information to, or testifies before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry into any violation of law, rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law by IPPC Pharmacy or another employer, with whom IPPC Pharmacy has a business relationship, or in the case of an employee who is a licensed or certified health care professional, provides information to, or testifies before any public body conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry into the quality of patient care; or
3. Objects to, or refuses to participate in any activity, policy or practice which the employee reasonably believes:
a. Is in violation of a law, rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or if the employee is a licensed or certified health care professional, constitutes improper quality of patient care.
b. Is incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy concerning public health, safety or welfare or protection of the environment.
PURPOSE: To assure that no employees are subject to retaliation as a result of protected conduct occasioned by the honest and dutiful reporting of prohibited workplace conduct.
SCOPE: Corporate Compliance Manual
PROCEDURE:
Any employee who believes that they have been retaliated against for engaging in the protected conduct outlined above is strongly encouraged to immediately report the facts forming the basis of that belief or knowledge to his or her immediate supervisor, department director and/or the corporate compliance officer. An employee may also use the IPPC Pharmacy Confidential Message Reporting Line (“Helpline” at 832-617-8686 ext. 117) to report suspected wrong doings. Upon receiving a complaint, IPPC Pharmacy will promptly conduct a thorough investigation. Those responsible for the investigation will maintain the confidentiality of the allegations of the complaint and the identity of the persons involved, subject to the need to conduct a full and impartial investigation, remedy.
Any violations of the IPPC Pharmacy policies or monitor compliance with or administer IPPC Pharmacy policies. The investigation generally will include but will not be limited to, discussion with the complaining employee (unless the complaint was submitted on an anonymous basis), the party against whom allegations have been made, and witnesses, if appropriate, participates in IPPC Pharmacy investigation. In the event that an investigation establishes that an employee has engaged in conduct or actions constituting discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation in violation of this policy, IPPC Pharmacy will take immediate and appropriate corrective action up to and including termination of that employee’s employment.
“Employee” means any individual who performs services or and under the control and direction of IPPC Pharmacy for wages or other renumeration.
“Public Body” means:
1.The United States Congress, and State legislature, or any popularly elected local governmental body, or any member or employee thereof;
2.Any federal, state, or local judiciary, or any member or employee thereof, or any grand or petit jury;
3.Any federal, state or local regulatory, administrative, or public agency or authority or instrumentality thereof;
4.Any federal, state or local law enforcement agency, prosecutorial office, or police or peace officer;
5.Any federal, state or local department of an executive branch of government; or
6.Any division, board, bureau, office, committee or commission of any of the public bodies described in the above paragraphs.
“Supervisor” means any individual with IPPC Pharmacy who has authority to direct and control the work performance of the affected employee, who has authority to take corrective action regarding the violation of the law, rule or regulation of which the employee complains, or who has been designated by the IPPC Pharmacy to do so.
“Retaliatory action” means the discharge, suspension or demotion of any employee, or other adverse employment action taken against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment.
“Improper quality of patient care” means with respect to patient care, any practice, procedure, action or failure to act of IPPC Pharmacy which violates any law, or any rule, regulation or declaratory ruling adopted pursuant to law, or any professional code of ethics.
EXAMPLE:
Pharmacist A criticizes the actions of Pharmacist B regarding the dispensing of Medications to patients. Pharmacist A claims that Pharmacist B was providing insufficient pain medications to the patients and that the patients were suffering as a result. Pharmacist B, an older but equal level Pharmacist to Pharmacist A, is offended and tells Pharmacist A to keep his opinion to himself. Pharmacist A communicated his belief to his supervisor. There is a great deal of tension between the two after this confrontation. Pharmacist A feels Pharmacist B is rude to him and refuses to listen or cooperate. Pharmacist A subsequently discloses to the Pharmacist supervisor that he believes Pharmacist B is stealing medication from patients to feed her own addiction to pain killers. The Pharmacist supervisor, who has worked with Pharmacist B for 20 years, dismisses the allegation without investigation and transfers Pharmacists A to a different position with less hours and less compensation. The Pharmacist supervisor contends that the tension caused by the criticism and allegation by Pharmacists A has “poisoned the atmosphere” to such a degree that someone must be transferred to preserve quality of patient care.
QUESTION:
In what ways has the Corporate Compliance-Whistleblower been implicated here?
ANSWER:
The action against Pharmacist A may be deemed to have violated the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”). Pharmacist A may claim protection under the IPPC Pharmacy Whistleblower policy as well as the CEPA statute since he communicated to his supervisor what he reasonably believed to be a violation of the law by Pharmacist B due to the action by Pharmacist B which he reasonably believed constituted improper quality of patient care. The supervisor failed to investigate the claims of Pharmacist A and arguably retaliated against him by transferring him to a lesser position. The fact Pharmacist A was complaining about a co-worker still would likely deem him protected under the statute and policy.