RE:PhilidorThe first question is about the fraud. Yes or Not? If yes, there is a problem.
If Not, the second question is about the materiality-measure of the impact.
If not important, the company has not problems.
healthstock1234 wrote: A noncompliance doesn't mean fraud.They have to describe more about.
<an internal audit found evidence of "noncompliance with the terms of its provider agreement.">
<The company has denied any wrongdoing.>
For example, after an internal audit, a subsidiary received <noncompliance> This subsidiary receive also a time, 1 month to do all things to comply with...After this time , the internal audit was there again and this subsidiary received -ok.
I think , in our case CVS was more careful now, regarding Philidor, because of Valeant situation.
How many time CVS worked with Philidor?
I can say, by experience, an internal auditor, when a company starts to be exposed in media, the auditor will verify twice and by protection will reject all grey situation.
We need to have more information about CVS-Philidor. I saw it today and I didn't react because I know that a noncompliance is not necessary a fraud and Philidor is scanned by media right now.