Ex-doctor gets jail term on drug distribution conviction | TribLIVE.com
Allegheny

Ex-doctor gets jail term on drug distribution conviction

Joe Napsha
1139013_web1_web-jail2

A former Pittsburgh radiologist convicted of unlawfully distributing a prescription painkiller and health care fraud has been sentenced to two years in federal prison and fined $15,000.

Omar A. Almusa, 46, was sentenced Thursday by U.S. Judge Arthur Schwab in Pittsburgh.

Almusa was a radiologist with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) when he submitted illegal prescriptions for Vicodin, and then unlawfully dispensed those pills to other persons without a legitimate medical purpose, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Pittsburgh said.

Almusa also committed health care fraud by submitting fake claims to UPMC Health Plan for payments to cover the costs of the unlawfully prescribed Vicodin.

The judge also ordered Almusa to undergo two years on probation after completing his prison sentence

“Prosecuting medical professionals who illegally prescribe powerful painkillers without a legitimate medical purpose is another front in our fight against the opioid epidemic,” U.S. Attorney Scott Brady said in a statement.

The investigation leading to the charges was conducted by the Western Pennsylvania Opioid Fraud and Abuse Detection Unit. That unit has investigated and prosecuted more corrupt health care professionals than any other U.S. Attorney’s Office in the country, the U.S. Attorney said.

Joe Napsha is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Joe at 724-836-5252, [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.