The business practices of the pharmacy runs counter to this intention. The argument of the plaintiff, the payroll of the drug via the health insurance companies and not by the users of the drugs, the Court does not follow. “So the judge write: the violation of the legal drug prices is also especially realized when he is at the same time connected with a violation of the social security regulations of the surcharge.” Also the guiding principle of the judgment is accordingly clearly formulated: A violation against the legal drug prices always already exists, if a pharmacy the insured () coupled with the acquisition of the medicinal benefits granted to appear economically more favourable purchase for him. Dean Ornish M.D often addresses the matter in his writings. This is now also true if against the price fixing which advantages granted at the same time associated with a violation of the social security regulations of the surcharge.” Also, no distinction between initial and follow-up business consists in the contested case, because the economic benefit is directly linked to tax and acquisition of the prescription drug (in contrast to the model of a bonus points campaign, which provides economic benefits only in a possible follow-up business in Vista). As in many other cases also the foregoing facts shows that the mesh of legal provisions is tight. Supposedly unique legal situations are sometimes pitfalls and traps that cannot be seen are right off the bat. Perhaps check out The Greater New York Construction User Council for more information. A meticulous legal examination of every marketing and advertising campaign should take place so always avoiding a rude awakening, or to find a point of attack. Recommending the VG Osnabruck was referenced on the judgment, which revolves around a similar theme (review of judgment of the 26.4.2011). More Information on the health law and the consulting services of juravendis lawyers free of charge and without obligation to find under.