GlaxoSmithKline
Earlier this year GSK made the largest settlement, in monetary terms, ever by a pharmaceutical company (see this post). At the end of the year it made two more. Neither got much media attention. The first was related to the earlier $3 billion settlement. As reported by the [Great] Lebanon [Oregon] Express:
Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum announced in a press release that pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to pay $90 million to Oregon and 37 other states to settle claims that it unlawfully promoted its diabetes drug, Avandia.
As the co-leader of the lawsuit, Oregon will receive $3.9 million of the settlement, according to the release.
The 38 attorneys general claimed in lawsuits filed Nov. 15 that GlaxoSmithKline misrepresented the cardiovascular risks posed by Avandia. A negotiated consent judgment was filed shortly thereafter.
Avandia was a blockbuster drug for GlaxoSmithKline. First approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1999, annual sales peaked at more than $2.5 billion in 2006.
Furthermore,
Oregon and the 37 other states claim GlaxoSmithKline made safety claims about Avandia not supported by the scientific evidence.
The states allege the company failed to disclose negative information about Avendia’s cardiovascular health effects.
In addition to the monetary settlement, the agreement included all sorts of pledges by GSK:
As part of the consent judgment between the parties, GlaxoSmithKline agreed to reform how it markets and promotes diabetes drugs. It agreed to several conditions:
• To refrain from making false, misleading, or deceptive claims about any diabetes drug;
• To refrain from making comparative safety claims not supported by substantial evidence or substantial clinical experience;
• To refrain from presenting favorable information previously thought of as valid but rendered invalid by contrary and more credible recent information;
• To refrain from misusing statistics or otherwise misrepresenting the nature, applicability, or significance of clinical trials.
The Consent Judgment also has the following terms that are effective for at least eight years:
• GlaxoSmithKline must post summaries of all company sponsored observational studies or meta-analyses conducted by the company that are designed to inform the effective, safe, and/or appropriate use of its diabetes drugs;
• The company post summaries of company-sponsored clinical trials of diabetes products within eight months of the primary completion date;
• GlaxoSmithKline must register and post all company-sponsored clinical trials as required by federal law.
Even more under the radar was a second, unrelated settlement, only briefly chronicled by Reuters (here via the Chicago Tribune):
British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline Plc has reached a $150 million preliminary settlement with U.S. drug wholesalers who claimed the company improperly delayed entry to the market of generic alternatives to its nasal spray Flonase, according to court documents.
The settlement was reached with, among others, AmerisourceBergen Corp, Cardinal Health Inc, and McKesson Corp, who maintained that Glaxo had abused the citizen's petition process to maintain a market monopoly and overcharge for the spray by restricting access to less expensive generic versions.
Note that while the first settlement was clearly about misleading, deceptive marketing of a relatively dangerous drug as safe, a practice that likely lead to suffering and death of some patients, the second settlement which involved an unfair business practice that likely increased the cost of care to some patients, and decreased the profits of some competitors, lead to a monetarily larger settlement.
Again, these latter two settlements seem to just ice the cake of the $3 billion settlement earlier this year.
Eli Lilly
Eli Lilly pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charges and settled allegations about questionable marketing practices for its anti-psychotic drug Zyprexa for over $1 billion in 2009 (see post here). The settlement provided some instructive information about how big pharmaceutical companies employ ghost writing to sell product (see this post). Now at the end of 2012, Eli Lilly has settled charges that it bribed government officials in countries outside of the US. The most colorful version of this story appeared in the Wall Street Journal. In summary,
Eli Lilly & Co. agreed to pay $29.4 million in a settlement of U.S. government allegations that the drug maker's units made improper payments to foreign government officials to win business.
Indianapolis-based Lilly didn't admit or deny the allegations, but agreed to have an outside consultant review the company's internal controls and its measures to comply with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA.
The colorful details were:
The SEC said in a civil complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that employees of Lilly's China unit falsified expense reports to provide spa treatments, jewelry and other gifts and cash payments to government-employed doctors between 2006 and 2009.
The SEC also alleged: Lilly hired a drug distributor in 2007 that paid bribes to health officials in a Brazilian state to facilitate about $1.2 million in sales of a Lilly drug to the state; Lilly's Polish unit paid $39,000 between 2000 and 2003 to a charitable foundation run by the head of a regional government health authority and dedicated to restoring a castle in Chudow, Poland; and that its Russian unit paid millions of dollars between 1994 and 2005 to offshore entities that the SEC said 'appear to have been used to funnel money to government officials' to obtain business for the Lilly unit.
The SEC said Lilly didn't curtail the activities of its Russian unit for several years, even after an internal Lilly review raised questions about its use of these offshore arrangements.
As in the previous set of settlements, no individual was charged or had to pay any penalty for authorizing, directing, or implementing any unethical actions. Note that the alleged bribery went on in multiple different countries, suggesting a systemic problem with the operations of the company. Note also that the allegations involved bribing doctors as well as bureaucrats.
Orthofix
We discussed three settlements made by medical device company Orthofix only a month ago. These involved various vivid details including bribes to physicians disguised as consulting and royalty agreements, bribes of foreign government officials disguised as chocolate, and a device sales representative turned stripper. As best as I can tell, Orthofix just made yet another settlement, maybe not quite so picaresque. As per Bloomberg,
Orthofix International NV won court approval of a settlement of federal regulators’ claims that the maker of bone-repair products defrauded Medicare through a kickback scheme involving doctors, prosecutors said.
U.S. District Judge William G. Young in Boston yesterday accepted an Orthofix unit’s offer to plead guilty to a felony count of obstructing an audit and pay a $7.6 million criminal fine....
This settlement like some of the previous ones involved allegations of payments to doctors to induce them to use Orthofix devices.
As part of the agreement, Orthofix also will pay $32.3 million plus interest to resolve civil claims first raised in a whistle-blower’s lawsuit that the company defrauded the federal Medicare program through payments to doctors who used its bone-growth stimulators....
This series of cases is unusual because they resulted in a guilty plea to a felony (but by a subsidiary of the company, not the company itself), and in guilty pleas by some company employees (but not apparently any penalties to top management).
Five Orthofix employees have pleaded guilty in connection with the probe, the U.S. Justice Department said. Thomas Guerrieri, a company vice president, pleaded guilty to violating the federal anti-kickback statute by setting up fake consulting agreements for doctors who used the company’s products.
Sanofi
French multinational pharmaceutical corporation Sanofi-Aventis settled charges of overcharging the US Medicaid system in 2009 for over $90 million (see post here), and of overcharging the US Medicare system in 2007 for over $190 million (see post here). Now it just settled charges that it gave kickbacks to doctors to induce them to prescribe its product. Per Bloomberg,
Sanofi, France’s biggest drugmaker, reached a settlement to pay $109 million over allegations that its U.S. units gave doctors free doses of a medicine to win their business and subvert Medicare’s drug reimbursement system.
Sanofi sales representatives entered into 'illegal sampling arrangements' with physicians, giving them the arthritis drug Hyalgan as kickbacks and 'promising to provide negotiated' amounts of the medication to lower its effective price in violation of the False Claims Act, the U.S. Justice Department said yesterday in a statement.
'Kickback schemes subvert the health-care marketplace and undermine the integrity of public health-care programs,” Stuart Delery, who heads the department’s civil division, said in the statement. 'We will continue to hold accountable those who we allege are providing illegal incentives to influence the decision-making of health-care providers in federal health-care programs.'
Again, no individual suffered any negative consequences for authorizing, directing or implementing the bad behavior in this case.
Summary
So here we go again, four more settlements by large, rich, well known pharmaceutical and device companies. Most of the companies involved now have a history of recent settlements for a variety of ethical misadventures. Most of the new settlements involved allegations of deceiving and bribing physicians.
As we have noted endlessly before, legal settlements like this are useful to provide documentation of how unethical the practices, particularly marketing practices of large health care organizations have become. However, the increasing number of repeat settlers suggest that the settlements are not deterring bad behavior. Since the fines involved are usually small compared to the revenues that can be generated by deceptive and unethical marketing of expensive drugs, and the fines are paid out of company coffers, and are thus spread out in their impact over employees and stockholders alike, they usually have no more impact than a lash with a wet noodle, maybe at best a slap on the wrist. Since the people involved in authorizing, directing and implementing the bad behavior can likely greatly improve their "numbers" and hence generate big salaries and bonuses, but face a minimal risk of any individual negative consequences, they are likely to continue unethical practices.
Given that so many of these cases involve deception and/or bribery of health care professionals, I still hope that some will get upset at the effect on their professional values to take action.
Meanwhile, I repeat until blue in the face.... we will not deter unethical behavior by health care organizations until the people who authorize, direct or implement bad behavior fear some meaningfully negative consequences. Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich.
