The Basics of the Settlement
As reported by Bloomberg / Businessweek,
Johnson & Johnson agreed to resolve criminal and civil probes into the marketing of Risperdal, an antipsychotic drug, and other medicines by paying more than $2.2 billion, one of the largest U.S. health-fraud penalties.J&J’s Janssen unit will plead guilty to a misdemeanor criminal charge over misbranding Risperdal for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including treating elderly patients with dementia. Under a plea agreement announced today, Janssen will pay a $334 million fine and forfeit $66 million.
Janssen also settled civil claims that it marketed Risperdal without approval for the elderly, children and the mentally disabled, and that it paid kickbacks to physicians and to Omnicare Inc., the largest pharmacy for nursing homes. The civil accord covered off-label marketing of Risperdal; Invega, another antipsychotic; and Natrecor, a heart drug.
This settlement covered conduct that health care professionals ought to find particularly disturbing, including marketing Risperdal for elderly people with dementia without an approved indication, despite evidence that it could be particularly harmful to those patients; marketing Risperdal to adolescent boys without an indication, again despite evidence that it could be particularly harmful to those patients; and using kickbacks to market Risperdal.
Promoting Risperdal for Dementia Despite Increased Risk of Death
This issue was best summarized by the Wall Street Journal,
Prosecutors alleged that J&J's Janssen Pharmaceuticals unit promoted Risperdal to elderly patients suffering from dementia, despite no approval for that use. Prosecutors also alleged that J&J's 'ElderCare' sales force pushed Risperdal for use in these elderly patients, and sales representatives' bonus awards failed to distinguish prescriptions for schizophrenia or the unapproved dementia use.
In 2005, the FDA required the label warn that elderly patients suffering from dementia-related psychosis were at a higher risk of death.
The New York Times added,
Johnson & Johnson officials tried to expand the market for Risperdal to older dementia patients soon after the drug was approved in 1993 to treat symptoms of psychiatric disorders, according to federal court filings.The drug, whose generic name is risperidone, was primarily tested in schizophrenia patients, and the Federal Drug Administration repeatedly rejected efforts by the company to expand the drug’s use to older dementia patients, according to the filings.But Johnson & Johnson, federal officials said, actively pursued the market for geriatric patients. The company created a dedicated sales force, ElderCare, to promote the drug and others to doctors who primarily treated older patients.The drug, the company claimed, could address symptoms that made treating these patients a challenge, especially in a nursing home setting, including agitation, confusion, hostility and impulsiveness. The company’s sales brochures highlighted these symptoms and minimized the fact that the drug was approved to treat schizophrenia, according to federal documents.Federal officials said the company knew that Risperdal posed serious health risks for older adults, like an increased risk of strokes, but it played them down. The drug’s label was later updated to warn against the use of the drug in older patients with dementia.
So the allegations were that the company pursued an elaborate and deceptive strategy to promote the drug for elderly dementia patients despite knowledge that the drug was particularly risky for such patients.
Promoting Risperdal for Adolescent Boys Despite Increased Risk of Gynecomastia
Again, per the WSJ,
Prosecutors also alleged that J&J promoted Risperdal for use by boys suffering from mental disabilities despite knowing that use could raise levels of a hormone stimulating breast development.
The NYT added,
Federal prosecutors also say, as part of the civil settlement, that Johnson & Johnson promoted the use of Risperdal in people with mental disabilities and children, even though the company did not receive F.D.A. approval to market to children until 2006. Janssen told its sales representatives to visit child psychologists and mental health facilities that mainly focused on children, promoting the drug as a safe treatment for disorders like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder, the government said.Johnson & Johnson knew that children were susceptible to certain health risks from taking Risperdal, including the possibility that boys could develop breasts through elevated production of the hormone prolactin, federal officials said.
Again, the allegations were that the company pursued an elaborate deceptive strategy to market the drug for children despite knowledge that the drug was particularly risky for such patients.
No Executives were Discomfited by the Disposition of This Case
The company took pains to emphasize that the settlement only required a single guilty plea to a misdemeanor by a company subsidiary, and did not involve any other admissions of guilt, or any penalties to specific human beings. For example, per Bloomberg/ Business Week,
'Today we reached closure on complex legal matters spanning almost a decade,' Michael Ullmann, J&J’s general counsel, said in a statement. 'This resolution allows us to move forward and continue to focus on delivering innovative solutions that improve and enhance the health and well-being of patients around the world.'
While Janssen 'accepts accountability' for the actions described in the misdemeanor plea, the civil settlement 'is not an admission of any liability or wrongdoing, and the company expressly denies the government’s civil allegations,' J&J said.
So why give up a perfectly good $2.2 billion (minus $400 million fine and forfeiture by the Janssen subsidiary for the single misdemeanor)? Was "closure" all that valuable?
In addition, in the NY Times we found ,
Ernie Knewitz, a spokesman for Johnson & Johnson, noted that the misdemeanor charge was being entered on behalf of the company and no individuals were charged with wrongdoing. 'Mr. Gorsky [current CEO] has been an outstanding Johnson & Johnson leader for more than 20 years,' he said.Would you expect someone who works for Mr Gorsky to say otherwise? Yet it was on Mr Gorsky's watch that much of the alleged bad conduct actually happened.
Alex Gorsky was promoted to chief executive officer of J&J in April 2012, in part because of his record of generating sales as leader of Janssen Pharmaceuticals.
Furthermore, the Inquirer noted that Mr Gorsky was deposed in one of the many civil lawsuits filed by patients against Johnson and Johnson.
The 60-page transcript of Gorsky's deposition in one of the Philadelphia suits was part of the publicly available court record. In the transcript, McCormick walks Gorsky through discussions from 2001 with Joseph Biederman, a Harvard medical school professor and a Massachusetts General Hospital pediatric psychiatrist who gained fame - and criticism - for advocating the use of pharmaceuticals to treat children with perceived mental illness. That was before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved, in still-limited ways, drugs such as Risperdal for children.
In a one-page letter dated Dec. 7, 2001, Biederman requested $500,000 to start what became the Johnson & Johnson Center for the Study of Pediatric Psychopathology. Gorsky said in the deposition that he approved that payment.
Gorsky was asked whether he had been hoping Biederman and, by extension, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard, would help J&J to get wider diagnosis and treatment for child and adolescent mental disorders.
'I think our goal was to, yes, have better diagnostic criteria for children who are in need of treatment and to have better therapeutic options for children who are in need of treatment,' Gorsky said.
Also in the transcript, McCormick discussed with Gorsky a document called the 'Annual Report 2002: The Johnson & Johnson Center for Pediatric Psychopathology at Massachusetts General Hospital.' Biederman was the director of the center, and one of the goals of its research, according to the report, was that 'it will move forward the commercial goals of J&J.'
Thus this testimony seems to imply that current Johnson and Johnson CEO Gorsky was involved in making large payments to an important key opinion leader (KOL) who was supposed to use his academic gravitas to "move forward the commercial goals" of Johnson and Johnson, specifically by promoting Risperdal for children.
Yet, as we discussed above, neither Mr Gorsky nor any other person at Johnson and Johnson who might have authorized, directed, or implemented the alleged conduct which was the subject of the settlement, conduct which Johnson and Johnson of course denies was misconduct, suffered any negative consequences.
Mr Gorsky's total compensation as CEO in 2012 was $10,977,109 according too the company's 2013 proxy statement. The retiring CEO, William Weldon, on whose overall watch the alleged events occurred, received $29,838,259 that year. We last discussed their compensation and its contrast with the company's ethical track record here.
These payments also occurred despite all the other settlements Johnson and Johnson has had to make because of allegations about its marketing of Risperdal. As described by Bloomberg/ Businessweek,
The settlement won’t resolve suits brought by attorneys general in Arkansas, Louisiana and South Carolina, where the company has appealed or has said it will appeal judgments over Risperdal sales.
Judges or juries in those states have ordered J&J to pay a total of about $1.8 billion in damages and fines over Risperdal marketing campaigns that were found to have misled doctors and patients about the drug’s health risks and effectiveness.
In 2012, a judge in Arkansas ordered the drugmaker to pay $1.2 billion in fines over Risperdal marketing. That verdict came three months after J&J decided to end a trial in Texas over the drug’s sales with a $158 million settlement. The Arkansas judge also awarded the state $180 million in attorney fees, J&J said in an August regulatory filing. The company is appealing the judgment.
In June 2011, a judge in South Carolina ordered J&J to pay $327 million in penalties for deceptively marketing the medicine. Ten months earlier, jurors in Louisiana ordered the drugmaker to pay almost $258 million to state officials over J&J’s Risperdal marketing campaign in the state. A Louisiana judge later ordered the drugmaker to pay an additional $73.3 million in attorney fees and costs.
The payments further occurred despite a previous settlement involving another drug whose marketing was at issue in the current settlement, according to Bloomberg / Businessweek,
In October 2011, J&J’s Scios unit pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation over Natrecor and paid an $85 million criminal fine.
Finally, the compensation was given despite other legal actions not having to do with Risperdal, Invega or Natrecor, as we most recently summarized,
- A guilty plea for misbranding Topamax in 2010 (look here)
- Guilty pleas to bribery in Europe in 2011 by J+J's DePuy subsidiary (look here)
- Accusations that the company, which makes smoking cessation products, participated along with tobacco companies in efforts to lobby state legislators (see post here)
The latest settlement in the parade is another marker of the sort of conduct that big health care organizations have exhibited to increase revenue, and to use that revenue as a rationale for making their top insiders very rich. The particular conduct alleged here could have put patients at risk, partly by deceiving health care professionals. Yet in their wisdom, top US law enforcement saw fit not to try to hold any individuals accountable for this conduct, and allowed the company to deny any misconduct other than a single misdemeanor by a subsidiary. This occurred despite the company's history of multiple legal settlements and findings of guilt in various courtrooms.
Yet none of these actions has resulted in any negative consequences for any individual within the company. No one who authorized, directed, or implemented bad behavior will pay any penalty, even were the bad behavior to have lead to significant personal enrichment.
As we have said ad infinitum, and on the occasion of a previous Johnson and Johnson settlement, many of largest and once proud health care organizations now have recent records of repeated, egregious ethical lapses. Not only have their leaders have nearly all avoided penalties, but they have become extremely rich while their companies have so misbehaved.
These leaders seem to have become like nobility, able to extract money from lesser folk, while remaining entirely unaccountable for bad results of their reigns. We can see from this case that health care organizations' leadership's nobility overlaps with the supposed "royalty" of the leaders of big financial firms, none of whom have gone to jail after the global financial collapse, great recession, and ongoing international financial disaster (look here). The current fashion of punishing behavior within health care organization with fines and agreements to behave better in the future appears to be more law enforcement theatre than serious deterrent. As Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick exhorted his fellow Democrats, I exhort state, federal (and international, for that matter) law enforcement to "grow a backbone" and go after the people who were responsible for and most profited from the ongoing ethical debacle in health care.
As we have said before, true health care reform would make leaders of health care organization accountable for their organizations' bad behavior.
Addendum - Other Comments
See also similar sentiments from 1BoringOldMan,
J&J closes out the escrow fund set aside for this settlement. Alex Gorsky goes to his West Point Anniversaries and Boy Scout Board meetings an ongoing success story [shoveling…]. And what was this all about?
This is the way the world endsThis is the way the world endsThis is the way the world endsNot with a bang but a whimper
and in a press release from Public Citizen,
Until more meaningful penalties and the prospect of jail time for company heads who are responsible for such activity become common, companies will continue defrauding the government and putting patients’ lives in danger.