The basics were:
Shire Pharmaceuticals L.L.C. will pay $56.5 million to settle allegations that it inappropriately promoted the sale of ADHD medicine, among other drugs, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Philadelphia said Wednesday.
Shire is registered in the Channel Islands and headquartered in Dublin, but operates from the United States....
As is usual in such cases,
Shire admitted no wrongdoing, but also
entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office
of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services.
The detailed allegations make for interesting reading.
The settlement resolves allegations that, between January 2004 and December 2007, Shire promoted Adderall XR for certain uses despite a lack of clinical data to support such claims and overstated the efficacy of Adderall XR, particularly relative to other ADHD drugs. Among the unsupported claims allegedly made by Shire was that Adderall XR was clinically superior to other ADHD drugs because it would 'normalize' its recipients, rendering them indistinguishable from their non-ADHD peers. Shire allegedly stated that its competitors’ products could not achieve similar results, which the Justice Department contended was not shown in the clinical data Shire collected. Shire also marketed Adderall XR based on claims that Adderall XR would prevent poor academic performance, loss of employment, criminal behavior, traffic accidents, and sexually transmitted disease. In addition, Shire promoted Adderall XR for the treatment of conduct disorder, an indication not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).Thus, the allegations were that Shire marketers and "agents" made false, sometimes apparently ridiculous claims about four different medicines. Some of these claims, for example, that an amphetamine drug had no abuse potential, or that an anti-inflammatory drug would prevent cancer (in patients at risk for cancer), could conceivably have led to patients being harmed.
The settlement further resolves allegations that, between February 2007 and September 2010, Shire sales representatives and other agents also allegedly made false and misleading statements about the efficacy and abuse liability of Vyvanse to state Medicaid formulary committees and to individual physicians. For example, one Shire medical science liaison allegedly told a state formulary board that Vyvanse 'provides less abuse liability' than 'every other long-acting release mechanism' on the market. No study Shire conducted concluded that Vyvanse was not abusable, and, as an amphetamine product, the Vyvanse label included an FDA-mandated black box warning for its potential for misuse and abuse. Shire also made unsupported claims that treatment with Vyvanse would prevent car accidents, divorce, being arrested, and unemployment.
Additionally, the settlement resolves allegations that, from April 2006 to September 2010, Shire representatives improperly marketed Daytrana, administered through a patch, as less abusable than traditional, pill-based medications. The settlement also resolves allegations that, for part of the foregoing periods, Shire representatives improperly made phone calls and drafted letters to state Medicaid authorities to assist physicians with the prior authorization process for prescriptions to induce these physicians to prescribe Daytrana and Vyvanse.
Finally, the settlement resolves allegations that, between January 2006 and June 2010, Shire sales representatives promoted Lialda and Pentasa for off-label uses not approved by the FDA and not covered by federal healthcare programs. Specifically, the government alleged that Shire promoted Lialda off-label for the prevention of colorectal cancer.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the settlement was made to clean up loose ends before the big take-over of Shire,
The pact resolves one outstanding issue ahead of Shire's planned $54 billion acquisition by AbbVie Inc.
So note that the dollar amount of the settlement is approximately one one-thousandth (0.1%) of the total value of Shire.
According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, no one admitted guilt, and no individual will pay any penalty:
'We are pleased to have reached a resolution and to put this matter behind us,' Flemming Ornskov, Shire’s chief executive officer said in a statement.
So this follows the usual formula for legal settlements in health care. A big pharmaceutical company was alleged to have deceptively marketed multiple products. Some of the deceptions could have lead to patient harm. The government took the company to court, but the end result was a monetary penalty paid by the company that might appear large, but which was tiny compared to the assets of the company. The company did not have to admit guilt. No individual at the company paid any penalty or suffered any consequence. While the organization had to sign a "corporate integrity agreement," it is not clear that such agreements prevent future bad behavior.
There have been many, many such settlements, as we have discussed on Health Care Renewal. At least these settlements serve as evidence that many, many large health care organizations have behaved unethically, often in ways that not only increase health costs, but may directly harm patients. Yet the settlements seem bent over backwards not to trouble the people who personally profited from unethical behavior.
Individual company marketers, their supervisors, and top executive likely made more money because of the revenue brought in by the unethical practices. However, the settlement somehow avoided identifying any of them, or even stating unequivocally that the company, or any of its employees did anything wrong. That is absurd, since if nothing bad was done by anybody, why did the company have to pay anything? Beyond that, if individuals who work for big drug companies, and other large health care organizations know that whatever they do in their official capacities, they will not be held personally responsible, what would deter them from taking unethical actions in the future?
Most citizens trust drug companies to provide safe effective medicines. Marketing drugs as safer than they are, or for purposes for which they are not effective abuses the companies' entrusted power. Doing so in order to enrich oneself thus is a manifestation of corruption. The ongoing parade of legal settlements is thus a marker of how corrupt health care has become.
Furthermore, the continued inability of regulators and law enforcement to do more in the face of corruption suggest moral failure, incompetence, and perhaps more corruption.
We will never achieve true health care reform, and will never really improve our vastly over-priced, ineffective health care system until we address this sort of health care corruption.
A final note: Eric Holder, the current US Attorney General, will soon leave. While he has been hailed for promoting human rights in some instance (that is, for LGBT individuals), he has been criticized for never making an effort to pursue the top corporate executives who were responsible for the global financial collapse of 2008 (look here) although the Department of Justice constantly goes after relatively small scale white collar criminals. He also appears to have almost never pursued any top corporate executives involved in deceptive, unethical, illegal or corrupt health care practices, while the government constantly pursues perpetrators of relatively small scale Medicare and Medicaid fraud (look here). One of his US Attorneys notably pursued the late Aaron Swartz for vaguely specified computer crimes which did not appear to harm anyone while she gave passes to executives at big health care corporations that settled cases of alleged actions that likely harmed patients (look here). His failure to pursue such large scale health care corruption should be regarded as no less serious than his failure to pursue financial corruption.
There have been many, many such settlements, as we have discussed on Health Care Renewal. At least these settlements serve as evidence that many, many large health care organizations have behaved unethically, often in ways that not only increase health costs, but may directly harm patients. Yet the settlements seem bent over backwards not to trouble the people who personally profited from unethical behavior.
Individual company marketers, their supervisors, and top executive likely made more money because of the revenue brought in by the unethical practices. However, the settlement somehow avoided identifying any of them, or even stating unequivocally that the company, or any of its employees did anything wrong. That is absurd, since if nothing bad was done by anybody, why did the company have to pay anything? Beyond that, if individuals who work for big drug companies, and other large health care organizations know that whatever they do in their official capacities, they will not be held personally responsible, what would deter them from taking unethical actions in the future?
Most citizens trust drug companies to provide safe effective medicines. Marketing drugs as safer than they are, or for purposes for which they are not effective abuses the companies' entrusted power. Doing so in order to enrich oneself thus is a manifestation of corruption. The ongoing parade of legal settlements is thus a marker of how corrupt health care has become.
Furthermore, the continued inability of regulators and law enforcement to do more in the face of corruption suggest moral failure, incompetence, and perhaps more corruption.
We will never achieve true health care reform, and will never really improve our vastly over-priced, ineffective health care system until we address this sort of health care corruption.
A final note: Eric Holder, the current US Attorney General, will soon leave. While he has been hailed for promoting human rights in some instance (that is, for LGBT individuals), he has been criticized for never making an effort to pursue the top corporate executives who were responsible for the global financial collapse of 2008 (look here) although the Department of Justice constantly goes after relatively small scale white collar criminals. He also appears to have almost never pursued any top corporate executives involved in deceptive, unethical, illegal or corrupt health care practices, while the government constantly pursues perpetrators of relatively small scale Medicare and Medicaid fraud (look here). One of his US Attorneys notably pursued the late Aaron Swartz for vaguely specified computer crimes which did not appear to harm anyone while she gave passes to executives at big health care corporations that settled cases of alleged actions that likely harmed patients (look here). His failure to pursue such large scale health care corruption should be regarded as no less serious than his failure to pursue financial corruption.
"While the organization had to sign a "corporate integrity agreement," it is not clear that such agreements prevent future bad behavior." Especially when the corporation will soon no longer exist (as it will have been acquired and in a different name).
ReplyDelete