CORRUPTION OF CLINICAL TRIALS REPORTS: A PROPOSAL

CORRUPTION OF CLINICAL TRIALS REPORTS:

A PROPOSAL

There is a disconnection between the FDA’s drug approval process and the reports we see in medical journals. Pharmaceutical corporations exploit this gap through adulterated, self-serving analyses, and the FDA sits on its hands. I suggest we need a new mechanism to fix the problem – by independent analyses of clinical trials data.

When they analyze and publish their clinical trials in medical journals, pharmaceutical corporations have free rein to shape the analyses. The FDA conducts independent analyses of the data submitted by the corporations, and it may deny or delay approval. But the FDA does not challenge the reports that flood our medical journals, both before and after FDA approval. It is no secret that these publications are routinely biased for marketing effect, but the FDA averts its gaze. That failure of the FDA – a posture known as enforcement discretion – has been well documented. The question is why? At the same time, exposing the biases has been difficult for outsiders because the data are considered proprietary secrets.

A Case Study

Now, a detailed example of deliberate corporate bias has finally been documented, through materials released in litigation. This exposé was reported by Drs. Jon Jureidini, Jay Amsterdam, and Leemon McHenry. Their findings were recently published, and their article is freely available on-line. This example concerned a clinical trial of an antidepressant drug in children and adolescents. The drug, citalopram, was already approved for use in adults, and its off-label use in children would spread if there was published supportive evidence. An Investigational New Drug (IND) protocol and plan of analysis were filed by Forest Laboratories with the FDA in 1999. The trial was completed in 2002, and the results were published in American Journal of Psychiatry in 2004 – but the FDA did not accept the results as sufficient to approve this drug for use in children or adolescent patients. By that time the patent on citalopram had expired and Forest Laboratories introduced a virtual twin drug, escitalopram (single active enantiomer). That more expensive version of citalopram was heavily promoted, and it was approved in 2009 for use in children, but even then the FDA specifically noted that safety and efficacy were not established in children under age 12. Since then, new analyses suggest that most antidepressant drugs have little evidence of efficacy even in older children.

Tricks of the Trade

In service of a positive report, the statistical analyses performed by Forest Laboratories deviated from the IND plan of analysis, and negative results were edited out. The biases now documented by Dr. Jureidini and his colleagues for that 2004 sponsored report in American Journal of Psychiatry included:

·       Inflating the main measure of the drug's effect by reporting an incorrect and clearly exaggerated effect size. On being challenged, the authors later explained their misinformed computation without actually acknowledging the error.

·    Failure to report secondary measures of response because they were negative. Those measures had been stipulated in the IND protocol to serve as cross-checks on the main result. These negative findings were airbrushed out of the publication by corporate marketing.

·    Unplanned, new secondary measures of response were inserted ex post facto because they were positive (that is a real no-no).

·    Violations of the IND protocol were not reported and were then fudged (patients who had properly been excluded per protocol were put back in for analysis, which made a nonsignificant primary outcome analysis turn positive).

·    Adverse events were analyzed and summarized in a misleading way.

·    The finding that the drug had no effect on depression in children under age 12 was not reported, even though an age-effect interaction analysis had been specifically projected in the IND protocol. This strategic omission left the impression that off label use of citalopram in younger children could be clinically reasonable.

·    The corporation knew that another, unpublished, trial in children, conducted by their European partner Lundbeck was negative, and that it raised concerns about suicide risk, but that information was withheld. The authors later were challenged in the journal about this concealment. Their response was utterly disingenuous.

·    The published article failed to acknowledge that it was authored by a non-medical ghostwriter, who took direction from marketing executives – the 2004 publication was a marketing product purporting to be an objective scientific report.

·    Academic authors were recruited only after the manuscript was written, reviewed, and approved in-house – these nominal academic authors were signed on to front for the corporate narrative.

·    The perfunctory role of the academic (ahem) authors is clear from the fact that they failed to recognize the wildly inflated effect size claimed for the drug – something that was instantly obvious to several groups of competent readers.

The Payoff

These changes created the appearance of a positive result, and the publication drew wide attention. According to Thomson Reuters Web of Science, it has been cited over 160 times, placing it in the top 5% of cited articles in clinical medicine from 2004. This early publication gave plausible justification for off-label use of citalopram/escitalopram in children, even with FDA approval having been denied, and even though the trial was actually negative. The FDA has reported that between 2005 and 2010 well over 750,000 patients up to age 17 received escitalopram, including almost 160,000 under age 12. Thus, the sleight of hand about failure to show even fudged efficacy in younger children is especially deplorable. Internal memoranda reproduced in the exposé by Dr. Jureidini and his colleagues give a clear picture of the corporate manipulation of the scientific publication process. Now we know – in black and white – just how bad the bias can be. This kind of data manipulation, with ad hoc cherry picking and moving of goalposts, is unacceptable, but it is entrenched. Indeed, it is business as usual – and the FDA looks away.

A Specific Proposal

Our primary defense against such perversions of scientific reporting is fidelity to the registered IND protocol and plan of statistical analysis. The solution is not hard to see: We need independent analyses of clinical trials because we cannot trust the corporate analyses. In effect, we need something like the Underwriters Laboratory to verify the statistical analyses of clinical trials. Nobody takes the manufacturing corporation’s word for it concerning the safety and performance of X-ray machines or cardiac defibrillators. Why treat the statistical analysis of drug trials any differently? It’s highly technical work.

Who should assume that responsibility? Why not the FDA? After all, they alone see all the data. My specific proposal is for Congress to mandate that the FDA analyze all clinical trials data strictly according to the registered protocols and analysis plans. That requirement should apply to new drugs or to approved drugs being tested for new indications. It should apply also to publications reporting new trials of approved drugs. Corporations and investigators should be prohibited from publishing their own in-house statistical analyses unless verified by FDA oversight.

Why Bother?

There are three good reasons for prohibiting in-house corporate analyses of clinical trials data. First, as the present example illustrates, the inherent conflict of interest is simply too great to be ignored. Second, when corporate statisticians who answer to marketing executives get “creative” in the ways exposed here, then the conditions for valid statistical analyses no longer apply – the statisticians are then on a fishing expedition and they are no longer testing the defined study question with fidelity to the methods specified in the IND protocol. In that case, any nominally significant statistical findings are just exploratory, not actionable – not good enough to justify off-label use of the drug, especially when properly evaluated alternatives are available.

Third, there can be no justification for treating the production of influential publications in medical journals any differently than we treat the production of potent drugs. Our FDA continuously inspects production facilities for evidence of physical adulteration, even as far away as China. They now need to monitor the adulteration of clinical trials reports in medical journals. The harms of adulterated analyses can be just as serious as the harms of adulterated products.

Push Back from Pharma?

We can expect the pharmaceutical industry to mount a First Amendment challenge to this proposal. It will fail, because the public health is too important. Just as there is no First Amendment right to shout fire in a crowded theater, so also corporations have no First Amendment right to say a drug is safe and effective when they know it isn’t. That is a betrayal of patients.

The corporations will also claim piously that their publications undergo peer review. Sadly, that is no barrier to this pervasive corporate bias because the peer reviewers for medical journals don’t see all the real data – they see only the data the corporation wants them to see. Only the FDA sees all the data. We can no longer cling to the myth of informed and unbiased peer review of clinical trials reports. The corporations rely on that myth as a fig leaf to support their First Amendment claims and to defend their practice of in-house statistical analyses. Moreover, medical journals also are subject to bias and conflict of interest. We could note that the Associate Editor of American Journal of Psychiatry in 2004 was also a major U.S. key opinion leader for Forest Laboratories. According to one of the released depositions, he was instrumental in securing acceptance of the report by the journal.

Business as Usual?

The present example is not an isolated case. Dr. Jureidini and his co-authors described several similar, recent examples. One of those was the reanalysis by Jureidini and others of an infamous trial of paroxetine for pediatric depression. And still, fresh exposés keep appearing. The latest is from Lisa Cosgrove at the University of Massachusetts in Boston and her colleagues, involving “ghost management of the information delivery process” for another new antidepressant drug, vortioxetine – available on-line here. (What is it with the antidepressants, anyway?) On this Health Care Renewal blog, Roy Poses has called attention to these issues. As recently as June 8, 2016 he discussed the Transparency International report on corruption in the pharmaceutical sector.

Eric Topol, who helped to expose the Vioxx scandal, made similar points recently in a BMJ commentary: “The bad science in clinical trials has been well documented and includes selective publication of positive results, data dredging, P hacking, HARKing, and changing the outcomes that were prespecified at the beginning of the study…. Furthermore, the disparity between what appears in peer reviewed journals and what has been filed with regulatory agencies is long standing and unacceptable.”

It’s No Time for Old Solutions 

As the eye-popping numbers of children treated with escitalopram show, even off-label use of an undistinguished drug in a niche population can be highly profitable. That is why I am proposing that the statistical analysis of clinical trials data can no longer be entrusted to pharmaceutical corporations, on account of their massive inherent conflict of interest. Open access to patient level data, as well as pre-registration of protocols and of data analysis plans, have been actively promoted for some years now to clean up the corporate bias in clinical trials. These are positive developments, but they will not close the disconnection highlighted just above by Dr. Topol. The once idealistic world of clinical trials has changed irreversibly in the past 30 years. As one observer has noted, “… in the course of time the coordinated actions of industry, government, and the biomedical research community have degraded the basic rules of empirical science…” We would do well to acknowledge this fact, and to recognize with Abramson and Starfield that “The first step is to give up the illusion that the primary purpose of modern medical research is to improve Americans’ health most effectively and efficiently. In our opinion, the primary purpose of commercially funded clinical research is to maximize financial return on investment, not health.”

When corporations are involved, there is no point in prolonging the myth of noble and dispassionate clinical scientists searching for truth in clinical trials. It’s over. We would do better to stop pretending that corporate articles in medical journals are anything but marketing messages disguised with the fig leafs of coöpted academic authors and of so-called peer review. The case study reported out by Drs. John Jureidini, Jay Amsterdam, and Leemon McHenry shows us the real face of business as usual in commercial clinical trials. That being the case, it makes no sense to expect corporations and academic key opinion leaders suddenly to reform their biased and conflicted behavior. Only a structural change from the outside like I propose here has any chance of succeeding. The statistical analysis of clinical trials is too important to be entrusted to the sponsoring corporations.

It is time for Congress to grasp this nettle. The time for enforcement discretion is past, and we need Congress either to direct the FDA to act or to create a new mechanism of oversight. To do nothing would be unthinkable.

Bernard J. Carroll

Professor and Chairman Emeritus,

Department of Psychiatry, 

Duke University Medical Center.

E-mail: bcarroll40@comcast.net

The writer is a former chairman of the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, Food and Drug Administration, U.S Public Health Service.

Acknowledgment: Several colleagues commented and made suggestions on drafts of this post – in particular John M. Nardo, MD, Donald F. Klein, M.D., and Patrick Skerrett from STAT News.

Update 06-23-2016:  This post was cross-posted on Naked Capitalism, where some interesting comments can be found.

The Tragic Case of Aaron Swartz: Unequal Justice for Web Activists vs Health Care Corporate Executives

The recent tragic case of the suicide of Aaron Swartz raises many issues, and has inspired an outpouring of news coverage and internet discussion.  Yet one issue it should raise that has not received much notice so far is that of how individuals and top executives are treated differently before the law.

Summary of the Case

Aaron Swartz was a prodigy who developed  helped develop the RSS system for disseminating updates on web-site contents, and who helped develop the Reddit web-site.  He was an advocate for information freedom, and more broadly, according to Matt Stoller, "a political activist interested in health care, financial corruption, and the drug war."  Furthermore, he "recognized that politics is a corrupt money driven system, but also that it could be cracked if you spent the time to understand the moving parts."

Although apparently very well known among internet activists and computer scientists, Mr Swartz did not attract a lot of mainstream media attention, at least until 2011 when he was arrested "on a series of felony counts including wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and recklessly damaging a protected computer," according to the New York Times.  His alleged crime was that he downloaded thousands of scientific scholarly articles from the site JSTOR, and was accused of intending to make them publicly available for free.  Note that the articles were already publicly available, but only online through expensive subscriptions.  At the time, the US Department of Justice took this to be a very serious crime:

'Stealing is stealing, whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars,' the United States attorney for Massachusetts, Carmen M. Ortiz, said last week in a statement about the case. 'It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away.' 

The charges Ms Ortiz filed lead to Mr Swartz's arrest

on a series of felony counts including wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on all counts, the Justice Department said he could face up to 35 years in prison and $1 million in fines. 

Yet Mr Swartz certainly was not accused of either violence or of planning to personally profit from his alleged crimes.  At the time of his arrest, the severity of the allegations baffled many:

 'This makes no sense,' said David Segal, executive director of Demand Progress, an organization Mr. Swartz founded to rally support online for an open Internet. 'It’s like trying to put someone in jail for allegedly checking too many books out of the library.'

JSTOR got the hard drives that contained the articles in question back from Mr Swartz, and planned no further action:

Asked if it was pleased that someone misusing the service could be brought to justice, a spokeswoman for Jstor wrote in an e-mail response: 'We wanted the content back, and we were able to secure it and ensure it wasn’t distributed. We were not interested in further legal action around this incident. We have no comment on the prosecution or how they have chosen to characterize it.'

Since 2011 the case got little notice until Mr Swartz ended his own life this month.  After his death, his family and partner issued a statement, as reported by the Guardian:

In a statement released late Saturday, Swartz's parents, Robert and Susan, siblings Noah and Ben and partner Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman said the Redditt builder's demise was not just a 'personal tragedy' but 'the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach'.

They also attacked the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for not supporting the internet activist in his legal battles and refusing to stand up for 'its own community's most cherished principles'.

And according to the New York Times (via CNBC), Harvard Professor Larry Lessig, Director of the Safra Center for Ethics, where Swartz had been a fellow protested

the idea that he could have seen serious prison time was infuriating. Lawrence Lessig, the Harvard Law professor who founded Creative Commons to advocate greater sharing of creative material online, called the prosecution's case absurd and said that boxing in Mr. Swartz with an aggressive case and little ability to mount a defense ''made it make sense to this brilliant but troubled boy to end it.'

 Hounding Swartz but Failing to Pursue Health Care Corporate Executives

The Daily Beast just ran a story that suggests that Swartz should have known better to have done something that would have attracted the wrath of one of the toughest federal prosecutors, but one who is also a "liberal's dream."  It opened its piece on US Attorney Carmen Ortiz thus:

 Until she was accused of driving the 26-year-old cyber wunderkind and public-access activist Aaron Swartz to suicide, the top federal prosecutor in Massachusetts was a liberal’s dream.

 Not for nothing was United States Attorney Carmen Ortiz championed by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy and appointed by President Obama nearly four years ago.

Then, it suggested how tough Ms Ortiz really is:

She is Hispanic and was raised in a New York housing project, and after her husband died of cancer she raised two daughters on her own. She has taken on political corruption, and she has been so aggressive against white-collar crime that her office collected more in forfeitures and fines than any other jurisdiction in the country.

Her avowed motive in becoming a prosecutor was because 'there’s a greater chance for justice.'

that is a pretty amazing summary.  However, it seems decidedly at odds with Ms Ortiz's record dealing with misdeeds by health care corporations, as discussed on Health Care Renewal.  Ms Ortiz, whose harsh views of Swartz appear above, has been quoted at least three times about three different cases on this blog.  In all instances, her quotes were in the context of legal settlements she made with large health care corporations.

Forest Pharmaceuticals

In September, 2010, how Ms Ortiz led the pursuit of a settlement with Forest Pharmaceuticals became apparent (look here).   The company was accused of promoting its anti-depressant Celexa for use in adolescents and children.  Such drugs have since been shown to increase the risk of suicide by such young patients, and this drug was only approved for adults.  At the time, Ms Ortiz said, "Forest Pharmaceuticals deliberately chose to pursue corporate profits over its obligations to the F.D.A. and the American public."  Although the offense may have lead to use of the drug by many adolescents and children, and hence may have lead to some of them attempting or committing suicide, the case was settled only with fines.  As is usual in such legal settlements, no individual corporate executive who authorized or lead the off-label and potentially dangerous marketing of the drug was arrested, or accused, and none suffered any negative consequences.

GlaxoSmithKline

In October, 2010, how Ms Ortiz led the pursuit of a settlement with GlaxoSmithKline became apparent (look here.)  The company was accused of selling drugs that were not what they appeared to be, apparently because the wrong drugs were put in labelled containers.  Obviously, taking one drug, like Paxil, GSK's anti-depressant which has a number of known adverse effects, including suicide risk for adolescents and children as noted above, when a patient is supposed to be taking a wholly different drug could lead to patient harm.  At that time, Ms Ortiz said, "We will not tolerate corporate attempts to profit at the expense of the ill and needy in our society -- or those who cut corners that result in potentially dangerous consequences to consumers."   Again, while the settlement involved a guilty plea by a GSK subsidiary, again no individual corporate executive who had authority over the drug manufacturing was arrested or accused, much less suffered any negative consequences.

St Jude Medical

In January, 2011, Ms Ortiz led the pursuit of a settlement with St Jude Medical (look here).  The company was accused of paying kickbacks to doctors to implant its cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) and pacemakers.  Obviously, providing kickbacks to doctors may have lead them to plant devices in patients who did not really need them, yet the devices and the implantation procedures can have adverse effects.  At that time, Ms Ortiz said, "The United States alleges that St Jude solicited physicians for the studies in order to retain their business and/or convert their business from a competitor's product."  Again, as is usual, the settlement did not require any executive who authorized or directed the activities leading to the kickbacks suffered any negative consequences.

So in summary, in three major cases involving unethical practices by big health care corporations that could have put patients at risk, US Attorney Carmen Ortiz provided strong words, but did not apparently seek any punishment of any form of any of the corporate leaders who authorized or directed the bad, and potentially dangerous behavior.  Yet in the sorry case of Aaron Swartz, Ms Ortiz charged a gifted computer activist whose alleged crimes certainly did not put any individuals at risk of adverse medical effects or any bad physical outcomes with crimes that if proven would have lead to years in jail and millions in fines for him as an individual.

Equal Justice Under the Law?

So it seems ironic, or worse, that the main narrative of the Swartz case has become: well meaning but reckless hacker versus implacably tough law enforcer.  As noted above, Ms Ortiz's office appeared anything but tough when dealing with misdeeds by big pharmaceutical and device companies.  So the real question is why she went after Mr Swartz so relentlessly, when his alleged crime was non-violent and physically hurt nobody, when she failed to pursue corporate executives who enriched themselves while leading companies whose unethical practices likely harmed a lot of patients.

In that light, the dark imaginings of Matt Stoller do not seem so far-fetched.  On Naked Capitalism he wrote,

 As we think about what happened to Aaron, we need to recognize that it was not just prosecutorial overreach that killed him. That’s too easy, because that implies it’s one bad apple. We know that’s not true. What killed him was corruption. Corruption isn’t just people profiting from betraying the public interest. It’s also people being punished for upholding the public interest. In our institutions of power, when you do the right thing and challenge abusive power, you end up destroying a job prospect, an economic opportunity, a political or social connection, or an opportunity for media. Or if you are truly dangerous and brilliantly subversive, as Aaron was, you are bankrupted and destroyed.

I did not know Aaron Swartz, but am very sorry that we have lost someone so intelligent and imaginative.  I hope one question that his untimely death raises is what has become of the idea of equal justice under the law, and how its apparent demise has enabled the dysfunction of our health care system, and our whole society. 

Retreat Back to Regulatory Capture: US FDA, NIH, Department of Health and Human Services All Back Off

After some brave words about transparency, integrity and all that, US government officials seem to be running back to the arms of the health care corporate CEOs.

Weakening FDA Conflict of Interest Rules

As reported by Reuters,

U.S. lawmakers likely will change the criteria for advisers reviewing new medicines next year because of complaints that the rules meant to prevent conflicts of interest make it harder to find real experts.

Congressional lawmakers may require the Food and Drug Administration to relax the rules that bar advisers from reviewing a drug if they have even indirect financial ties to related manufacturers, as part of an FDA funding bill.

This was not purely an initiative of legislators, but was egged on by a top FDA administrator

The agency often must delay panel meetings while it searches for experts without conflicts, lawmakers and FDA officials say. Top doctors are usually the ones drugmakers hire as speakers or consultants.

'We have had difficulty in recruiting highly qualified people. And we've had delays in having panels because of this,' Dr. Janet Woodcock, head of the FDA's drugs center, told a House of Representatives hearing earlier this month.

The result is that 23 percent of FDA advisory panels have vacancies, more than double the agency's stated goal, according to the FDA's quarterly report at the end of May.

The rationale was that those paid by drug and device companies are the most expert:

The FDA tightened guidelines in 2007 to minimize industry ties that could sway a panelist's view, partly inspired by the scandal with Merck's pain reliever Vioxx.

Ten of the 32 panelists advising the FDA on the drug consulted for drugmakers. Nine of the 10 recommended putting the drug back on the market after it was pulled in 2004 over concerns about heart risk.

The restrictions go too far, say lawmakers who want the FDA to approve more new medicines, in part because they promote American jobs.

'No longer can we deny experts simply because they have ties to industry,' said Georgia Representative Phil Gingrey during a House of Representative hearing on FDA funding last month. The committee's chairman, Fred Upton from Michigan, called the conflict of interest rules 'rigid and unrealistic.'

Industry executives, who want the FDA to speed drug approvals, also support relaxing the rules. Biogen Idec CEO George Scangos said the guidelines 'exclude a lot of people who would be the best qualified.'

Of course, the drug and device companies have been touting their paid "key opinion leaders" as the best and the brightest for a long time. There is plenty of evidence, however, that they are mainly those whom those companies find the most compliant, and in many cases, those who are willing to be stealth marketers on those companies' payrolls. (See this post about those who recruit KOLs regarding them as salesmen, and more here.)  "Key opinion leaders" supported by commercial grant funding may seem like experts to academic medical institutions' leadership who now value outside funding more than teaching and research excellence (see this post).

Furthermore, as reported by Politco, the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, chastised FDA leadership for exaggerating the difficulty of finding unconflicted experts, concluding in their letter to the FDA Commissioner, "to gain the public trust, we must ensure that the FDA relies on the best available information for its policies, rather than personal opinions and biases."

So far, government officials seem to be more worried about the opinions of corporate leaders than the public trust.

Weakening NIH Conflict of Interest

As discussed in Nature,

Francis Collins hailed it as a 'new era of clarity and transparency in the management of financial conflicts of interest' (S. J. Rockey and F. S. Collins J. Am. Med. Assoc. 303, 2400–2402; 2010). But the director of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) may have spoken too soon when he described a new rule, proposed last year, that would require universities and medical schools to publicly disclose online any financial arrangements that they believe could unduly influence the work of their NIH-funded researchers.

Nature has learned that a cornerstone of that transparency drive — a series of publicly accessible websites detailing such financial conflicts — has now been dropped.

In more detail,

The NIH's parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), proposed the new rule in May 2010, after congressional and media investigations revealed that prominent NIH grant recipients had failed to tell their universities or medical schools about lucrative payments from companies that may have influenced their government-funded research. The DHHS called the proposed websites 'an important and significant new requirement to … underscore our commitment to fostering transparency, accountability, and public trust'. Under the proposal, institutions with NIH-funded researchers would determine, grant by grant, if any financial conflicts existed for senior scientists on the grant. For example, these would include receiving consultancy fees, or holding shares in a company, 'that could directly and significantly affect the design, conduct, or reporting' of the research. The institutions would post the details online, where they would stay for at least five years.

But of course the medical schools decided that it would just be too much trouble to do all this:

'The websites don't appear out of nowhere,' says Heather Pierce, senior director of science policy at the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) in Washington DC. They would 'require employees to not only create the website but to pull the information, review it, and make sure it is up to date and accurate'.

That is not the only objection from the powerful academic lobbies. During the public comment period last summer, the Association of American Universities and the AAMC submitted a joint statement saying: 'There are serious and reasonable concerns among our members that the Web posting will be of little practical value to the public and, without context for the information, could lead to confusion rather than clarity regarding financial conflicts of interest and how they are managed.'

Given how academic medical institutions have expanded their administrations and bureaucracy, the enormous amounts they spend on management, and the huge compensation they give their executives, and further given how much of their revenues come from government sources (Medicare, Medicaid money for patient care, Veterans Administration money supporting many faculty members, Medicare money funding graduate medical education, and NIH and other government research grants), the notion that getting a few staffers to process disclosures would be administratively or financially burdensome is just laughable.

At least Iowa's Republican Senator Charles Grassley, seemingly one of the last politicians in Washington who cares about the integrity of government programs and spending, is upset. As reported again by Nature,

The US Senate's leading advocate for government transparency wrote today to the White House's budget office, demanding that it protect a proposed rule that would obligate universities to post their publicly-funded biomedical researchers' financial conflicts on a publicly accessible website.

'The public's business should be public... I urge OMB to follow through and approve a rule that includes a publicly available website,' Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa ..., wrote in in this letter to Jacob Lew, the director of the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Furthermore, he wrote:

I am troubled that taxpayers cannot learn about the outside income of the researchers whom the taxpayers are funding, and this flies in the face of President Obama's call for more transparency in the government.

We will see if his protest does any good, but again it appears that government officials are more worried about the revenues of big health care organizations than the needs of the public.

Retreating from Threats to Disbar Forest Laboratories CEO

We previously posted about how the US Department of Health and Human Services threatened to disbar the CEO of Forrest Laboratories from dealings with the government after his company pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and misbranding, and paid a $313 million fine.

Now, per Alicia Mundy writing for the Wall Street Journal, things have changed:

The U.S. government dropped efforts to force the resignation of a prominent pharmaceutical-company chief executive, reversing course after protests from the company and major business groups.

The about-face on Forest Laboratories's longtime leader, Howard Solomon, represents a significant retreat by the Department of Health and Human Services, which has said it wants to step up punishments against drug-company executives when wrongdoing happens on their watch.

Forest agreed last year to plead guilty to misdemeanors involving marketing of its drugs including the antidepressant Celexa, and it paid $313 million to resolve the matter.

Mr. Solomon wasn't personally accused of any wrongdoing. Nonetheless, the government notified him in April that it was considering excluding him from jobs at health-care companies that sell to the U.S. government. It invoked a little-used clause in the Social Security Act that allows such an action against corporate leaders of companies found guilty of criminal misconduct, even if the leaders had no knowledge of the misconduct.

The exclusion move would have effectively forced Forest to remove Mr. Solomon from office, because Forest and other drug companies rely on business from U.S. government agencies such as Medicare and the Veterans Administration.

In a letter to Mr. Solomon on Friday, the office of the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services said, 'Based on a review of information in our file, and consideration of the information your attorneys provided to us both in writing and in an in-person meeting, we have decided to close this case.'

We have discussed - some might say endlessly - how despite numerous publicly reported cases of wrongdoing by health care organizations, hardly any individual who authorized, directed or implemented the bad behavior has ever faced any negative consequences. There have been recent fulminations by some government officials that this is going to change. The case of the Forest Laboratories CEO appeared to be an example of such change, but no more.

The Wall Street Journal went on to discuss why the government may have changed course:

The government's retreat came after a barrage of complaints from Forest and business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the drug industry's leading trade group.

In July, Forest spent $80,000 to hire former Louisiana Sen. John Breaux to lobby the government regarding exclusion, according to Senate records. Mr. Breaux didn't return a call requesting comment. Forest said earlier that it was just trying to make its case that this was a highly unusual action by the U.S. government.

Of course it was unusual. That is the whole problem.

In any case, it looked like the government was much more concerned about the coddling of corporate CEOs and their lobbyists' and cronies' opinions than about deterring bad behavior by large health care organizations.

Summary

After a bit of blustering by the current US administration about transparency and integrity it appears to be back to business as usual in the US capital. Over the last 20 years, government has increasingly answered to corporate CEOs instead of "we, the people." Protecting patients' and the public's health has given way to protecting the financial health of large health care organizations, and the compensation of rich CEOs. Federalism is giving way to corporatism. As long as this continues, expect our health care system to continue its slow collapse. Eventually, expect the CEOs to get in their private jets and escape while the rest of us picks up the pieces.

Until we dispel the fog of corporatism that has spread over the government that was once supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, expect no real health care reform, and expect continuing rising costs, declining access, and worsening patient care. Obviously, true health care reform would start with the government and its officials putting patients' and the public's health first, way ahead of the financial comfort of corporate CEOs.

See also comments by Alison Bass.

Health Care for the Very Rich is Different from That for You and Me - the Case of the CEO's Six-Figure Hip Replacement

Another glimpse of health care for the very rich comes by way of a BNet post by Jim Edwards about the beleaguered CEO of Forest Laboratories.

The background is that:

The CEO is fighting to retain his place atop the company against both investor Carl Icahn, who wants his own directors on Forest’s board, and the Department of Health & Human Services, which wants to exclude Solomon from the drug business as a punishment for the company settling a $313 million investigation by the Department of Justice over its illegal marketing of Levothroid and other drugs.

We had posted about the government threat to disbar him from government business after his company here.

Edwards noted that despite these setbacks, Solomon's total compensation actually increased:

Forest Labs (FRX) reported that CEO Howard Solomon earned $8.9 million in fiscal 2011, 7 percent more than last year,...

This is par for the course for executive compensation in health care. We have discussed numerous instances in which such pay defies gravity, rising even when serious questions have been raised about the performance of the executives and the organizations they lead. We most recently belabored this issue here.

However, Edwards also wrote

The company also spent $316,638 on medical expenses for the 83-year-old CEO, up from $56,571 in 2010. The company’s proxy disclosure did not say what was wrong with Solomon. UPDATE: A spokesperson for the company said:

Mr. Solomon is in excellent health and has no ongoing medical conditions that would impair his ability to continue functioning as the Company’s CEO. A good portion of last year’s expense was related to hip replacement following a fall when he was playing tennis – which he has now reluctantly discontinued.

Later, he summarized the amounts the company paid for Mr Solomon's medical care in previous years:

Here’s how Solomon’s medical bills have increased over the last few years.

2011: $316,638
2010: $56,571
2009: $28,000
2008: $25,000

Mr Solomon is 83 years old, and therefore qualified years ago for Medicare, the US single payer health insurance system for the elderly and disabled. Medicare serves as the primary health insurance for many elderly people, and it covers hip replacements for quite a few of them. A publication by Zimmer, one of the larger manufacturers of prosthetic hips, noted that Medicare payment rates in 2009 for hip replacement were up to about $25,000 for hospitals, and up to about $1500 for surgical fees.

Yet Forest Laboratories increased its payments to Mr Solomon for health care by about $250,000 due to his hip replacement. This amount is obviously an order of magnitude bigger than the usual Medicare payments for hip replacements, and presumably was paid in addition to the amounts Medicare paid for this surgery.

Nothing in Mr Edwards' post, or in the proxy statement from which the numbers came explains the use to which the $250,000 was put. The size of the amount does suggest that Mr Solomon received some sort of health care much more expensive than that available to the general public.

We have previously noted a few instances (e.g. here)  suggesting that the amounts large corporations pay for their top executives' health care are far larger than even the high prices charged by commercial health insurers.  Information from litigation suggested that one retired corporate CEO was entitled to payments for all sorts of amenities, such as first-class transportation, services of personal aides and trainers, cosmetic procedures, etc in conjunction with his health care (see post here).  The case of the Forest Laboratories CEO provides more evidence that top corporate leaders receive health care in what amounts to a system separate from and in a tier above what even supposedly well-insured "regular people" can access. 

The existence of this separate health care system for very rich corporate executives may provide yet another explanation of why real health care reform is so difficult.  We have frequently suggested that those who have become rich from the current health care system are likely to strongly resist any changes to that system that might threaten their continued accumulation of wealth.  These peoples' riches provide them with the resources to fight such changes, e.g., through stealth policy advocacy (see posts here and here).  Furthermore, these peoples' access to a separate health care system for the very rich makes it extremely unlikely that they or their families will ever experience the problems that drive many common folk to despair about our current health care dysfunction.

Perhaps some intrepid investigative reporter will write a Pulitzer prize-worthy story about the parallel health care system for the very rich.  Perhaps some honest health services researcher will study how the existence of such a system affects policy-makers.

At the least, we deserve health care policy informed by how the health care affects real people, and not made solely by those who are sheltered from he vicissitudes of the real, and currently dysfunctional health care system.

Logical Fallacies to Defend CEOs from Responsibility for their Companies' Bad Actions

There is now quite a kerfuffle over the US Department of Health and Human Service's threat to to stop doing business with the CEO of Forest Laboratories.  As we noted here, his company pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and misbranding, and agreed to pay a $313 million fine.  The major allegations by the government were that the company marketed antidepressants to children when they had only previously been approved for adults. Their marketing tactics allegedly included suppressing negative studies, and paying physicians to prescribe the drugs.

The kerfuffle involves a number of ostensible authorities and pundits defending the CEO, and challenging the government's attempts to hold him responsible for his company's actions.  The kerfuffle also provides some splendid examples of logical fallacies deployed in defense of the powers that be. 

Double Standards: Avoiding Blame for Failures While Taking Credit for Successes

The greatest angst seemed to be generated that Mr Solomon could be sanctioned for actions which he did not directly take. 

First, the Wall Street Journal reported that:

Forest Labs representatives said they were shocked when the intent-to-ban notice was received a few weeks later, because Mr. Solomon wasn't accused by the government of misconduct.

Forest is sticking by its chief. 'No one has ever alleged that Mr. Solomon did anything wrong, and excluding him [from the industry] is unjustified,' said general counsel Herschel Weinstein. 'It would also set an extremely troubling precedent that would create uncertainty throughout the industry and discourage regulatory settlements.'

Later in the same article, there was more dismay that Mr Solomon should suffer any negative consequences for the actions of someone else:

Lawyers not involved in the Forest case said the attempt to punish an executive who isn't accused of misconduct could tie up the industry's day-to-day work in legal knots.

'This 'gotcha' approach to enforcement runs the risk of creating a climate within organizations that is inconsistent with the spirit of innovation that is critical to the industry,' said Allen Waxman of Kaye Scholer LLP in New York, who was formerly an in-house counsel at a drug maker.

However, Mr Solomon is not a janitor.  He was the company CEO, and was paid a fortune ostensibly because he was responsible for everything going on in the company.

In fact, the most recent (2010) company proxy statement included this description of Mr Solomon:

We believe that Mr. Solomon's experience as a senior executive in our industry, his in-depth knowledge of our Company and its day-to-day operations, and his strong strategic vision for the Company qualify him to serve on the board. [italics added for emphasis]

These attributes presumably also justified his total compensation, which was $8,267,236 in 2010.

If Mr. Solomon's outsize compensation was based on his strategic vision, informed by his "in-depth knowledge of ... [the] Company and its day-to-day operations," how could his defenders claim he knew nothing and had no responsibility for its detailed and in-depth efforts to deceptively market antidepressants to children and adolescents? (See posts here and here for details of that marketing scheme as revealed in court documents.)  This appears to be a double-standard (as found in this alternative catalog of logical fallacies).

By the way, also note how Mr Waxman invoked the "innovation meme," i.e., that any regulation of the company or restrictions on its actions will prevent innovation. The same meme was invoked by a business school professor in one of the first attempts to defend this corporate executive from any attempts to hold him accountable for his company's bad behavior (see post here).  As I noted earlier, "innovation" is used so often to excuse almost any action by large health care corporations that I suspect the meme was developed by  corporate public relations.

Straw-Men and Double-Standards: Barring Mr Solomon vs "Imagined" Actions and Treatment of Foreign Leaders

Another protest was that the government's actions were disproportionate, especially how they treated other cases, as written by Robert Goldberg in the Spectator:

Now it turns out that Team O is tougher on drug company CEOs than it is on brutal dictators and a movement whose goal is wiping out Israel. The administration is applying a little used government approach to knee-capping executives it doesn't like by threatening that HHS won't allow Forest Laboratories to sell medications to Medicare, Medicaid, and other government health programs (which means every health plan under Obamacare) unless it tosses the company's CEO, Howard Solomon. According to news accounts, the action is being taken because government lawyers claim that just fining the company billions isn't stopping illegal behavior. But neither Mr. Solomon nor Forest has been found guilty of any wrongdoing.

Mr Goldberg also asserted, as in the examples above, that Mr Solomon was not personally found guilty.  This may be so, but given that his company gave him credit for all the good resulting from the company's day-to-day actions, denying his responsibility for day-to-day actions gone bad is a double standard.

Furthermore, Mr Goldberg's assertion that Forest was not found guilty is at best a quibble, and at worse, an untruth. As we noted above, the company pleaded (but was not "found) guilty to several charges, a felony and a misdemeanor.

Mr Goldberg then developed another kind of fallacy, this time by comparing the government's treatment of Mr Solomon with some hypothetical actions:

Can you imagine the administration using this tactic against health IT firms, unions, the New Black Panthers, ACORN, or investment banks? For different reasons for each, the answer is 'No.'

This appears to be a compounded set of straw men fallacies.  No one knows whether the government would use these tactics in future hypothetical cases.  What one may imagine could occur in such hypothetical cases is not directly comparable to what has occurred in the current case.  Invoking these imagined future actions amounts to invoking straw men.   
Mr Goldberg got even more imaginative, comparing the government's actions vis a vis Mr Solomon to its actions in the foreign policy realm:

Meanwhile the threat against Forest and its CEO is more draconian than actions the Obama administration is taking against Assad. The dictator who has slaughtered his people, aided Iran, built a uranium-enrichment facility, staged the Hezbollah takeover of Lebanon, and whose country is soon to be part of the UN Human Rights Council has received a stern warning from the president but nothing more.

Of course, it is one thing for a government agency to decide not to do business with an individual within the country whose company admitted to violating the law. It is another thing for a government to attempt to take "actions" against a foreign leader over whom the government has no legal authority.  So here is another kind of double-standard (see this alternative catalog of logical fallacies.)

Straw Man: The Case of Rituxan

Meanwhile, in Forbes, Charles L Hooper and David R Henderson argued that Forest Laboratories' actions do not merit any punishment at all, not of the company nor of Mr Solomon:

But it's bad to market unapproved drugs and to promote drugs for unapproved uses, right? Not exactly.

First, Hooper and Henderson argued that Forest Laboratories' off-label marketing of l-thyroxine (a thyroid hormone) was a mere technicality. This appears to be mainly a distraction, since most of the case involved marketing antidepressants.  In any case, they then argued that:

The fact is that off-label uses of drugs have saved lives. Consider Genentech and Biogen Idec's Rituxan, which the FDA approved in 1997 for relapsed or refractory CD20-positive B-cell low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL).

Of course, the Forest Laboratory case did not involve punishing physicians for off-label uses of any drug. It involved punishing Forest Laboratories and possibly its CEO for the marketing of drugs for off-label uses. The drugs involved were obviously not Rituxan. They did include Celexa, an antidepressant, which no one ever claimed is a life-saving drug (but which is a member of a class of drugs that may be ineffective and may increase the risk of suicidal ideation or even action in children and adolescents, the groups for which it was marketed off-label by Forest Laboratories).   So the attempt to invoke Rituxan, as if someone was proposing restrictions on its off-label use, was another straw man.   

Summary

So once again we see how logical fallacies are used to defend the powers that be in health care.  Once again, note that the these logically challenged defenses come from those with financial ties to the same powers that be.  (In addition to the affiliations noted above, Mr Goldberg is Vice President of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, which SourceWatch describes as a "pharmaceutical industry front group," while Charles L Hooper is "president of Objective Insights, a company that consults for pharmaceutical and biotech companies.")

Let us see if anyone can offer a logical argument why health care corporate CEOs should not be held responsible for their corporations' misbehavior, or if anyone without financial ties to such corporations is willing to defend such lack of responsibility. 

Meanwhile, to repeat again and again,  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.

Will a Pharmaceutical CEO Finally Be Held Accountable for Misbehavior on His Watch?

It appears there may be a move afoot to have the leader of a large health organization suffer some negative consequences for the misbehavior of his organization.  As reported by the St Louis Post-Dispatch,

For the past 34 years, Howard Solomon has presided over Forest Laboratories Inc., a midsize pharmaceutical company that runs its national sales operations from Earth City.

Solomon, 83, took home $8.3 million last year as the company's chairman, president and chief executive officer. But his company's marketing arm also fell into trouble, pleading guilty to federal charges that its sales force illegally marketed the antidepressants Celexa and Lexapro to children and adolescents, even though these drugs had not been approved for minors.

Now, the federal Department of Health and Human Services is attempting to oust Solomon from his job. According to the company, the agency's Office of Inspector General advised Solomon, a Yale Law School alum, last week that it planned to exclude him from doing any business with federal Medicare and Medicaid programs.

The move — similar to the government's exclusion of KV Pharmaceutical's former chairman, Marc Hermelin — is part of a new effort by regulators to use this enforcement tactic to root out 'untrustworthy individuals' who knew or should have known that health care fraud was being committed on their watch.

This appears to be big news. As we have discussed ad infinitum, there has been a parade of legal settlements by large health care organizations of charges of various kinds of wrong-doing. Some of these settlements have involved apparently large monetary penalties. However, the settlements have almost never been accompanied by any negative consequences for the people who authorized, directed or implemented the bad behavior.

The concern all along has been that monetary settlements may just be regarded as a cost of doing business, and as long as misbehavior is lucrative, such settlements have no deterrent effect. In fact, the current practice seemed to grant impunity to corporate leaders. Actually barring a corporate executive from Medicare, which could result in the collapse of his company were he or she not to resign, would be a significant step towards accountability.

Note that the St Louis Post-Dispatch article documented the rarity of imposing any negative consequences on corporate health care executives:

Prosecutors have long been criticized for seldom filing charges against individuals associated with drug companies that are convicted of criminal conduct. Huge fines in recent years against Pfizer Inc. and Eli Lilly & Co., for example, did not stop their chief executives from continuing in their jobs.

Also,

Solomon, who joined the company in 1977, would become the second drug company executive barred from doing business with federal health care programs under a specific provision of the law that authorizes the exclusion of individuals who have not been convicted of a crime.

In October, the agency's Office of Inspector General posted 'guidance' saying that, when there is evidence that an owner/operator or company officer "knew or should have known" of his organization's criminal conduct, the agency 'will operate with a presumption in favor of exclusion.'

Hermelin, an owner/operator of KV Pharmaceutical, was excluded in November from federal health care programs for 20 years — and stepped down from the company's board of directors. He pleaded guilty last month to two criminal misdemeanors connected with his firm's shipment of oversized morphine tablets, and was sentenced to 30 days in the County Jail.

In addition, three executives of the Connecticut-based pharmaceutical company Pardue Frederick were excluded for 15 years from federal health programs under a different provision of the law, after their guilty pleas in 2007 in connection with the misbranding of the painkiller OxyContin.

Meanwhile, it seems that health care corporate CEOs can find academics who will defend their actions no matter what.  It was instructive to see one such defense of Solomon described in the Post-Dispatch article:

Jackson Nickerson, a professor of organization and strategy at Washington University's Olin Business School, said the agency's 'underlying model' for exclusion appeared to be an example of over-regulation.

'It's predicated on the assumption that if a company has done something wrong, it must mean the senior executives have done something wrong,' he said. 'You are branded as being unethical if a subordinate makes a decision that turns out to be a bad one.'

Nickerson said that to encourage innovation, company executives needed to delegate certain responsibilities to employees lower down in the organization. 'The dilemma is, how do you engage in global competition and decentralize, while at the same time be held accountable as an individual leader?'

It does seem that it would be hard for top corporate executives to keep their eyes on the actions of all subordinates. On the other hand, it also seems that top corporate executives have justified their out-sized compensation by taking personal credit for everything good that happens to their organizations. If they want such credit, why should they escape responsibility when some actions go wrong?

Note that Prof Nickerson played the "innovation" card. A common justification for many corporate health care practices is that they enable innovation. This argument is thrown around so often I begin to suspect it comes from corporate public relations' talking points. (See this post about the development of such talking points.) Of course, the more a corporation is truly decentralized to support innovation, the less it can argue that the top executives deserve huge salaries because of their close involvement in everything that goes on at that corporation.

Furthermore, while Forest Laboratories' previous marketing practices might have been innovative, that did not make them ethical. As we noted in an earlier post, the company was accused of marketing anti-depressants to children when they had only previously been approved for adults. Their marketing tactics allegedly included suppressing negative studies, and paying physicians to prescribe the drugs. The company pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice for lying to the FDA during a plant inspection, and to misdemeanor charges of misbranding and distributing an unapproved drug contrary to an FDA directive.

In addition, an earlier post summarized memos made public by a congressional investigation about Forest Laboratories' marketing of Lexapro. These included coopting medical education, "key opinion leaders," and medical associations for marketing purposes:
- The marketing plan from the marketing department paid for medical education as a "promotional objective," that is, to market, not to educate.
- Thought leaders and consultants were again paid by marketing to market, and sometimes to provide opinions about "promotional strategies" and "commercial development."
- Medical associations are funded by marketing "for commercial and policy activities."

So the facts in the Forest Laboratories case make protests that holding corporate leaders accountable for misbehavior on their watches will stifle innovation seem disingenuous. Furthermore, it makes no sense to pay top corporate leaders outrageous amounts for everything good that happens on their watch without similarly holding them accountable for everything bad that happens then.

If the US government is really going to hold one corporate leader responsible for misbehavior by his subordinates on his watch, that would be a step forward.  As we have said again and again, 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.

Forest Pharmaceuticals Pleads Guilty to Obstruction of Justice, No Individual Pays Any Penalty

The parade of legal settlements marches on.  The latest story is about Forest Laboratories and its marketing of Celexa (citalopram ) and Levothyroid (l-thyroxin).  Here is the most complete version, courtesy of Natasha Singer reporting for the New York Times. First, the lead sentence:

A unit of Forest Laboratories, the maker of the antidepressant Celexa, agreed on Wednesday to pay more than $313 million to settle criminal and civil complaints, including a claim that it had illegally promoted the drug for use in children.

Here are the charges:

Among the criminal charges was one that the subsidiary, Forest Pharmaceuticals, marketed Celexa, which was approved only for adult depression, to treat children and adolescents. The government also claimed that, in conjunction with the company’s off-label promotion, Forest publicized the positive results of a study on Celexa in adolescents while failing to tell doctors about a similar study that had negative results.

'Forest Pharmaceuticals deliberately chose to pursue corporate profits over its obligations to the F.D.A. and the American public,' Carmen Ortiz, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts, said in a statement Wednesday.

In addition, federal prosecutors accused Forest of paying doctors to induce them to prescribe Celexa and another antidepressant, Lexapro. The remuneration included 'cash payments disguised as grants or consulting fees, expensive meals and lavish entertainment, and other valuable goods and services,' the government said in its civil complaint.

Among the items that Forest sales representatives gave to doctors from 1998 to 2005, the complaint said, were tickets to St. Louis Cardinal games, which were to be 'leveraged and sold as a reward for prescriptions'; a $1,000 gift certificate to Alain Ducasse, a gourmet French restaurant, for a high-prescribing child psychiatrist; a deep-sea fishing trip off Cape Cod for a doctor and his three sons; $400 in Broadway theater tickets for a doctor and his wife; and Red Sox tickets worth $2,276 to be used for doctors in the Boston area.

So we not just off-label marketing, but suppression of clinical research (of course, a study whose results were not favorable to the product being marketed), and payments to doctors as an "inducement to prescribe."

But wait, there is more:

As part of the criminal settlement, Forest Pharmaceuticals, which is based in St. Louis, agreed to plead guilty to one felony count of obstructing justice, acknowledging that employees had lied to F.D.A. officials during a plant inspection in 2003.

The company also agreed to plead guilty to two misdemeanors, one of which covers the company’s misbranding of Celexa by marketing the antidepressant for use in children from 1998 to 2002.

The other misdemeanor covers the illegal distribution from 2001 to 2003 of an unapproved drug, Levothroid, to treat a thyroid hormone deficiency. Such thyroid pills, made by various drug makers, had been sold in the United States since the 1950s without F.D.A. approval. But in 2001, the agency told drug makers that they needed to reduce their distribution of such medications until the companies obtained agency approval to market the pills.

The criminal charges accused Forest of making a deliberate decision to continue distributing the drug in quantities exceeding the F.D.A.’s directive. After the agency sent a warning letter to Forest, the company directed employees to work until 1 a.m. to continue shipping as much Levothroid as possible, according to the criminal complaint.

So there was also obstruction of justice in the form of lying to the FDA, and selling drugs that the FDA had ordered not to be sold.

So what are the penalties?

The criminal settlement calls for the company to pay a $150 million fine and to forfeit an additional $14 million in assets. Forest will also pay more than $88 million to the federal government and more than $60 million to the states to resolve a civil complaint that its actions caused false claims to be submitted to federal health care programs. In addition, two whistle-blowers will split $14 million from the federal share of the settlement.

Forest has also entered into a five-year corporate integrity agreement, requiring an independent expert to review the company’s compliance with drug marketing regulations.

So here we go again. A large drug company was up to no good, suppressing research, paying doctors for their prescriptions, lying to the FDA, and disobeying its orders.

The penalty seemed large, over $300 million. However, Celexa was a big revenue generator at the time the events above occurred, topping $1 billion in revenue first in 2002 (per Forbes here). Furthermore, as noted by Ed Silverman on Pharmalot, it seems no individual will suffer any negative consequences for authorizing, directing, or implementing the conduct described above. Finally, as best I can tell, despite the fact that a Forest subsidiary will plead guilty to a felony, the company is not going to be barred from doing business with the government. 

So, despite pleading guilty to a felony and three misdemeanors, neither Forest as a company nor any individual working for the company will really suffer very much.  On the other hand, the leaders of Forest have been doing very well.  The company's CEO, Howard Solomon, was number 18 on Wall Street Journal list of the 25 highest paid CEOs over the last decade.  His total realized compensation was over $385 million over the last 10 years.  According to the company's 2010 proxy statement, his total compensation in 2009 was $8,267,236.  The four other highest paid executives made from just over $2.5 million to $5.3 million.

So here we go again.  Another large health care organization has been found to have done wrong, but the only penalty is a fine that whose impact will be diffused across the whole company, and ultimately be paid by its employees, its customers, including patients, and its stockholders.  Meanwhile, the people who authorized, directed, or implemented the wrong doing apparently will pay nothing and receive no negative incentives.  Furthermore, the top leaders of the company, whose huge compensation in the past was increased by the results of the wrong doing, will continue to prosper.

As we have said again and again,  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.

By the way, the current case offers an avenue for those who do not like what Forest did to ask those who are supposed to be ultimately responsible for its behavior how this was allowed to happen.  The board of directors of the company is supposed to be ultimately accountable for the company's actions.  As we have noted before, these directors are supposed to "demonstrate unyielding loyalty to the company's shareholders." [Per Monks RAG, Minow N. Corporate Governance, 3rd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. P.200.]

The current directors of Forest Laboratories, according to the company's 2010 proxy statement, include Dr Nesli Basgoz, "Associate Chief for Clinical Affairs, Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH)," and "Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School."  Also, it includes Dr Lester B Salans, "Clinical Professor" at Mount Sinai Medical School, not to mention Dr Peter J Zimetbaum, "Director of Clinical Cardiology" at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston (BIDMC), and "Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School."   Maybe some enterprising student journalist will get to ask the good doctors how they let things at Forest get so ethically out of hand.

Oh, the Prices We Pay, Reloaded - Celgene Balks at Explaining High Price of Thalidomide

A brief article on Bloomberg.com implied that Celgene has been fighting efforts by the Canadian Patented Medicine Prices Review Board to get pricing data about the drug Thalidomid (thalidomide):

Celgene Corp., the biotechnology company specializing in blood-cancer medicines, will get a hearing before Canada’s highest court over the country’s demands to provide pricing information for the drug Thalomid.

The Supreme Court of Canada today agreed to hear Celgene’s appeal of a Federal Court of Appeal ruling that said Canada’s Patented Medicine Prices Review Board was entitled to information about the pricing of the drug. The high court gave no reason for its decision.

Celgene’s two top-selling drugs are Revlimid and Thalomid, for a form of blood-cancer called multiple myeloma. They brought in more than 80 percent of the company’s total $2.25 billion in 2008 revenue.

It should be no surprise that Celgene may be sensitive about the price of Thalidomid. We posted back in 2005 about the stratospheric prices of new drugs that seemed disproportionate to manufacturing and development costs on one hand, and the value of the drugs for patients on the other. We noted that thalidomide, a very old drug that notoriously was found to cause birth defects when it was given to pregnant women, but that then showed promise as an anti-cancer drug, was being marketed in the US for $29 per capsule (approximately $25,000 a year), while a generic form sold in Brazil for $0.07 per capsule.
 
The amount Celgene manages to make from this very old (and demonstrably cheap to produce) molecule is vivid, albeit anecdotal evidence about what has gone wrong with health care prices in the US.  Despite health care insurance companies' protestations that their goal is to provide reasonably priced health care, they seem utterly incapable of negotiating down the prices of even the most obviously over-priced drugs.  And the US government Medicare program so far is prohibited by law from negotiating prices.  How our supposed free market health care system has tilted so far in favor of pharmaceuticals is a reason to wonder, but ought to be reason to investigate. 
 
Meanwhile, Celgene's 2010 annual report shows that the company has sold more than $400 million worth of Thalidomid yearly since 2007. The company's total sales in 2009 were $2.567 billion, while it spent $795 million on research and development, and $754 million on general, sales, and administrative expenses. According to the company's 2009 proxy statement, in 2008 its CEO received over $8.5 million, its COO over $5.1 million, its CFO over $2.1 million in compensation, and a senior vice president over $3.0 million. The total compensation of its five highest-paid hired managers (compare to a total of 2813 full-time employees in 2009), approximately $20.5 million 2008, was was approximately 2.6% of the company's net income in 2009, and just under 1% of its total sales.
 
As we have said previously, so the health care bubble continues to inflate.  One cause is"compensation madness," including "insiders hijacking established institutions for their personal benefit."  Another is the amazing acquiescence of those who pay bills at all levels, from the individuals who ultimately fund health care through salary dollars not earned, health insurance premiums, co-pays and the like, and tax payments, through the health care insurers and government agencies who did not balk at paying $25,000 a year for thalidomide in 2005.  If we really want to provide accessible health care of good quality and a reasonable cost, we will need to develop mechanisms to pay more reasonable amounts for health care goods and services. This will require some courage facing down the corporate and organizational insiders who have made themselves very rich from the current craziness.

Another Echo of the Case of the Deadly Heparin - A Report on the Perils of Out-Sourcing Drug Production

In 2008, we published multiple posts on how heparin made as an "active pharmaceutical ingredient" in China under apparently primitive conditions, contaminated accidentally or deliberately, was sold in the US bearing the label of a large American pharmaceutical company.  Ultimately, many patients were sickened, or died.  A summary of our posts on the topic, in smaller type, is below.

Case Summary

- We have posted several times, recently here and here, about the tragic case of suddenly allergenic heparin. Although heparin, an intravenous biologic anti-coagulant, has been in use for over 70 years, serious allergic reactions to it had heretofore been rare. Starting late last year, hundreds of such reactions, and now 21 deaths were reported in the US after intravenous heparin infusions.All the heparin related to these events in the US was made by Baxter International.

- We then learned that although the heparin carried the Baxter label, it was not really made by Baxter. The company had outsourced production of the active ingredient to a long, and ultimately mysterious supply chain. Baxter got the active ingredient from a US company, Scientific Protein Laboratories LLC, which in turn obtained it from a factory in China operated by Changzhou SPL, which in turn was owned by Scientific Protein Laboratories and by Changzhou Techpool Pharmaceutical Co. Changzhou SPL, in turn, got it from several consolidators or wholesalers, who in turn got it from numerous small, unidentified "workshops," which seemed to produce the product in often primitive and unsanitary conditions. None of the stops in the Chinese supply chain had apparently been inspected by the US Food and Drug Administration nor its Chinese counterpart.

- Most recently, we found out that the Baxter International labelled heparin was contaminated with over-sulfated chondroitin sulfate, a substance not found in nature, but which mimics heparin according to the simple laboratory tests used in the Chinese facilities to check incoming heparin. (See post here.) Further testing revealed that the contamination seemed to have taken place in China prior to the provision of the heparin to Changzhou SPL. (See post here.) It is not clear whether Baxter International or Scientific Protein Laboratories had inspected most of the steps in the supply chain, or even knew what went on there.

- The Baxter and Scientific Protein Laboratories CEOs did not seem aware of where they got the heparin on which the Baxter International label was eventually affixed. But one report in the New York Times alleged that Scientific Protein Laboratories would not pay enough for heparin to satisfy any sources other than the small "workshops."

- Leaders of all organizations involved, Baxter International, Scientific Protein Laboratories, Changzhou SPL, the Chinese government, and the US Food and Drug Administration, and the US Congress assigned blame to each other, but none took individual or organizational responsibility. (See post here.)

- Researchers (who turned out to have financial ties to a company which is developing an anti-coagulant drug that could compete with the heparin made by Baxter International) investigated the biological mechanisms by which the contamination of the heparin lead to adverse effects, but no one investigated further how the contamination occurred, or who was responsible.  (See post here.)

- Hundreds of lawsuits against Baxter have now been filed, so far without resolution.  (See post here.)

Now, as reported to date only on the PostScript blog, a US government report on problems with active pharmaceutical ingredients made in China has appeared.

A new report (pdf) by the U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission stresses the safety risks to Americans posed by pharmaceutical ingredients made in China.

According to the report, issued by a group that advises Congress on the economic and trade implications of U.S.-China relations, found that the U.S. is the number one destination for Chinese pharmaceutical raw material exports – a $2.2 billion business each year. The U.S. relies heavily on Chinese products not only for over-the-counter drugs but for active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) found in prescription drugs.

And the report makes clear that China has neither the will nor the systems in place to monitor its exports.

This begs the question that most of the coverage of the deadly heparin also begged.  Are American pharmaceutical companies so besotted with the need for cost-savings that they are willing to buy active pharmaceutical ingredients with unknown provenance overseas as if they were a pig in a poke?  If so, why do we allow company leadership to potentially sacrifice quality, and sell adulterated drugs just to enrich their bottom lines (and their executives' salaries)?