The Transparency International 2018 Corporate Political Engagement Index- Pharma Appears All Too Comfortable with the Revolving Door and Making Opaque Political Contributions

Introduction: Big Organizations, Government Policy and Regulation, and Politics

Leaders of big health care organizations clearly are interested in influencing public policy and government regulation in ways that favor their organizations, and often indirectly themselves.  We expect such leaders and organizations to make their policy preferences known.  However, increasingly we have found that they take shadowy routes to their policy goals.

We have frequently discussed how large health care organizations may use less than transparent methods to advocate for their policy and regulatory objectives.  Their public relations departments may fund patient advocacy organizations and medical societies that support these objectives, so-called third-party strategies.  They may fund distinguished professionals and academics as key opinion leaders for the same purposes.  Often they do this in systematic ways so that there efforts amount to stealth advocacy or stealth lobbying campaigns.

Even more concerning is organizational support of the revolving door.  Top organizational leaders may move into government policy and/or regulatory positions relevant to the organizations' goals.  Government policy and regulatory leaders may know that lucrative positions in these organizations are available when they leave government.  The revolving door is certainly a serious type of conflict of interest, and some deem it corrupt.

Big health care organizations have traditionally been non-partisan.  While their leaders certainly may have political views, they used to keep them very quiet.  Recently, especially in the US, we have seen evidence that some health care organizations have become partisan, albeit stealthily, throwing their support behind political candidates, parties and organizations that may support their policy and regulatory goals, even while they may also support positions that go against the health care and public health mission, or even may be frankly anti-democratic.  In the US, organizations and their leaders now may support partisan aims with dark money, funds whose origin is disguised. 

The Transparency International 2018 Corporate Political Engagement Index

A recent report by Transparency International was made public, with little fanfare, in late 2018 that was meant to throw a little light on corporate "engagement" in politics.  It included some interesting information on a few multinartional pharmaceutical companies.

The report introduction stated:

For companies, corporate political engagement carries clear risks of bribery and corruption, conflicts of interest and reputational damage. Any interactions with the political process need careful management to avoid falling foul of anti-bribery and corruption legislation. The risks are increased by the fact that companies are vulnerable to mistakes or abuse by employees and third parties acting
on their behalf such as agents, advisers and consultant lobbyists.

Methods

The study on which the report was based concentrated on 104 large corporations that are active in the UK.  These included the following large multinational pharmaceutical companies:

- AstraZeneca
- Eisai
- GlaxoSmithKline
- Johnson & Johnson
- Novartis
- Pfizer
- Roche
- Shire

The study was based on 20 questions divided in 5 areas.

Three areas were basically about transparency of  and accountablity for political activities.  These included
- Control Environment, including having transparent policies, methods for ensuring their enforcement, and oversight of same by the board of directors
- Responsible Lobbying, including adequate policies and transparency
- Transparency in Reporting

One was about the Revolving Door, and included whether the company has a "cooling-off period" for people going through the revolving door back to the company.  However, it did not directly mention people going directly from leadership positions within the company to government.

One was about Political Contributions, and included whether the company bans them (perhaps the strongest question of the group.)

Each question in each area was scored from 2 for meeting expectations to 0 for failing to do so.  Scores were normalized on a scale going from 100 (best) to 0 (worst), and and summarized in "bands" from A (83.3 - 100) down to F (0 - 16.6)

Results

For the three areas regarding transparency and accountablity the results per company were:

Control Environment
 
- AstraZeneca            C
- Eisai                        C
- GlaxoSmithKline        A
- Johnson & Johnson    C
- Novartis                   F
- Pfizer                       C
- Roche                      E
- Shire                        C

Responsible Lobbying

- AstraZeneca            E
- Eisai                      F
- GlaxoSmithKline        B
- Johnson & Johnson    E
- Novartis                   E
- Pfizer                       F
- Roche                      C
- Shire                        E



Transparency in Reporting

- AstraZeneca            C
- Eisai                        C
- GlaxoSmithKline        A
- Johnson & Johnson    C
- Novartis                   C
- Pfizer                       C
- Roche                      C
- Shire                        C


For the Revolving Door

- AstraZeneca            F
- Eisai                        F
- GlaxoSmithKline        A
- Johnson & Johnson    F
- Novartis                   D
- Pfizer                       F
- Roche                      E
- Shire                        F


For Political Contributions

- AstraZeneca            F
- Eisai                        F
- GlaxoSmithKline        B
- Johnson & Johnson    C
- Novartis                   F
- Pfizer                       E
- Roche                      E
- Shire                        E

Summary and Discussion

Note that the pharmaceutical companies did not do too badly on the measures of transparency and accountablity, but except for GSK did quite badly on minimizing the revolving door, and again with the partial exception of GSK did very badly on avoiding political contributions.

This suggests that at least some big multinational pharmaceutical corporations that do business in the UK, but also in the US and many other developed countries, have worrisome attitudes towards and likely practices affecting their use of political influence.

The Revolving Door

The majority of companies did not show any real concern about the problem of the revolving door.

In the US, this problem seems to be getting worse.  In particular under the Trump regime we see more instances of the  incoming revolving door, that is, people moving directly from corporate leadership positions to government policy and regulatory positions in which they could potentially make decisions affecting the corporations from which they came.  This is potentially a more serious problem than the outgoing door, yet it was not even discussed in the TI study.

We have repeatedly said,  most recently a few days ago, ...

The revolving door is a species of conflict of interest. Worse, some experts have suggested that the revolving door is in fact corruption.  As we noted here, the experts from the distinguished European anti-corruption group U4 wrote,

The literature makes clear that the revolving door process is a source of valuable political connections for private firms. But it generates corruption risks and has strong distortionary effects on the economy, especially when this power is concentrated within a few firms.

The ongoing parade of people transiting the revolving door from industry to the Trump regime once again suggests how the revolving door may enable certain of those with private vested interests to have disproportionate influence on how the government works.  The country is increasingly being run by a cozy group of insiders with ties to both government and industry. This has been termed crony capitalism. The latest cohort of revolving door transits suggests that regulatory capture is likely to become much worse in the near future.

Corporate Partisanship, Political Contributions, and Dark Money

Given the increasing evidence that large corporations have become partisan in the US, it is particularly worrisome that at least the pharmaceutical corporations in the TI study have not taken a clear stand against making direct political contributions, or even in favor of making such contributions transparent.

Note that the TI report included the directive "do not make political contributions" among its "principles for responsible political engagement," adding:

Corporate political contributions should not be made on behalf of the company other than in exceptional  circumstances where they provide general support for a genuine democratic process, with full transparency and full explanation.

On the other hand, as we said last year,...

 Health care corporations recent and current funding of dark money groups seems to openly conflict with the corporations' promises of social responsibility.  The slanting of these efforts towards one end of the political spectrum, one party, and now the current president suggest that these corporations may have partisan agendas.

Furthermore, the increasing knowledge of these corporate actions raises a big question: cui bono? who benefits?

It is obvious why a pharmaceutical company, for example, might want to defeat legislation that would lower its prices.

It is not obvious why it would want to consistenly support actions by one party, or by people at one end of the political spectrum, even if some such people seem "pro-business."  After all, for years big corporations and their executives openly gave money to both US parties and their candidates, apparently in the belief that this would at least allow more visibility for the corporations' priorities no matter who was in power.

Now, the most obvious theory is that the new practice of secret donations only in right-wing, Republican, and/or pro-Trump directions, which must be orchestrated by top corporate management, and which are not disclosed to employees or smaller corporate shareholders, are likely made to support the top managers' self interest more than the broad priorities of the corporations and their various constituencies.

Thus not only is more investigation needed, at the very least, "public" corporations ought to fully disclose all donations made to outside groups with political agendas.  This should be demanded by at least the corporations' employees and shareholders, but also by patients, health care professionals, and the public at large.

Meanwhile we are left with the suspicion that top health care corporate management is increasingly merging with the current administration in one giant corporatist entity which is not in the interests of health care, much less government by the people, of the people, and for the people.

Novartis' Latest Ethical Misadventure: Did it Pay to Play ... with the US President?

Amidst the news deluge, a story that stood out in the last few days was that of the strange relationships between a consulting firm set up by President Donald Trump's former lawyer and Trump Organization counsel Michael Cohen, and several large corporations.  As reported on May 8, 2018 by the New York Times, the focus was on the payments made to the firm, Essential Consultants LLC, by a financial firm, Columbus Nova, associated with a Russian oligarch, Viktor Vekselberg, who has been described as "Kremlin-linked."

 Did Novartis Pay Michael Cohen's Essential Consultants LLC for Access to the White House?

However, Essential Consultants LLC also had a poorly described business relationship with Swiss-based multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer Novartis.  Per the NYT,

Among the other payments to Mr. Cohen’s company described in the financial records were four for $99,980 each between October and January by Novartis Investments S.A.R.L., a subsidiary of Novartis, the multinational pharmaceutical giant based in Switzerland. Novartis — whose chief executive was among 15 business leaders invited to dinner with Mr. Trump at the World Economic Forum in January — spent more than $10 million on lobbying in Washington last year and frequently seeks approvals from federal drug regulators.

Additional reporting on this relationship suggests that Novartis may have been trying to buy access to or influence on the Trump administration. More details on the arrangements between the firms came from Ed Silverman in Stat News ,

A Novartis unit called Novartis Investment SARL made four payments, each one totaling $99,980, to the consulting firm, according to documents released by Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for Stormy Daniels, the adult film star whose real name is Stephanie Clifford and who was paid $130,000 by Essential Consultants to keep quiet about her alleged affair with Trump.

In a statement, Novartis says it entered into a one-year agreement with Essential Consultants in February 2017, 'shortly after the election of President Trump focused on U.S. healthcare policy matters. The terms were consistent with the market. The agreement expired in February 2018.'

The first Novartis payment was purportedly made on Oct. 5, 2017, while the subsequent payments followed in successive months — Nov. 3, 2017, Dec. 1, 2017, and Jan. 5, 2018, according to the documents.

A Novartis spokesman said that 'any contracts were done prior to (chief executive officer Vasant Narasimhan) taking over' and that he 'had no involvement whatsoever with this arrangement.' He did not provide any further details concerning the payments, but indicated the agreement had expired.

Narasimhan succeeded Joe Jimenez as Novartis chief executive on Feb. 1 this year, although he attended a dinner with Trump at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 25, which Avenatti noted in the documents that he released. A Novartis spokesman later added that Jimenez last met with Trump at a meeting with executives from several drug makers last spring.

Another article by Mr Silverman in Stat gave some further rationale for this agreement.

Michael Cohen, a longtime fixer for the president, reached out to Novartis’s then-chief executive officer Joe Jimenez, promising help gaining access to Trump and influential officials in the new administration, according to an employee inside Novartis familiar with the matter.

Jimenez took the call and then instructed his team to reach a deal with Cohen.

Furthermore, a Novartis empoyee said,

'With a new administration coming in, basically, all the traditional contacts disappeared and they were all new players. We were trying to find an inroad into the administration. Cohen promised access to not just Trump, but also the circle around him. It was almost as if we were hiring him as a lobbyist.'

A Huffington Post article found

an official with one of those companies [Novartis, At&T, or Korea Aerospace], who requested anonymity to speak openly, was more blunt. The official said Cohen 'was promising access to Trump and members of the administration, positioning himself as a lobbyist.'

So there seemed to be a confluence of reporting suggesting that Novartis paid Michael Cohen via the perhaps ironically named Essential Consultans LLC for access to or influence over the Trump administration, and possibly specifically President Trump himself.  Chummy relationships between large health care organizations, particularly large for-profit health care corporations, and US government agencies that regulate health care, or set health policy are old news.  We have frequently discussed the revolving door through which people travel going to and from leadership positions in health care corporations and in health related government agencies.  While we have discussed many examples of health care corporations being accused of, settling allegations of, or even pleading guilty to charges of bribery or kickbacks, I cannot recall any case of a health care corporation paying for access to and possibly raising suspicions about the bribery of the President of the US. That would be a new low in the annals of health care corruption.


Nothing New for Novartis

Thus it should be no surprise that pundits on the business of health care were back on their heels.  John LaMattina, wrote for Forbes,

The most recent revelation involving Novartis is both shocking and depressing.

Also,

One wonders what Novartis was thinking in entering such an agreement. Clearly, any sensible person would look at such an agreement cynically and come away with the view that Novartis was attempting to buy access to the President through his lawyer. Furthermore, the one year contract that Novartis had with Cohen - $100,000/month – is a lot of money for a lawyer with no background in healthcare. Didn’t anyone at Novartis think about how badly this would look if such a deal was made public?

But Mr LaMattina is a former President of Global Research and Development for Pfizer, a company with a long history of ethical misadventures (look here), so may be a bit biased about the integrity of the pharmaceutical industry.

In fact, Mr Silverman's first article suggested that Novartis is not so innocent.

Throughout much of last year, Novartis was embroiled in a bribery scandal in Greece, where the government was probing allegations that the drug maker made payments to numerous politicians to boost sales of its medicines through public agencies.

Also,

In the U.S., the drug maker is defending a long-running lawsuit that is being pressed by the federal government over allegations it provided doctors with paid speaking engagements, fancy meals, and alcohol in exchange for writing prescriptions for its drugs.

The case is being closely watched because the company has been accused of being a repeat offender. How so? In 2010, Novartis paid $422.5 million in penalties and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor to resolve criminal allegations that it improperly promoted several medicines.

At the time, the company was already operating under a Corporate Integrity Agreement, which required establishing an internal compliance program and reporting violations, among other things. That agreement was signed in September 2010, yet the lawsuit alleged the infractions occurred afterward, suggesting Novartis might face a stiff penalty should it attempt a settlement with the government.

Moreover, those who follow Health Care Renewal would realize that Novartis' record of ethical misadventures is much more extensive than that.


In October, 2016, Novartis settled charges that from 2002-2009 it promoted use a skin cream for pediatric patients for unapproved indications and in ways that could have endangered patients (look here).  

In March, 2016, Novartis settled charges by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the Foreign Corrupt Practics Act (FCPA) thatfrom 2009-2013 it bribed Chinese health care professionals to increase sales (look here).  

In November, 2015 we discussed what were then the latest misadventures by Novartis and its leadership.  At that time, our post included these section headings covering 2014-15:

-  Japanese Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry Found that Novartis Concealed Serious Adverse Effects
- Novartis Executive Pleads Guilty to Bribing Polish Official
- Novartis Subsidiary Sandoz Settles Allegations that it Misrepresented Pricing Data to US Medicaid
- Express Scripts Settles Allegations that it Accepted Kickbacks from Novartis
- Novartis Settles US Allegations of Kickbacks to Enhance Sales of Multiple Drugs

Furthermore, in that post we also documented Novartis' previous record.   In March, 2014, we had noted:
- Italian authorities had fined Novartis and Roche for colluding to promote the use of an expensive opthamologic treatment
- the NY Times published interviews with physicians ostensibly showing how Novartis turned them into marketers for the drug Starlix
- Japanese investigators charged Novartis with manipulating clinical research
- Indian regulators canceled a Novartis import license, charging the company with fraud.

Also,  in 2013, Novartis was fined for anti-competitive practices in its marketing of Fentanyl by the European Commission (look here), and in 2011 its Sandoz subsidiary settled allegations of misreporting prices in the US for $150 million (look here)   Other Novartis misadventures from 2010 and earlier, including the two described in the Stat News article, appear here.  So Novartis has quite an impressive, if not infamous record of ethical failures.

Note that through all these cases, Novartis leadership enjoyed impunity.  No Novartis top manager suffered any negative consequences from any of them (although one apparent mid-level company manager at the Polish subsidiary did plead guilty), and all these previous episodes apparently did not suggest a pattern of recidivism to US authorities this time sufficient to attempt to impose any negative consequences on higher level managers.

So is it at all surprising that the previous Novartis CEO did not see a big problem paying Donald Trump's lawyer and former corporate counsel to a little access to The Donald?

Discussion

Most corrupt actions require two parties.  While it is understandable that there has been tremendous recent interest in evidence that the Trump regime is corrupt (look here), any such corruption had to have been enabled by unethical actions on the parts of others.  Those others likely included large numbers of leaders of large corporations, including health care corporations.  We have shown repeatedly that top leaders of US health care organizations have enjoyed impunity that has allowed them to foster a host of unethical actions, including crimes such as bribery, fraud, and kickbacks, and true health care corruption.

Our societal tolerance of health care (and other forms of) corruption probably enabled the currently breathtaking scope of executive branch corruption.  For a long time we have argued that health care corruption is a major cause of health care dysfunction.  As we wrote in August, 2017, Transparency International (TI) defines corruption as

Abuse of entrusted power for private gain

In 2006, TI published a report on health care corruption, which asserted that corruption is widespread throughout the world, serious, and causes severe harm to patients and society.

the scale of corruption is vast in both rich and poor countries.

Also,

Corruption might mean the difference between life and death for those in need of urgent care. It is invariably the poor in society who are affected most by corruption because they often cannot afford bribes or private health care. But corruption in the richest parts of the world also has its costs.

The report got little attention.  Health care corruption has been nearly a taboo topic in the US, anechoic, presumably because its discussion would offend the people it makes rich and powerful. As suggested by the recent Transparency International report on corruption in the pharmaceutical industry,

However, strong control over key processes combined with huge resources and big profits to be made make the pharmaceutical industry particularly vulnerable to corruption. Pharmaceutical companies have the opportunity to use their influence and resources to exploit weak governance structures and divert policy and institutions away from public health objectives and towards their own profit maximising interests.

Presumably the leaders of other kinds of corrupt organizations can do the same. 

When health care corruption is discussed in English speaking developed countries, it is almost always in terms of a problem that affects somewhere else, mainly  presumably benighted less developed countries.  At best, the corruption in developed countries that gets discussed is at low levels.  In the US, frequent examples are the "pill mills"  and various cheating of government and private insurance programs by practitioners and patients.  Lately these have gotten even more attention as they are decried as a cause of the narcotics (opioids) crisis (e.g., look here).  In contrast, the US government has been less inclined to address the activities of the leaders of the pharmaceutical companies who have pushed legal narcotics (e.g., see this post). 

However, Health Care Renewal has stressed "grand corruption," or the corruption of health care leaders.  We have noted the continuing impunity of top health care corporate managers.  Health care corporations have allegedly used kickbacks and fraud to enhance their revenue, but at best such corporations have been able to make legal settlements that result in fines that small relative to their  multi-billion revenues without admitting guilt.  Almost never are top corporate managers subject to any negative consequences.


The continuing festering of widespeard amorality and corruption at the top of US business has fostered a situation in which now corruption appears to have spread to the top of the US government.
 The only way we can now address health care corruption is to excise the corruption at the heart of our government.

Legal Settlements to Remind Us How Our Health Care System Became Rigged: by GSK, Novartis, CVS

Amidst the sound and fury of the US election season, almost under the radar sneak legal settlements demonstrating continuing bad behavior by big health care organizations, and the continuing lack of accountablity of these organizations' leaders.

We note three cases involving unethical practices leading to overuse of pharmaceuticals that appeared in the last two months, in chronological and alphabetical order.


GlaxoSmithKline Settles Charges of Bribing Chinese Doctors

A summary from Stat by Ed Silverman on September 30, 2016,

GlaxoSmithKline on Friday agreed to pay $20 million to settle charges of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for what authorities called a pay-to-prescribe scheme in China. In doing so, Glaxo becomes the latest global drug maker to face such accusations as part of a long-running probe by US authorities into companies that paid bribes overseas in order to boost sales of their medicines.

The settlement is an outgrowth of the bribery scandal that rocked Glaxo and resulted in a $490 million fine two years ago after a Chinese court found the company guilty of bribing doctors, hospital officials, and other non-governmental personnel. The former head of the Glaxo unit in China also pleaded guilty to bribery-related charges and was given a three-year suspended sentence.

As part of the scheme, Glaxo employees allegedly funneled kickbacks through trade groups and travel agencies that planned events. Between 2010 and June 2013, Glaxo spent nearly $225 million on planning and travel services. But after reviewing a sample of invoices, authorities found about 44 percent were inflated and approximately 12 percent were for events that did not occur, according to an SEC order.

In 2010, Glaxo hired a Chinese company to develop a project to provide clinics with tools to store and administer vaccines that required refrigeration. Instead, the project was used to give laptops and other electronic devices as gifts to clinics that were believed to have the potential to market still other Glaxo drugs. In all, the drug maker spent about $2.3 million doing this.

Articles in the Wall Street Journal and Reuters stated the bribes were explicitly meant to boost sales of drugs.  However, I am not able to find any information in the few media reports or the US Securities and Exchange Commission order about which products were so promoted.  It appears likely, however, that these alleged practices led to overuse of drugs that at best did patients no good and at worst caused direct harm. 

Although proceedings in China resulted in punishment of a GSK official there, the US proceedings did not subject any individual to negative consequences for enabling, authorizing, directing or implementing any bribes.

Note that our posts on previous misadventures by GSK can be found here.

Novartis Settles Charges of Illegally Promoting Skin Cream for Infants in the US

Again, as summarized by Ed Silverman in Stat on October 5, 2016,

Novartis has agreed to pay $35 million to settle charges of illegally promoting a prescription skin cream for use with infants and toddlers. The deal marks the second time in the past year the drug maker has struck a deal with US authorities to resolve allegations of improperly marketing its medicines.

The agreement, announced on Wednesday, stems from a whistleblower lawsuit filed by a former Novartis sales representative, who accused the company of deliberately trying to widen the market for Elidel by encouraging prescriptions for children younger than 24 months, even though the medicine was not approved for that patient population. At one point, regulators issued a warning about the risk of cancer in small children.

'We were instructed that Elidel was so safe it could be put on up to 80 percent of a baby’s body. And we were never told that it might cause cancer,' said Donald Galmines, 44, the former rep, in a statement. He added that he was trained to invite doctors and their families or staffs to dinners at expensive restaurants, even though during the course of the meal, Elidel might not even be brought up.

The illegal marketing occurred between 2002 and 2009,...

So this case involved allegations of deceptive marketing.  In particular, the deception was potentially dangerous to infant patients, since it appears that the drug promoted was unduly dangerous.

In this settlement, however, the company got to explicitly deny wrongdoing.

Novartis denied the allegations in the settlement agreement.

Novartis has had considerable recent legal trouble involving unethical behavior.

The settlement comes amid a difficult stretch for Novartis. The drug maker last year paid $390 million to settle charges of paying kickbacks to boost sales of two other drugs. And the company is facing a trial stemming from yet another whistleblower lawsuit filed by a different former sales rep, who similarly alleged Novartis illegally marketed medicines.

Those cases gained considerable attention because US Attorney Preet Bharara, who is based in New York, claimed Novartis is a repeat offender when he announced the government had joined the lawsuits in 2013. He was referring to a 2010 case in which the company paid $422.5 million for allegedly marketing six drugs off-label and paying kickbacks to health care professionals.

The United States is not the only venue where Novartis has encountered such charges. Last March, the drug maker agreed to pay $25 million to settle charges that it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by making illegal payments to health care providers in China. Employees gave money, gifts, vacations, and entertainment to health care professionals between 2009 and 2011, according to US authorities.

Furthermore, an even more extensive list of previous Novartis misadventures can be found in our post here.

Despite all that, however, the settlement did not subject any individual to negative consequences for enabling, authorizing, directing or implementing the allegedly illegal promotion.

Omnicare Settles Charges of Accepting Kickback to Help Illegally Promote Depakote

Finally, as yet again best summarized by Ed Silverman on StatNews on October 17, 2016,

Omnicare, which is the nation’s largest nursing home pharmacy, agreed on Monday to pay more than $28 million to resolve charges of seeking kickbacks from Abbott Laboratories in exchange for boosting prescriptions for a medicine that the drug maker had promoted illegally.

As part of the scheme, Omnicare disguised the kickbacks from Abbott as grants and educational funding, and took rebates from the drug maker based on the amount of Depakote that was prescribed for each nursing home resident. In addition, Abbott paid for Omnicare management meetings at a Florida resort and offered tickets to sporting events, according to the US Department of Justice.

The arrangement between Omnicare and Abbott began after the drug maker launched a new initiative in 1997 to boost prescriptions for the drug, which is approved for treating seizures, bipolar mania, and migraines, but not uncontrollable behavior due to dementia. The following year, Omnicare began soliciting kickbacks from Abbott and the scheme lasted about three years, according to court documents.

The settlement is the latest in a long-running probe by the feds into Omnicare, which is now owned by CVS, and the interplay between nursing home pharmacies and drug makers.

In 2012, Abbott reached a $1.5 billion global civil and criminal settlement that resolved, among other things, alleged kickbacks paid to nursing home pharmacies. At the time of the agreement, the feds noted that Abbott promoted Depakote for controlling behavioral disturbances in dementia patients, even though the US Food and Drug Administration never approved the pill for this particular use.

'Kickbacks to entities making drug recommendations compromise their independence and undermine their role in protecting nursing home residents from the use of unnecessary drugs,' said Benjamin Mizer, the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Civil Division,...

So it appears that at best the kickbacks led to prescription of drugs that did patients little good, and may have caused adverse effects.  

An article in the Cincinnati Business Courier noted that CVS, of which Omnicare is now a subsidiary, avoided admitting any responsibility for the alleged acceptance of kickbacks,

CVS 'agreed to settle this matter to avoid the expense and uncertainty of protracted litigation,' spokesman Mike DeAngelis said of the suit against Omnicare. 'The activities, which were alleged to have violated anti-kickback laws, all occurred prior to CVS Health’s acquisition of Omnicare. These matters involved Omnicare only, and no allegations were made against any of CVS Health’s other businesses, including CVS Pharmacy and CVS Caremark. CVS Health is committed to the highest standards of ethics and business practices, and there was no admission of wrongdoing.'

An Associated Press article noted Omnicare's previous track record,

Omnicare has spent hundreds of millions of dollars resolving kickback litigation in recent years. In 2014, it agreed to pay more than $124 million to settle lawsuits alleging it gave kickbacks to some facilities so they would keep the company as their drug provider for elderly Medicare and Medicaid recipients.

In 2009, Omnicare said it would pay $98 million to settle allegations that it solicited or paid a variety of kickbacks. That included an accusation that it received kickbacks from Johnson & Johnson for recommending that doctors prescribe to nursing home patients the antipsychotic Risperdal, which can hasten death in elderly people with dementia.

Furthermore, an extensive list of parent company CVS' misadventures can be found in this post.


Despite all that, again, the settlement did not subject any individual to negative consequences for enabling, authorizing, directing or implementing the alleged acceptance of kickbacks.

Summary

Three settlements in two months by three major health care corporations involved allegations of unethical behaviors that were meant to increase prescribing of various pharmaceuticals, whether or not patients needed them, or were more likely to be harmed by them.  Despite the unsavory nature of the behaviors, and the likelihood of patient harms, the companies involved had to pay fines that were tiny relative to their multi-billion dollar revenues.  The companies did not have to admit responsibility, and company managers and leaders did not suffer any negative consequences for enabling, authorizing, directing or implementing the bad behavior.  Thus they exhibited impunity.

These cases are just the latest in a long march of legal settlements to remind us of the continuing bad behavior of large health care organizations, and the continuing impunity of their managers and leaders.

This adds to the evidence suggesting that US health care, at least, is rigged to benefit its top insiders and cronies, and as such, is part of a larger rigged system.  We have previously discussed how market fundamentalism (or neoliberalism) led to deregulation, which enabled deception, fraud, bribery, and intimidation to become standard business practices, and allowed increasing concentration of power by large corporations. Managerialism allowed the top leaders of these corporations and their insider cronies to amass increasing power and money. Everyone else, other employees, stockholders of public corporations, customers, vendors and suppliers, and the public at large lost out. In health care, these changes led to an increasingly costly system which produced increasingly bad results for patients and the public.

We have called for years for what we sometimes term "true health care reform" to derig the system.  Little has changed, while perceptions that the system is rigged have become more common.

Unfortunately, perceptions of a rigged system may not always inspire honest reform. Instead, they can enable the rise of demagogues and would be dictators who promise only they can solve the problem. This appears to have happened in the US. Now honest people who want to unrig the system must first prevent an even worse result, authoritarianism or frank dictatorship.  Never has Benjamin Franklin's warning that we only have "a republic, if you can keep it" been more salient.

However, should we be successful in fending off despotism, the original problems that led the system to be rigged will remain, and new men on white horses may appear, unless we truly reform the system. 

So let us not forget how we got here in the first place.  And should we successfully preserve our republic, let us remember the need for wholesale, real health care reform that would make health care leaders accountable for what their organizations do, particularly when these organizations misbehave.

Will There Ever Be Enough Straws to Break Corporate Health Care Managers' Impunity's Back? - Novartis Settles Yet Again, This Time for Bribing Doctors

Umpteenth verse, same as the first...

As just reported by Bloomberg,

Novartis AG said it agreed to pay $25 million to settle a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission case that claimed the Swiss drugmaker paid bribes to health professionals in China to increase sales from 2009 to 2013.

In particular,

The SEC detailed a number of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations where Novartis employees provided items of value to health-care professionals in China, under the supervision of complicit managers. It also cited examples of how the company improperly recorded as legitimate expenses payments employees made for travel and entertainment, conferences, lecture fees, marketing events, educational seminars and medical studies.

For some vivid examples,

In one example cited in the SEC order on Novartis, a sales representative at the drugmaker’s Sandoz China subsidiary submitted a $1,154 receipt to buy holiday gifts for 25 health-care professionals, which was instead used to pay for their spa and sauna sessions. A regional sales manager approved the purchase, the SEC said.

The SEC order also cited how Sandoz China sponsored 20 health-care professionals to attend a 2009 medical conference in Chicago. During the trip, the company paid for the group’s recreational activities such as a Niagara Falls excursions, $150 in 'walking around' money for their spouses, and cover charges to a strip club. The group was accompanied by a Sandoz China senior manager and other staff, according to the SEC.

So, thus far, the allegations were that Novaris bribed Chinese physicians to use their products, and the bribes includes gifts, travel money, and admission to a strip club.  It is likely that these bribes induced the physicians to unnecessarily or excssively prescribe Sandoz drugs to patients, leading to excess expenses, overtreatment, and quite likely adverse effects that should have been prevented.

As per the Wall Street Journal, and as usually happens in such cases, Novartis was allowed to settle without "admitting or denying the findigs." In the Bloomberg article, a Novartis spokesperson gave the usual vague response,

'The issues raised by the SEC, which relate to our subsidiaries in China and go back as far as 2009, largely pre-date many of the compliance-related measures introduced by Novartis across its global organization in recent years,' Novartis spokesman Eric Althoff said in an e-mailed statement Thursday.

The implication was that the company no longer does these bad things, but did not include a promise not to do them. And, of course, just like in many, many other health care cases, and in many, many other cases involving big, powerful, or influential organizations, no one at a top management level went to jail, or even suffered any negative consequences, even for such sleazy allegations as those in this case.  Finally, partially because the amount of this settlement was so small related to the financial bulk of the company involved, this case was relatively anechoic, only reported in the small items in the business press.

Summary

As we are distracted by bloviating billionaires and other spectacles on the US 2016 campaign trail, we continue to accumulate evidence of the corruption of large health care organizations and the impunity of their leaders.  Yet this evidence remains anechoic, even given the apparent recidivism involved.  For example, it was only in last November that we discussed what were then the latest misadventures by Novartis and its leadership.  At that time, our post included these section headings covering 2014-15:

-  Japanese Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry Found that Novartis Concealed Serious Adverse Effects
- Novartis Executive Pleads Guilty to Bribing Polish Official
- Novartis Subsidiary Sandoz Settles Allegations that it Misrepresented Pricing Data to US Medicaid
- Express Scripts Settles Allegations that it Accepted Kickbacks from Novartis
- Novartis Settles US Allegations of Kickbacks to Enhance Sales of Multiple Drugs

Furthermore, in that post we also documented Novartis' previous record.   In March, 2014, we had noted:
- Italian authorities had fined Novartis and Roche for colluding to promote the use of an expensive opthamologic treatment
- the NY Times published interviews with physicians ostensibly showing how Novartis turned them into marketers for the drug Starlix
- Japanese investigators charged Novartis with manipulating clinical research
- Indian regulators canceled a Novartis import license, charging the company with fraud.

Also,  in 2013, Novartis was fined for anti-competitive practices in its marketing of Fentanyl by the European Commission (look here), and in 2011 its Sandoz subsidiary settled allegations of misreporting prices in the US for $150 million (look here)   Other Novartis misadventures from 2010 and earlier appear here.  So Novartis has quite an impressive, if not infamous record of ethical failures.

Yet no Novartis top manager suffered any negative consequences then (although one apparent mid-level company manager at the Polish subsidiary did plead guilty), and all these previous episodes apparently did not suggest a pattern of recidivism to US authorities this time sufficient to attempt to impose any negative consequences on higher level managers.  Meanwhile, Novartis executives continue to be paid handsomely.  The 2015 Novartis executive compensation report listed over 51 million Swiss francs paid

Also, this goes on while large health care companies continue to pay out dizzying amounts to physicians, health care professionals, hospitals and academic institutions, which partially may secure their loyalty.  Novartis, for example, which ProPublica lists as only the 28th biggest payer to physicians, paid out $31.7  million in 2013-14 just to US physicians.    The 2015 Novartis board of directors included Dr Nancy C Andrews, the Dean of the Duke Medical School and Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs at Duke University,  Dr Dimitri Azar, Dean of the College of Medicine at the University of Chicago, Illinois, and Dr Charles L Sawyers, a professor and department chair at Weill-Cornell Medical School.   I am unaware that anyone of them have publicly raised any concerns about Novartis' recent misadventures, although I am also unaware whether anyone has publicly asked them such questions. 

No wonder that ordinary US (and other countries' citizens) feel that they are trapped in a hopeless economic situation by rigged systems designed to benefit from the corrupt insiders.  No wonder that someone of them are seeking the protection of some of those powerful insiders.  But I digress...

In terms of health care, as we have said like a broken record (if anyone remembers what that means), or, if you prefer, where every verse is same as the first...

There seems to be increasing recognition that the continuing rise in US health care costs is unsustainable, and that these costs are not buying us good health care.  There are calls to avoid unnecessary, and sometimes harmful care.  Yet there is a persistent disconnect between how continuing dishonest behavior by health care organizations, impunity of their leaders, and lack of accountability by their board members fuel rising costs, shrinking access, and bad outcomes for patients.

To truly reform health care, we will have to at least recognize the causes of the current dysfunction.  Recognizing how health care dysfunction is created by unaccountable, dishonest leadership should lead to true reform that would promote well-informed, honest, accountable leadership that puts patients' and the public's health ahead of personal gain.

Our musical interlude ("second verse, same as the first,") Herman's Hermits, Henry VIII

What They Really Think of Us (Swiss Version) - Novartis CEO Would Not Commit to Changing Company Behavior After Latest of Multiple Legal Settlements

The huge corporations which now dominate global health care are creating amazing records of repeated ethical misadventures.  We last discussed multinational Swiss based pharmaceutical manufacturer Novartis' escapades in early 2014.   Since then, the legal settlements and other legal findings just keep on coming, capped with a big one in late October, 2015.

We will summarize them in chronological order.


Japanese Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry Found that Novartis Concealed Serious Adverse Effects

In August, 2014, per the Japan Times, but apparently not reported widely outside of that country.

Novartis Pharma K.K. said it has failed to report at least 2,579 cases of serious side effects to the health ministry, including one that was fatal, related to its drugs for leukemia and other diseases, although employees were aware of the problems.

Of the total, 1,313 cases were related to Glivec and 514 to Tasigna, both drugs for leukemia treatment. Another 261 cases involved Afinitor, a cancer drug, the Japanese unit Swiss drug giant Novartis AG said Friday.

The findings were reported to the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry the same day.

The marketing staff at Novartis Pharma recognized the side effects but failed to report them to the division in charge, breaking the drug firm’s internal rules, Novartis Pharma said. They were not fully aware of the importance of the problem and higher-ranking officials failed to supervise them properly, it said.

In February, per the PharmaLot blog, the Ministry decided to suspend the company for 15 days, after having issued a business improvement order to it.  More details of Novartis' problems in Japan can be found in the Japan Times.  I cannot find anything to suggest any one in a position of leadership at Novartis faced any negative consequences as a result, however.

Note that by allegedly hiding adverse effects of its drugs, it is possible that the company's alleged actions led doctors and patients to believe the drugs were safer than they really are, possibly leading to overuse of the drugs and resulting in even more adverse effects.  I did not see a discussion of possible patient harm in the discussion of this case.


Novartis Executive Pleads Guilty to Bribing Polish Official

In October, 2014, per a short Reuters (UK) article, and apparently not mentioned elsewhere,

An executive at a pharmaceutical company in Poland who pleaded guilty in a bribery case involving improper payment, works for Novartis, the Swiss drugmaker said on Thursday.

Poland's anti-corruption bureau said on Tuesday two women had appeared in court in a case in which a health fund official was given a tourist trip worth more than $1,000 (620.67 pounds) in exchange for backing the sale of a particular drug.

Both defendants pleaded guilty....

The drug involved was not clear, and the company suggested this was an individual act ("the enquiry relates to an individual and the company is not part of the enquiry.")  Why an individual would do something like this if not to advance her career is not clear, however.  I cannot find any followup coverage of this, nor anything to suggest the supervisors of the executives involved faced any negative consequences.

Again, by bribing an official to promote a particular drug, this case could have led to overuse of the drug, and potentially to patient harm from the drug's adverse effects. 

Novartis Subsidiary Sandoz Settles Allegations that it Misrepresented Pricing Data to US Medicaid

In March, 2015, per the PharmaLot blog,

In what the federal government says is the largest such settlement ever reached, Sandoz has agreed to pay $12.64 million to resolve allegations that it misrepresented pricing data on medicines that were provided to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Sandoz, which is owned by Novartis and markets hundreds of generic drugs in the U.S., allegedly misrepresented the average sales price data to Medicare between January 2010 and March 2012, according to a statement from the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

A Novartis spokeswoman writes that the drug maker did not admit to any liability or wrongdoing. 'Sandoz continues to be committed to providing high-quality, affordable medicines to U.S. patients and conducting business with customers and the government with integrity.' As part of the settlement, Sandoz agreed to provide certification that it established a government pricing compliance program.

As the OIG explains, Medicare uses the pricing data to set payments for most drugs covered under Medicare Part B....

Again, no one who authorized, directed or implemented any price misrepresentation faced any negative consequences.  Futhermore, as often occurs in US cases, the company did not admit any wrongdoing, and provided the usual public relations boilerplate about upholding the highest principles, the allegations leading to the settlement notwithstanding.

Express Scripts Settles Allegations that it Accepted Kickbacks from Novartis

In May, 2015, also per the PharmaLot blog,

Express Scripts  has agreed to pay $60 million to resolve allegations by U.S. authorities that a business unit participated in a kickback scheme with Novartis that caused federal health care programs to pay for a medicine based on false claims, according to court documents and a regulatory filing.

The U.S. Department of Justice alleged that Novartis offered patient referrals to Accredo Health Group, which is a specialty pharmacy run by Express Scripts, in exchange for bolstering refills of Exjade, a drug used for reducing excess iron in patients who undergo blood transfusions....

Apparently other lawsuits involving allegations of Novartis payments to other pharmacies are pending. Note that the events alleged in some of these proceedings may have occurred while Novartis was already subject to a so-called corporate integrity agreement,

a key issue to watch is the extent to which a so-called Corporate Integrity Agreement that Novartis signed in 2010 factors into the proceedings. These agreements typically run for five years and require a company to establish an internal compliance program and report violations.

At the time that Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney in New York, announced the lawsuits against Novartis two years ago, he called the drug maker a 'repeat offender,' and the lawsuits noted that the violations alleged in the litigation took place before and after the CIA was signed.

Note that the settlement was with Express Scripts, although it involved allegations of misbehavior by Novartis.  Note also that this settlement throws into doubt one mechanism now widely used by law enforcement in the US to settle cases involving big corporations, the corporate integrity agreement or defererred prosecution agreement.  These are agreements made by corporations not to behave badly again.  Yet this case may yet demonstrate that these agreements do not deter future bad behavior.

Again, so far, this settlement did not involve any negative consequences for who may have authorized, directed or implemented the bad behavior either at Express Scripts or Novartis.

Novartis Settles US Allegations of Kickbacks to Enhance Sales of Multiple Drugs

In late October, 2015, a larger settlement, at least in monetary terms, of related issues was announced, per Reuters,

Novartis agreed in principle to pay $390 million to settle U.S. allegations that it used kickbacks to speciality pharmacies to push sales of some drugs, the Swiss company said on Tuesday, hitting third-quarter earnings.

Since this case involved hundreds of millions dollars, it got a bit more coverage than the others.  For example, Bloomberg provided some more specifics,

The payment covers all claims related to the medicines Myfortic, Exjade, Tasigna, Gleevec and TOBI, the company said. The U.S. had sought as much as $3.3 billion from Novartis for Exjade and Myfortic claims, claiming it had referred patients to specialty pharmacies and paid kickbacks in the form of rebates to get those pharmacies to recommend the drugs to patients and to increase sales.

It is customary in such settlements for them to allow the accused corporation to avoid any admission of guilt, often with some statement that the corporation neither confirms or denies the allegations.  In this latest cast, however, while the company issued the usual "neither confirm nor deny" statement, the Novartis CEO appeared to want to deny the allegations despite his willingness to pay so many millions to get them behind him, as per Reuters,

Chief Executive Joe Jimenez told reporters Novartis had made the disputed payments to ensure patients took their drugs, including treatments to prevent rejection of transplanted organs, but U.S. government attorneys disagreed.

'It's something we just believe we want to put behind us,' Jimenez said. Novartis said it neither admitted nor denied liability as part of the settlement.

How the payments or rebates to the pharmacies had anything to do with improving patient adherence is not clear.  Mr Jiminez's expertise in improving patient adherence is similarly not clear.  Per his official company biograpphy, his education was limited to business school, and before becoming a Novartis executive, he ran the Heinz company, makers of the famous ketchup (look here and here).  

Note that if, despite the protestations of the CEO to the contrary, the effect of the company's alleged actions was to over-promote use of the drugs, the results could have been excess adverse effects for patients. 

Furthermore, and despite this possibility, per the Wall Street Journal, the CEO also seemed unwilling to agree that the company would change any of its practices beyond paying the money,

Chief Executive Joe Jimenez said the rebates were designed to induce specialty pharmacies to ensure that patients completed a course of medicine. He added that Novartis still used this 'quite common' practice at specialty pharmacies in the U.S.

'We continue to maintain that specialty pharmacies must continue to play a role in ensuring patient adherence,' he said. 'How that is going to play out as to whether we change our behavior or not remains to be seen.'

This suggests that CEO Jiminez really thinks that the company should pay the money and then continue doing what it pleases, based on the rationale that the payments to or discounts given pharmacies were meant to improve patient adherence, not oversell the drugs.  This may reflect what he really thinks of what his company ought to be doing for, or to us, that is to or for the patients who take the drugs it manufactures. 

 Nonetheless, a public relations release tried to make those comments inoperative.

Some media coverage did not accurately reflect our position and the seriousness of the Company's commitment to working with the government to ensure our behaviors and interactions with specialty pharmacies meet the highest ethical standards. As such, we want to emphasize the following points:

Novartis will make detailed admissions of fact concerning the Government’s allegations as part of the final settlement.

Any reports suggesting that we are not addressing the Government’s concerns or the particular issues on which the litigation focused was not intended by the Company.

We remain committed to working with the government on corporate integrity obligations, including those relating to specialty pharmacies, and conducting our business in an ethical manner that is fully compliant with the law.

We await the statement of facts.  Maybe this statement will prove true, but given that the original statement came from the CEO, to whom the PR people who wrote the satement report, perhaps CEO and former purveyor of ketchup Jiminez meant what he said.  As noted in the Modern Healthcare blog,

Patrick Burns, co-director of the Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund, a not-for-profit funded by whistle-blowers and law firms that represent them, said he remains skeptical of the company's intentions.

Burns said Jimenez's original statements smack of disrespect for the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. attorney general.

'It's a level of arrogance and ignorance which is jaw-dropping,' Burns said. 'You have the CEO coming out and brazenly saying we will not even change our practice. I think this really is the time for the attorney general to show her teeth.'

We also await any such dental findings. 


Summary

This set of misadventures are just the latest in a long series by Novartis.  In March, 2014, we noted:
- Italian authorities had fined Novartis and Roche for colluding to promote the use of an expensive opthamologic treatment
- the NY Times published interviews with physicians ostensibly showing how Novartis turned them into marketers for the drug Starlix
- Japanese investigators charged Novartis with manipulating clinical research
- Indian regulators canceled a Novartis import license, charging the company with fraud.

Also,  in 2013, Novartis was fined for anti-competitive practices in its marketing of Fentanyl by the European Commission (look here), and in 2011 its Sandoz subsidiary settled allegations of misreporting prices in the US for $150 million (look here)   Other Novartis misadventures from 2010 and earlier appear here.  So Novartis has quite an impressive, if not infamous record of ethical failures.

Nonetheless, the march of its legal cases continues.  Furthermore, after the latest case, the Novartis CEO suggested that he saw no clear need for the company to change its ways, even though his PR people later tried to recast his statements.

So we see that the big health care organizations which now dominate health care globally continue to misbehave, and current legal efforts centering on settlements and fines seem to do nothing to deter continued misbehavior.  Maybe it is time to end the impunity of the corporate managers who have become rich while such behavior continues on their watch.  Modern Healthcare quoted Mr Burns as saying

the financial penalty in this case didn't seem to be enough to fix the problem. He believes the government needs to begin excluding executives such as Jimenez from federal healthcare programs in order to better get its message across that such behavior won't be tolerated.

In the new PharmaLot blog, Ed Silverman was hopeful that things may really be getting ready to change. He first noted, as we have done many times previously,

Over the years, a parade of drug companies has reached settlements, mostly for paying physicians to favor their medicines or illegally marketing products. Rarely, though, do executives suffer any consequences.

Also,

Mostly, the federal government resorts to large fines, even though countless people may have been prescribed medicines unnecessarily — at great expense and sometimes great harm. And drug makers simply treat these penalties as a cost of doing business. The failure to come down harder is sadly reminiscent of the recent financial crisis in which most heads of the biggest banks escaped unscathed.

Lately, however, there are signs the government might be changing its approach toward recalcitrant executives, and such a move is long overdue. After all, if individuals are not held accountable, the senior officials who run these companies have little incentive to play by the rules.

One can only hope, I suppose.  But to conclude as I have so many times before....

There seems to be increasing recognition that the continuing rise in US health care costs is unsustainable, and that these costs are not buying us good health care.  There are calls to avoid unnecessary, and sometimes harmful care.  Yet there is a persistent disconnect between how continuing dishonest behavior by health care organizations, impunity of their leaders, and lack of accountability by their board members fuel rising costs, shrinking access, and bad outcomes for patients.

To truly reform health care, we will have to at least recognize the causes of the current dysfunction.  Recognizing how health care dysfunction is created by unaccountable, dishonest leadership should lead to true reform that would promote well-informed, honest, accountable leadership that puts patients' and the public's health ahead of personal gain.  

Entresto: Blockbuster, or Just Over Hyped? - Whatever, It Will Cost $4500 a Year

The newest drug for congestive heart failure, Entresto, a fixed combination of valsartan and sacubitril, has just hit the market at an elevated price.  Like other drugs recently introduced as blockbusters, the high price does not seem clearly justified by clinical evidence about the drug's benefits and harms.  


Questions Raised by the One Big Published Controlled Trial

Last year, we discussed the hoopla around a study of a new drug for congestive heart failure (CHF),(1) a fixed combination of valsartan and sacubitril. Also, on the now defunct CardioExchange blog, Dr Vinay Prasad discussed the same study (look here, and scroll down.) We both concluded that the (apparently multiply flawed) design of the study left important questions unanswered.

Does Sacubitril Actually Work?

 The PARADIGM-HF study compared patients given valsartan plus sacubitril to patients given enalapril.  Valsartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) and enalapril, an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) have both been shown separately to improve symptoms and function, decrease morbid events, and extend life for patients with systolic CHF.  However, the PARADIGM-HF study compared a high dose of valsartan, 160 mg twice a day, (plus sacubitril) to a medium dose of enalapril, 10 mg twice a day.  Apparently, no trial comparing just valsartan 160 mg to enalapril 10 mg twice a day has been done.  So it is quite possible that a high dose of valsartan is better than a medium dose of enalapril.  Thus, PARADIGM-HF could not prove that sacubitril has any benefit independent of high dose valsartan.

What are the Adverse Effects of Sacubitril (With or Without Valsartan) Likely to be in Practice?

The PARADIGM-HF design prevented any assessment of the adverse effects of sacubitril independent of those of valsartan.  Furthermore, the trial had an active run-in period which resulted in the exclusion of  patients who failed to tolerate valsartan-sacubitril in a pre-trial run-in period.  This effectively biased downward the prevalence of adverse effects due to the combination reported during the trial.  Finally, the trial, while big, was not big enough to discover rare but severe adverse effects.  Thus, one cannot easily tell how the benefits of valsartan-sacubitril compare to its harms, or how the benefits of sacubitril alone compare to its harms.

How Would Valartan-Sacubitril Work for Patients with Common Diseases in Addition to CHF?

The study excluded patients with common conditions that may afflict CHF patients, including relatively severe coronary artery disease, severe lung disease, ulcers and liver disease.  CHF patients are often elderly and often have other diseases, but how the drug might work for them is unclear.

Other Doubts and Questions

In a recent Medscape post, Dr John Mandrola noted additional problems with the study that raise doubts about its validity.  These included its early termination, the very large number (1000) of study sites raising doubts about quality control of implementation and data collection, and the finding, not emphasized by the authors, that valsartan-sacubril caused an apparent increase in hypotension, a significant issue for CHF patients.

As far as I can tell, there have been no other big trials of sacubitril, with or without valsartan, so there are no other source of clinical research data to address these questions.  As we noted here, one of the most prominent PARADIGM-HF investigators tried to rebut Dr Prasad, but did so mainly by employing logical fallacies.

So in my humble opinion, there is only weak, ambiguous data to show valsartan-sacubitril produces benefits that outweigh its harms for congestive heart failure patients seen in usual clinical practice.

More Enthusiasm and Hype about Entresto

These questions about the one big study of valsartan-sacubitril did not deter the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from approving it.  As soon as it was approved, the hype machine started up in a big way.

Per the NY Times,

'This is one of those once-in-a-decade kind of breakthroughs, to get a drug that extends life so substantially,' David Epstein, the head of Novartis’s pharmaceutical division, said in an interview.

Per the Wall Street Journal,

Clyde Yancy, chief of cardiology at Chicago’s Northwestern Memorial Hospital, said that Entresto is 'one of the few times that we have identified a medication that is better than the standard. It’s clearly superior to what we have.'

Per a Medscape news post, Dr Clyde Yancy also said,

A year later, I continue to feel that this is, in fact, a reflection of a new day—for patients and for the opportunity to reenergize the community. It's also a huge endorsement for the importance of science in cardiovascular medicine.

And Dr Milton Packer (who had countered Dr Pradad's critique of PARADIGM-HF with logical fallacies, said,

I think they considered the data to be compelling and strong. And I think that when physicians look at the data, they will be convinced that this drug will become a cornerstone of treatment for heart failure.

The Medscape article did document some doubts.  Dr John G Cleland of Imperial College, London, UK allowed that the active run-in group was among "issues that have yet to be settled," Dr Marriell Jessup who had written a positive editorial in the NEJM when the trial was published(2) allowed that the lack of patients with co-morbities might be a problem.  Finally, Dr Yancy allowed that the early termination might be a problem.   Yet each focused on a single problem with the study, and none of these physicians seemed to acknowledge the totality of the study's problem.  Neither did any of them seemed to let these doubts dampen the enthusiasm, e.g., at the end of the article, quoting Dr Yancy,

Can we change the narrative?  I believe it's time to take the 'failure' out of heart failure and look at what we can do to generate success.

Note that the article disclosed Dr Cleland does research funded by Novartis, maker of Entresto, and Dr Packer is a consultant to Novartis.  Is is possible these commercial relationships tempered any concerns that might have had about the study design. 

I realize that CHF is a miserable problem for patients, and clearly leads to severe symptoms, multiple hospitalization, and sometimes early death.  So I understand why people may be enthusiastic about a new therapy for it, especially if their research or consulting is funded by the drug's manufacturer.  But is it crystal clear the latest innovation is that good?

Billions of Dollars in Play

But never mind those unanswered questions and the multiple problems with the PARADIGM-HF trial, Entresto, the trade name for valsartan-sacubitril will not be cheap.  Per the NY Times,

Novartis said Entresto would cost about $12.50 a day, or about $4,500 for a year....

Novartis wants to convince you that it's not really that expensive

Mr Epstein said the price was 'really quite reasonable,' given that some drugs for other diseases cost many times that amount and confer less benefit.

He is certainly right that some drugs are even more expensive. However, is argument is just an appeal to common practice.  Whether the prices of other drugs are justified by strong evidence about their benefits and harms may not be clear. The benefits conferred by Entresto, and the harms it may cause as we belabored above, are really not that certain either. 

In the financial news, you could almost imagine the salivation.  Per the WSJ,

Wall Street predicts Entresto will be a blockbuster, with Leerink Partners estimating that annual global sales could top $6 billion by 2024.

In Reuters,

Expectations for Entresto have been building since it won early U.S. approval and Novartis set a higher than expected price, with analysts now forecasting $4.7 billion of sales in 2020, according to Thomson Reuters Cortellis.

Chief Executive Joe Jimenez said Entresto sales would take time to ramp up but growth would accelerate in 2016. Reception to the new drug, which Novartis started shipping within 24 hours of U.S. approval this month, has been good and there was little resistance to the $12.50 daily cost.

'The average hospital stay for a heart failure patient in the United States is $11,000,' Jimenez told reporters. 'So we are not receiving pushback on the price because I think this is seen as good value.'

Compared to what? Again, it is not clear that Entresto would be better than generic enalapril dosed at 20 mg/day, which is a lot cheaper than $4,500 a year.  But could it be that visions of billions of dollars have clouded some peoples' thinking, at least people paid by or owning stock in Novartis?

Summary

We have posted frequently about the blockbuster drug Sovaldi promoted as a cure for deadly hepatitis C infections.  Yet while the evidence that Sovaldi and its competitors are really so good, really provide cures, and really will prevent many patients from dire consequences of hepatitis C is not so strong, the US price of these drugs is stratospheric.

Now we have Entresto, whose price is not so stratospheric, but still quite high, and whose benefits compared to its harms are not clearly supported by evidence from clinical research.

 Unfortunately, Entresto (valsartan-sacubitril) is now one of a long line of new drugs that are breathlessly hyped, often by people who should know better, despite weak evidence in their favor.  It is one of a long list of examples of drugs approved based on poorly designed studies whose design flaws seem likely to make their commercial sponsors' products look better.  As a recent post in Health Affairs by Christopher Robertson reminds us, while many industry supporter act like allowing drug and device manufacturers to support (and usually control) most of the clinical research meant to evaluate their own products in inevitable,

When one steps back from our current practices, it should appear rather odd that we rely on companies to test the safety and efficacy of their own products. It would be as if a litigant were allowed to choose and fund its own judge, or an athlete to hire her own referee.

To convince us that we live in the best of all possible worlds, however, the media is full of proclamations that we are in a new era of marvelous medical and health care "innovations" that will bring us all untold benefits.  The notion that physician-industry collaboration is necessary to continue to produce these wondrous "innovations" is a talking point used to counter those who criticize conflicts of interest affecting academic medicine (look here).   Yet the evidence supporting many game-changers and blockbusters is often weak and ambiguous.  This rarely seems to deter the drug, device and biotechnology industry from charging more and more for them.


The sober, evidence-based medicine approach is being lost in all the hoopla and hucksterism.  We are adopting treatments of unproven value, whose benefits may be much less, and harms may be much worse than we imagine, and paying unconscionsable prices for them.  The results for patients and society include our ever rising health care costs, ever challenged access, and no evidence that outcomes are better for patients.

True health care reform would encourage sober discussion of the evidence, of benefits and harms, and of fair pricing, and would challenge the hype, hucksterism, and conflicts of interest that all swirl around modern health care. 



References

1.   McMurray JJV, Packer M, Desai AS et al.  Angiotensin - neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure.  N Engl J Med 2014; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1409077  Link here.

2.  Jessup M. Neprilysin inhibition - a novel therapy for heart failure.  N Engl J Med 2014;  DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe1409898.  Link here.

What Big Drug and Biotechnology Companies Will Not Tell Us - Transparency International on Corporate Reporting

Drug companies are entrusted to provide pure, unadulterated medicines.  Increasingly drug companies are now entrusted with doing research, including experimental studies, on human beings, and providing education to doctors and patients.  Ordinarily, trust requires confidence in transparency. However, a new report suggests that large multinational drug and biotechnology companies are not very transparent.

Transparency International just released a report on the transparency, or lack thereof, of the 124 biggest multinational corporations.  The report detailed how well these companies disclosed their internal anti-corruption programs, their subsidiaries, affiliates, and joint ventures, and their financial data broken down by the countries in which they operate.  In summary, the overall results for disclosing anti-corruption programs were mediocre, and for disclosing organizational structure and country-by-country financial data, they were dismal.

The report is highly relevant to health care.  It included the biggest multinational health care corporations, all drug and/or biotechnology companies: Abbott Laboratories, (based in the US), Amgen (US), AstraZeneca (UK), Gilead Sciences (US), GlaxoSmithKline (UK), Johnson and Johnson (US), Merck and Co (US), Novartis (Switzerland), Novo Nordisk (Denmark), Pfizer (US), Roche Holding (Switzerland), Sanofi (France), Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (Israel).

The report has so far received little media coverage.  In the US, several news services provided brief  summaries.  Somewhat more substantial articles came from Reuters, the Wall Street Journal's Risk and Compliance Journal, and CNBC.  None gave specifics about health care.  Coverage from other countries, e.g., Germany by Deutsche Welle, and the UK by the Guardian, was more detailed but also did not specifically mention health care.

Therefore, I will summarize the rationale and assessment methods used by Transparency International for its three dimensions of transparency, and then show results from the 13 health care corporations.

Disclosure of Anti-Corruption Programs

The rationale for addressing this area was:

Global companies have legal and ethical obligations to conduct their business honestly. This requires
commitment, resources and the ongoing management of a range of risks – legal, political and reputational – including those associated with corruption. The implementation of a comprehensive range of anticorruption policies and management systems is fundamental to efforts to prevent and remediate corruption within organisations.

Transparency International believes that public reporting by companies on their anti-corruption programmes allows for increased monitoring by stakeholders and the public at large, thereby making companies more accountable

Evaluation of disclosure of anti-corruption programs was

based on 13 questions, which are derived from the UN Global Compact and Transparency International Reporting Guidance on the 10th Principle against Corruption. This tool, based on the Business Principles for Countering Bribery, which were developed by Transparency International in collaboration with a multi-stakeholder group, includes recommendations for companies on how to publicly report on their anticorruption programmes.

Note that the project addressed only reporting of anti-corruption programs, not their implementation or effectiveness.

For this and the other two dimensions of transparency, responses were converted into a 0% to 100% scale, with 100% being the best possible result.

Organizational Transparency

The rationale was:

As many of the recent corporate scandals have shown, acts of corruption are very often aided by the use of opaque company structures and secrecy jurisdictions.  But the use of offshore companies and their lack of transparency are posing increasing risks for global companies as well as for their shareholders, employees and local communities.

So,

Companies can mitigate the risks posed by lack of transparency and ownership arrangements by shedding more light on their corporate structures and by making basic financial information public on a country-by-country basis. This allows stakeholders to have a clearer understanding of the extent of a company’s operations and makes the company more accountable for its activities in a given country, including assessing whether it contributes financially in a manner appropriate to its level of activity.

The measurement strategy was,

Transparency International researchers consulted publicly available documents such as annual reports and stock exchange filings for information about company subsidiaries, affiliates, joint ventures and other holdings. The information sought included corporate names, percentages of ownership by the parent company, countries of incorporation and the countries in which the companies operate.

Country-by-Country Reporting

The rationale included:

The importance of country-by-country reporting was first recognised in the extractive sector as a way to ensure that revenues from natural resources are used to foster economic and social development rather than line the pockets of kleptocratic elites.

So,

country-by-country reporting ... [is] a recognised building block for corporate transparency and as a tool for countering tax avoidance.

In addition, country-by-country reporting provides investors with more comprehensive financial information about companies and helps them address investment risk more effectively.

The items measured were disclosure of revenue/sales, capital expenditures, pre-tax income, income tax, and community contribution in each country in which the company operated.

Results for Health Care Corporations

Company                      Total  Anti-Corruption P  Org Structure  by-Country

Abbott Laboratories    40             81                           38                3
Amgen                          37             85                           25                0
AstraZeneca                37             88                           19                3
Gilead Sciences           26             54                           25                0
GlaxoSmithKline          52            96                           50               11
Johnson and Johnson  26           65                           13                0
Merck and Co               42           77                            50                0
Novartis                        38            77                           38                1
Novo Nordisk               39            81                           38                0
Pfizer                             35            92                           13                0
Roche Holding              33            62                           38                1
Sanofi                            38            77                           38                0
Teva Pharmaceutical  35            85                            19                0

Again, only one company, GlaxoSmithKline, achieved an overall score of barely better than 50%.  All the others had lower scores.  Only two companies achieved a 50% score on disclosure of organizational structure, and only one achieved a score of better than 10% for disclosing country-by-country results.  The Transparency International report noted that the health care companies got particularly bad scores for disclosing organizational structure, averaging 31%, the third worst performance by economic sector.


Summary

 The drug and biotechnology companies generally did a fairly good job disclosing what their anti-corruption programs were supposed to do.  However, note that the Transparency International report did not assess how well these programs were implemented or enforced.  That this concern is not academic is underscored by some of these companies disreputable track records.  Some have long histories of legal actions, including billion dollar plus legal settlements, some of which were of allegations of fraud or kickbacks, and some have been convicted of crimes.  See the records of, for example: Abbott Laboratories (look here and here), Amgen (here), AstraZeneca (here), GlaxoSmithKline (here), Johnson and Johnson (here), Merck (here), Novartis (here), Novo Nordisk (here), Pfizer (here), Roche (here), Sanofi (here), and Teva (here).

Moreover, the companies did not do a good job disclosing their organizational structures, and hardly any bothered to report any financial results broken down by country.

We have frequently discussed health care corporations' deceptive marketing, induction of conflicts of interest, including those of supposed "key opinion leaders" who often are marketers in academic or professional clothing, and manipulation and suppression of clinical research.  There has been an ongoing procession of legal settlements involving health care corporations, often involving allegations of, and sometimes convictions for fraud, kickbacks, bribery, or other crimes.  There have even been some cases in which drug companies have failed to assure that their products are pure and unadulterated, their most basic mission.  Thus many are distrustful of drug and biotechnology companies, and large health care organizations in general.

So, as Transparency International's report noted, to rebuild trust,

integrity must be central to these efforts. Those efforts, in turn, can only become fully credible if they are undertaken with a sustained commitment to ethical behaviour and transparency across companies’ operations.

In my humble opinion, a basic premise of true health care reform would be that health care organizations become sufficiently transparent to restore basic trust in them.