Ho-hum, Another Month, Another Set of Multi-Million Dollar Settlements by Health Care Corporations Acting Badly

Amazingly, with a US presidential election looming, there is finally some public discussion here of the impunity of top corporate executives.  Columnist Gretcher Moregenson wrote on February 6, 2016 in the New York Times,

Ho-hum, another week, another multimillion-dollar settlement between regulators and a behemoth bank acting badly.

Then,

As has become all too common in these cases, not one individual was identified as being responsible for the activities. Once again, shareholders are shouldering the costs of unethical behavior they had nothing to do with.

It could not be clearer: Years of tighter rules from legislators and bank regulators have done nothing to fix the toxic, me-first cultures that afflict big financial firms.

Similarly, but more broadly, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D - Massachusetts) published a report in January, 2016, entitled "Rigged Justice: 2016 - How Weak Enforcement Lets Corporate Offenders Off Easy." She summarized its main conclusions in a New York Times op-ed,

Corporate criminals routinely escape meaningful prosecution for their misconduct.

Furthermore,

In a single year, in case after case, across many sectors of the economy, federal agencies caught big companies breaking the law — defrauding taxpayers, covering up deadly safety problems, even precipitating the financial collapse in 2008 — and let them off the hook with barely a slap on the wrist. Often, companies paid meager fines, which some will try to write off as a tax deduction.

The failure to adequately punish big corporations or their executives when they break the law undermines the foundations of this great country. Justice cannot mean a prison sentence for a teenager who steals a car, but nothing more than a sideways glance at a C.E.O. who quietly engineers the theft of billions of dollars.

These enforcement failures demean our principles. They also represent missed opportunities to address some of the nation’s most pressing challenges.

In particular, she cited this example involving health care.

When Novartis, a major drug company that was already effectively on federal probation for misconduct, paid kickbacks to pharmacies to push certain drugs, it cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and undermined patient health. Under the law, the government can boot companies that defraud Medicare and Medicaid out of those programs, but when Novartis got caught, it just paid a penalty — one so laughably small that its C.E.O. said afterward that it 'remains to be seen' whether his company would actually consider changing its behavior.

Note that we discussed the Novartis settlement here.  The case referred to by Senator Warren was just the latest in a series of ethical misadventures by Novartis which led to legal actions in the US and around the world, but feeble penalties.

But while Ms Morgenson wrote about financial institutions, now we can also write:

Ho-hum, another month, another set of multimillion-dollar settlements between regulators and  behemoth health care companies acting badly.

In chronological order, since mid-January, 2016...

For $830 Million, Merck Settled Shareholders Lawsuit Alleging Deceptions by Corporate Management

On January 15, 2016, the Wall Street Journal reported,

Merck said Friday it agreed to pay $830 million to resolve a class-action lawsuit brought by shareholders, alleging the drug maker and its executives made false and misleading statements about the safety of Vioxx between its introduction in 1999 and its market withdrawal in 2004.

The shareholders alleged they paid inflated prices for Merck shares because of the company’s conduct.

Note that if the company misled its shareholders, it also misled health care professionals and the public about the harms of Vioxx,  putting many patients at risk. Of course, the Vioxx case is now old news, but it continues to be an example of a case in which the corporation paid fines, presumably at the expense of shareholders, employees and patients, but in which no one who authorized or directed the bad behavior paid any penalty.

As is typical in such cases,

Merck, which is based in Kenilworth, N.J., said Friday the settlement of the shareholders’ lawsuit doesn’t constitute an admission of liability or wrongdoing by the company or individual executives named as defendants in the case.

Merck has paid billions to settle multiple lawsuits related to Vioxx, yet what it paid was much less than the revenue produced by the drug.

The bulk of Merck’s Vioxx-related costs came from its 2007 agreement to pay $4.85 billion to settle thousands of product-liability lawsuits alleging that patients’ use of Vioxx caused heart attacks and strokes, and that Merck failed to properly warn people of the risks. Merck didn’t admit liability in that settlement.

In addition, Merck agreed in 2011 to pay $950 million to resolve allegations by the U.S. Justice Department and state governments that the company deceived the government about the safety of Vioxx, and marketed it for uses not included in the prescribing label approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Merck recorded more than $11 billion in Vioxx sales during the drug’s years on the market from mid-1999 to September 2004.

The company did plead guilty to one criminal charge related to Vioxx.

 As part of the 2011 settlement, Merck pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor criminal violation of a federal drug law, admitting that it promoted Vioxx to treat rheumatoid arthritis before that use was approved by the FDA.

But apparently no Merck manager was ever charged with a crime, much less convicted.  We have discussed the Vioxx case here, and other issues with Merck here.

Note that this settlement comes soon after a smaller settlement in 2015 that was barely mentioned in the press,Merck to pay $5.9 million for misleading marketing of pink eye drug: U.S [Reuters]

For $785 Million, Pfizer Settled Suit Alleging Overcharging of Medicaid

On February 16, 2016, per the Wall Street Journal,

Drugmaker Pfizer Inc. on Tuesday said it reached an agreement in principle to pay $784.6 million to settle a long-running U.S. government investigation of allegations that its Wyeth unit overcharged government Medicaid health programs for the heartburn drug Protonix.

Of course,

Pfizer said the agreement doesn’t include any admission of liability by Wyeth.

Much less did the agreement include any penalties for anyone at Wyeth or Pfizer who authorized or directed the overcharging. Yet some people must have.

Note that this settlement did not seem informed by Pfizer's amazingly lengthy record of legal settlements, and some guilty pleas and/or convictions (for illegal marketing/ misbranding, and for violating the racketeering influenced corrupt organization [RICO]  statute), as most recently summarized here.

Note also, pertinent to the report by Senator Warren mentioned above, every week people pay severe penalties for defrauding Medicaid, Medicare, or other federal health programs.  Today, a quick Google search for "medicaid fraud prison" found such stories from the last month as a woman sentenced to five years in Louisville, and another women sentenced again to five years in Dallas. Yet no person at Pfizer paid any penalty for for practices that deprived the government of hundreds of millions of dollars.  

For $250 Million, Fresenius Settled Lawsuits Alleging it Withheld Information About the its Products' Hazards

Per the New York Times, January 18, 2016,

The world’s largest provider of kidney dialysis equipment and services has agreed to pay $250 million to settle thousands of lawsuits from dialysis patients and their relatives claiming that the company’s products had caused heart problems and deaths.

The settlement was announced by Fresenius Medical Care, a German company whose North American division is one of the two large dialysis providers in the United States.

The lawsuits arose after Fresenius’s own medical office sent an internal memo to doctors in the company’s dialysis centers saying that failure to properly use one of the company’s products appeared to be causing a sharp increase in sudden deaths from cardiac arrest.

But the company did not warn doctors in non-Fresenius clinics who were also using the product, called GranuFlo. It did so only after the internal memo was sent anonymously to the Food and Drug Administration, which began an investigation.

 The company conducted a recall, which was actually a change in the label, not the removal of the product from the market.

Note that this settlement was of allegations not of financial chicanery, but of behavior that put patients in harms way. Nonetheless,

Kent Jarrell, a spokesman for the company, said the initial internal memo was actually incorrect and contradicted by further careful analysis. He said the warning language added to the GranuFlo label in 2012 was eventually removed. GranuFlo, and a related product called NaturaLyte, are used in dialysis machines to help cleanse patients’ blood.

In the first case to go to trial, a jury in Massachusetts state court ruled that Fresenius was negligent, for not distributing the memo more widely, but that a patient’s death could not be attributed to GranuFlo, so no monetary damages were awarded, according to Mr. Jarrell and to Christopher Seeger, a lawyer who led the settlement negotiations for the plaintiffs.

But if the initial concern was unwarranted and Fresenius won the first trial, why would it pay $250 million to settle? Mr. Jarrell suggested that a reason was to put the more than 10,000 lawsuits behind it.

'Fresenius deeply regrets the confusion and concern temporarily generated by the November 2011 memorandum,' he said in an emailed statement.

Again, there were no admissions or findings of guilt, no apologies (except for causing "confusion and concern"), and no negative consequences for the corporate managers who authorized or directed the actions in question.  While the FDA apparently issued a recall notice for GranuFlo, no federal agency apparently took action against the company or any individuals within it.    Also, this settlement seemed uninformed by previous settlements made by Fresenius, which were made in 2011 of allegations of false claims, in 2010 again of allegations of false claims, and in 2007 of allegations of restraint of trade (look here).

Summary

We first discussed how legal settlements may serve as markers for misbehavior by large health care organizations, but not as deterrents to future bad behavior in 2006.  Then we wrote ...

 Why do the mainly monetary penalties seem mainly to come out of the hides of stock-holders and consumers, rather than the people who actually made the decisions that lead to the offenses?

In 2008, we wrote,

After all, a fine or settlement paid years later can just be written off as a cost of doing business. Furthermore, although such a payment may have a (minimal) effect on the company's bottom line, it has no real effect on the people whose decisions and actions lead to the problem.

So rather than repeating our usual verbiage about the impunity of health care leaders, let me defer to Senator Warren:

Laws are effective only to the extent they are enforced. A law on the books has little impact if prosecution is highly unlikely.

This country devotes substantial resources to the prosecution of crimes such as murder, assault, kidnapping, burglary and theft, both in an effort to deter future criminal activity and to provide victims with some degree of justice. Strong enforcement of corporate criminal laws serves similar goals: to deter future criminal activity by making would-be lawbreakers think twice before breaking the law and, sometimes, by helping victims recover from their injuries.

When government regulators and prosecutors fail to pursue big corporations or their executives who violate the law, or when the government lets them off with a slap on the wrist, corporate criminals have free rein to operate outside the law. They can game the system, cheat families, rip off taxpayers, and even take actions that result in the death of innocent victims—all with no serious consequences.

The failure to punish big corporations or their executives when they break the law undermines the foundations of this great country: If justice means a prison sentence for a teenager who steals a car, but it means nothing more than a sideways glance at a CEO who quietly engineers the theft of billions of dollars, then the promise of equal justice under the law has turned into a lie. The failure to prosecute big, visible crimes has a corrosive effect on the fabric of democracy and our shared belief that we are all equal in the eyes of the law.

Under the current approach to enforcement, corporate criminals routinely escape meaningful prosecution for their misconduct. This is so despite the fact that the law is unambiguous: if a corporation has violated the law, individuals within the corporation must also have violated the law. If the corporation is subject to charges of wrongdoing, so are those in the corporation who planned, authorized or took the actions. But even in cases of flagrant corporate law breaking, federal law enforcement agencies – and particularly the Department of Justice (DOJ) – rarely seek prosecution of individuals. In fact, federal agencies rarely pursue convictions of either large corporations or their executives in a court of law. Instead, they agree to criminal and civil settlements with corporations that rarely require any admission of wrongdoing and they let the executives go free without any individual accountability.

Keep in mind that the impunity of health care leaders, especially in contrast with the tough enforcement efforts against small fry health care offenders, not only has a corrosive effect on the fabric of democracy but endangers patients' and the public's health, and makes health care more expensive and inaccessible.

Maybe now that the impunity of corporate leaders is becoming a mainstream topic of discussion, we can start talking about, and then doing something about the impunity of corporate leaders in health care. 

At Merck's Urging, a Federal Judge Threatens to Sanction a Lone Professor for Trying to Reveal Evidence about Vioxx

We have written often, and most recently this week, about the limp posture taken by US law enforcement and regulatory agencies in the face of misbehavior by large health care organizations.  At best, official action often results in legal settlements which let companies pay fines, sometimes large, while the individuals who profited most from the alleged wrongdoing do not suffer any negative consequences.  Worse, the legal settlements often allow the companies to continue to deny any culpability, and the legal evidence underlying the settlement, which might let the public at least estimate culpability, is often kept sealed, or confidential.  As Judge Rakoff wrote in turning down such a settlement involving a financial, not health care company, sealing evidence hides "any proven or admitted facts upon which to exercise even a modest degree of independent judgment,"  and prevents courts and presumably anyone else from trying to determine whether the government endorsement of such a settlement serves any public purpose (look here).

Keeping Evidence from the Latest Vioxx Case Secret

But Ed Silverman, posting to the revived PharmaLot blog, found an example of how far big health care organizations will go to try to keep secret evidence uncovered during litigation that lead to legal settlements, and how judges other than Judge Rakoff may let them do so.

A federal judge may sanction a physician who served as an expert witness in the ongoing litigation over the Vioxx painkiller for describing confidential documents to The Wall Street Journal.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Eldon Fallon issued a restraining order saying David Egilman, who is a Brown University clinical professor of family medicine, 'may have acted in derogation of his responsibilities.'  Egilman was an expert witness with access to documents in litigation over the Merck pill that took place in various courts around the country. Vioxx was withdrawn a decade ago over links to heart attacks and strokes.

Fallon, who presides over Vioxx litigation that was consolidated in federal court in New Orleans, had issued an order in 2005 that marked swaths of documents as confidential. Much of the documentation was filed as evidence in litigation in both state and federal courts.

The Nature of the Information to be Kept Secret

The post is vague about what secret information Dr Egilman was accused of making public.  Apparently, it had to do with his work as

a paid expert witness for plaintiffs in a lawsuit that had been filed by the Kentucky Attorney General, who alleged Merck violated consumer protection laws by failing to disclose to doctors and patients that taking Vioxx significantly raised the risk of a heart attack. The lawsuit was settled last November for $23 million, although the drug maker did not admit to any wrongdoing.

Egilman maintains that some documents demonstrated a failure to properly inform research subjects of side effects and risks, and thus he believes the information should be publicly available.

'In general, there’s information on the toxicity of the drug that’s not been previously published by Merck and there is information that Merck published that misrepresents the health effects of the drug,' he told us three months ago, which prompted the drug maker to complain to the federal judge.

So apparently the information had to do with the possibility that Merck withheld or misrepresented information about the toxicity and health effects of Vioxx.  Also, apparently another judge thought that there was at least an argument that this evidence should be public.

What About the Public's Interest?

Three months ago, though, a Kentucky state judge permitted Egilman to challenge the confidentiality of the documents, since he had standing as an expert witness which gave him previous access to the materials. As we noted at the time, the judge wrote that 'important public policy questions regarding consumer protection and public health have been raised. The public has an interest in evaluating Dr. Egilman’s opinions and the documents on which they were based.'

Merck appears to be squirming in response to the prospect that this information could become public, and that the public might have an interest, in any sense, in it.

 Merck continues to decline comment about the content of the documents and the legal fight with Egilman. But the drug maker argued at a recent hearing that, by virtue of describing the documents to The Wall Street Journal, Egilman violated the 2005 protective order. Moreover, the drug maker maintained that it would be harmed if the documents were disclosed, and Fallon agreed.

While the judge seemed very concerned that Merck somehow might be harmed were to truth to be revealed, it is not obvious either the judge or Merck were at all concerned about the public interest in this truth, if for no other reason than it would say something about what appointed and elected government law enforcement officials are willing to keep secret.  Nor did the judge seem concerned about the imbalance for forces obvious when a huge drug company and US law enforcement are on one side, and a single physician is on the other.

Merck's Track Record Vis a Vis Vioxx

By the way, while past results do not guarantee future performance, as financial reports are wont to say, past results suggest that Merck was up to no good on a grand scale in its promotion of Vioxx.

As we noted here, all these settlements  arose out of what was called the "Vioxx scandal." In summary, Vioxx (rofecoxib, Merck) a Cox-2 inhibitor non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug used for pain, and touted for its ostensibly low risk of gastrointestinal side-effects, was withdrawn from the market in 2004 because of its cardiac risks.  The Vioxx case is flush with examples of how the company used deception to market a very profitable drug without regard to its risks to patients. 

There is evidence is that the company knew about these effects since 2000, but suppressed the clinical research evidence until 2003.(1)  In particular, in 2005, the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine raised concerns that an article published in that journal in 2000 about the results of the VIGOR study of rofecoxib sponsored by Merck failed to report data that would have suggested that the drug caused excess cardiovascular risks.(2) In 2007, the company paid more than $4.9 billion to settle patient lawsuits alleging harm due to Vioxx.(3)  Also in 2008, the company made a $58 million settlement of claims its advertising of Vioxx deceptively minimized its risks.(4) In 2008, it became clear that at least one apparently clinical trial of Vioxx, the ADVANTAGE trial, was merely a "seeding trial,' that is, a marketing exercise.(5)

On Health Care Renewal, we starting writing about Vioxx in 2005, including,
- here about ghost-writing of a Vioxx research publication;
- here, and here about allegations that Merck executives tried to intimidate Vioxx critics;
- here about how advocates of an extreme laissez faire approach to regulation of health care corporations used illogical arguments about the Vioxx case;
- here about the ADVANTAGE "seeding trial," that is, a study really meant to recruit supposed physician-researchers as prescribers; and
- here about how one once prominent Vioxx researcher pleaded guilty to fraud in connection with his research on other drugs.
-  here about how in settling a shareholder lawsuit Merck vowed to improve its scientific and academic integrity, and refrain from manipulating and suppressing clinical research.

In 2010, we summarized the Vioxx case thus, " the Vioxx case provides a good lesson about some of the tactics used to deceptively and unethically promote health care products (pharmaceuticals in this case)." 

In case there are any doubts about the harms patients suffered as a result of using Vioxx as a pain reliever, in 2004, a cumulative meta-analysis of published trials of Vioxx known by then estimated the risk of myocardial infarction (heart attack) due to Vioxx compared with placebo or other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was 2.3 times the baseline rate.(6)  That analysis suggested that there was data by 2000 that Vioxx increased the risk of bad cardiovascular events.  A cumulative meta-analysis from 2009 suggested that the risk of death due to Vioxx was 1.7 times the baseline rate.(7)   That analysis suggested there was data by 2001 that Vioxx increased the risk of bad cardiovascular events.  Graham and colleagues' nested case-control study of Vioxx use in a large managed care organization lead them to estimate that "88 000 - 140 000 excess cases of serious coronary heart disease probably occurred in the USA over the market-life of rofecoxib."(8).

Yet after all that, Merck is still trying to hide evidence from Vioxx litigation, and a federal judge and apparently federal prosecutors are willing to go along, opposed only by Dr David Egilman

 Summary

We have long talked about what we have called the anechoic effect, how inconvenient truths that might reflect badly on the current health care status quo and especially those insiders who are making so much money from it are treated as recent unpleasantness that one just should not talk about.  The anechoic effect does not arise merely from politeness, or desire not to discomfit the powerful, but from active measures the powerful take to keep dissent down.  Here we have an example of a huge drug company, apparently helped by US law enforcement and US courts trying to keep truths about how it marketed a drug out of the public eye, even after so much information suggesting that its marketing was deceptive and unethical, and lead to patients dying has come out.

As we have said endlessly, until health care professionals, policy makers, and the public can obtain and openly discuss information about health care dysfunction, even if that information and its discussion may threaten those who lead health care and make so much money doing so, health care dysfunction will continue.  True health care reform would improve transparency and put an end to the anechoic effect.

Disclosure

Note that both Dr Egilman and I are voluntary faculty at Brown, although we do not directly work together.

 References

1. Topol EJ. Failing the public health - rofecoxib, Merck and the FDA. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 1707-1709.  Link here.
2. Curfman GD, Morrisey S, Drazen JM et al.  Expression of concern reaffirmed. N Engl J Med 2006; 354:1193. Link here.
3. Charatan F. Merck to pay $5bn in rofecoxib claims. Brit Med J 2007; 335: 1011. Link here.
4. Charatan F. Merck to pay $58m in settlements over rofecoxib advertising. Brit Med J 2008; 336: 1208-1209. Link here.
5. Hill KP, Ross JS, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM. The ADVANTAGE seeding trial: a review of internal documents. Ann Int Med 2008; 149: 251-258. Link here.
6.  Juni P, Nartey L, Reichenbach S et al. Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis.  Lancet 2004; 364: 2021-2029.  Link here.
7.  Ross JS, Madigan D, Hill KP et al.  Pooled analysis of rofecoxib placebo-controlled clinical trial data: lessons for postmarket pharmaceutical safety surveillance.  Arch Intern Med 2009; 169: 1976-1984.  Link here.
8.  Graham DM, Campen D, Hui R et al.  Risk of acute myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death in patients treated with cyclo-oxygenase 2 selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: nested case-control study.  Lancet 2005; 365: 475-481.  Link here.

ADDENDUM (19 June, 2014) - See also comments on the 1BoringOldMan blog.

Know-Nothing, or Industry Shill? You Be The Judge.

I have not been writing much the past few weeks due to other concerns, and will probably not write much this summer.

However, I have been commenting on various posts on other blogs.  One resultant thread stands out as yet another example of a likely industry shill or sockpuppet defending the state of health IT, oddly at a blog on pharma (same blog as was the topic of tmy post "More 'You're Too Negative, And You Don't Provide The Solution To The Problems You Critique', This Time re: Pharma").

Industry-sponsored sockpuppetry is a form of stealth marketing or lobbying, through discreditation of detractors, although in a perverse form.

The following exchanges meet the sockpuppetry criteria once pointed out by business professional and HC Renewal reader Steve Lucas in 2010 in a post about an industry sockpuppet caught red-handed through IP forensics here:

... In reading this thread of comments I have to believe [anonymous commenter moniker] "IT Guy" is a salesperson. My only question is: Were you assigned this blog or did you choose it? We had this problem a number of years ago where a salesperson was assigned a number of blogs with the intent of using up valuable time in trying to discredit the postings.

In my very first sales class we learned to focus on irrelevant points, constantly shift the discussion, and generally try to distract criticism. I would say that HCR is creating heat for IT Guy’s employer and the industry in general.

I find it sad that a company would allow an employee to attack anyone in an open forum. IT Guy needs to check with his superiors to find out if they approve of this use of his time, and I hope he is not using a company computer, unless once again this attack is company sanctioned.

In the hopes that continued exposure of this nonsense can educate and thus help immunize against its effects, I present this:

At "In the Pipeline", a blog on medicinal chemistry (the science of drug making) and other pharma topics, a rebuttal to a claim that over 500,000 people (not 50K) might have died due to VIOXX was posted entitled "500,000 Excess Deaths From Vioxx? Where?"

That 500K possibility appeared on a UK site 'THE WEEK With the FirstPost' at "When half a million Americans died and nobody noticed."  The author of the FirstPost piece started out by raising the point made by publisher Ron Unz that life in China might be more valued than that in the U.S., where major pharma problems and scandals generally meet what this blog calls "the anechoic effect."  (In China, Unz noted, perpetrators of scandalous drug practices actually get arrested and suffer career repercussions.)

FirstPost notes:

ARE American lives cheaper than those of the Chinese? It's a question raised by Ron Unz, publisher of The American Conservative, who has produced a compelling comparison between the way the Chinese dealt with one of their drug scandals – melamine in baby formula - and how the US handled the Vioxx aspirin-substitute disaster ... (Unz) "The inescapable conclusion is that in today's world and in the opinion of our own media, American lives are quite cheap, unlike those in China." 

Not to argue to merits of the order of magnitude-expanded VIOXX claim, which I disagree with, but having concern for the general state of ethics in biomedicine in the U.S., I posted the following comment at the comment thread of the rebuttal post at "In the Pipeline" at this link:

6. MIMD on May 30, 2012 11:38 AM writes...

While I agree the VIOXX numbers here are likely erroneous, the point of the cheapening of the value of American life is depressingly accurate.

For instance, look how readily companies lay people off, ruining them, and perhaps forcing them out of the workforce forever.

Also, currently being pushed by HHS is a medical device for rapid national implementation known to cause injury and death. The government is partially financing it to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, probably with Chinese money no less.  [Either that, or with freshly-printed money adding to the trillions of $ in our deficit - ed.]

There are financial penalties for medical refuseniks (non-adopters).

However, FDA, the Institute of Medicine and others readily admit in publication thay have no idea of the magnitude of the harm because of lack of data collection, impediments to information diffusion and even legal censorship of the harms data. In effect, we don't even know if the benefits exceed the harms, and FDA and IOM admit it. FDA in fact refers to the known injuries and deaths from this device as "likely the tip of the iceberg."

Perhaps to some it's no longer a big deal if people are injured and/or die in data gathering for this medical enterprise.

E.g., see "FDA Internal Memo on H-IT Risks", and the Inst. of Medicine report in the same issues here.

It's all for the greater social good, they might say.

 

The following anonymous reply ensued:

10. Watson on May 30, 2012 1:47 PM writes...

@6 You keep using that word - "device" - I do not think it means what you think it means

 

I replied:

11. MIMD on May 30, 2012 3:48 PM writes...

 #10

'medical device' is the term chosen by FDA and SMPA (EU).
But that's a distraction from the points I raise in the linked post about the experiment.

To which this confused misdirection came forth from the ether:

12. Watson on May 30, 2012 4:46 PM writes...

The linked article is discussing the poor state of "medical device records" because of a lack of uniform specifications with respect to Health Information Technology, i.e. how these technologies code data and the challenges of making the data obtained uniform across a wide variety of implementations and vendors. [Erroneous, incomplete misdirection - ed.]

It seems that the concern, far from being that Health Information Technology is "killing" people, is that the Medical Device Records may contain duplicate reports for adverse health events because of health care providers encoding the data more than once for each event.  [What in the world? - ed.] This problem with replication exists because there are different health record systems where this data needs to be input, and perhaps the same patient uses different physicians who have different systems, but all of which are required to report adverse events. [I have little idea what this even means - ed.]

In other words, "Health Information Technology" is not some monolithic "device", and your conflation of "HIT" which is more properly an abstract term with the "devices" which are used to generate some forms of patient data is in my view the real distraction. [The "real" distraction from the ethical issues of the HIT experiment is terminology about medical devices?  Misdirection again from the ethical issue, and of a perverse nature - ed.]

Yes, some of the "devices" (a blood pressure monitor for example) may have underlying issues, which the FDA regulations for "medical device records" are designed to identify. The FDA, as a governmental entity has no constitutional power to mandate certain devices or implementations are to be used.  [Now we're in la-la land of misinformation and distraction- ed.] The power that the FDA does have is to inspect that the manufacturer of a device keeps appropriate medical device records (e.g. a lot of syringes, or a batch of formulated drug) and addresses any complaints about the device to the satisfaction of the FDA.

My replies:

17. MIMD on May 31, 2012 8:51 PM writes...

#12

It seems that the concern, far from being that Health Information Technology is "killing" people, is that the Medical Device Records may contain duplicate reports for adverse health events because of health care providers encoding the data more than once for each event

Yes, fix just that little problem and then the problems with clinical IT are solved! (Actually,I'm not even sure what you're referring to, but the evidence is that fixing it as you suggest is the cure.)  [Sarcasm - ed.]

The FDA, as a governmental entity has no constitutional power to mandate certain devices or implementations are to be used.

You are also right about FDA. They were completely toothless even in this situation.  [Sarcasm again - ed.]

18. MIMD on May 31, 2012 9:10 PM writes...

#12

In other words, "Health Information Technology" is not some monolithic "device", and your conflation of "HIT" which is more properly an abstract term with the "devices" which are used to generate some forms of patient data is in my view the real distraction.

Those who conducted the Tuskegee experiments probably felt the same way.

It's all about definitions, not ethics, and not data - which FDA as well as IOM or the National Academies, our highest scientific body, among others, admits, as in the linked posts in #6, is quantitatively and structurally lacking on risks and harms.

I don't really mean to laugh at you, not knowing how little you really know about the Medical Informatics domain, but you bring to mind this Scott Adams adage on logical fallacy:

FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE WHAT’S IMPORTANT
Example: My house is on fire! Quick, call the post office and tell them to hold my mail!

And with that, I move on, letting others enjoy the risible comments from surely to follow! :-)

I could not have been more correct.

In typical industry shill/sockpuppet fashion comes this, with clear evidence of a not-so-clever liar which I've bolded:

19. Watson on June 1, 2012 12:35 AM writes...
@18

I read the articles you originally linked to, and my comments were based upon trying to interpret your meaning from those selections. I worked in the industry and had to deal with GMP, and had to make sure to follow all of the guidelines with respect to medical device manufacturing and electronic records. I understand the terminology very well. Luckily, I never had to deal with "health IT", but I did have to pore over enough pages of Federal Register legalese to know that what is sufficient is not necessarily what is best.  [Right.  See below - ed.]

Is that risible enough for you?

The link that you provided in @17 was a much more concrete example, and if you had referenced it in your original post, would have cleared up much of the confusion that I (and I assume @9) faced in understanding what it was you were trying to convey. It would have been useful if you had explained which device or devices you were talking about. If you had more than conjecture to back up the Chinese money trail, and if you had provided an example of a company that has been damaged by being a refusenik, those would have supported your argument as well. [Continuing haphazardly with the irrelevant as a distraction in an attempt to shift the focus from the ethical issue of nationally implementing HIT in a relative risk-information vacuum, having weakly conceded the main argument's been lost - ed.]

Straw man and ad hominem fallacies are pretty transparent around here, and I wish you the best with both. [Another attempt at diversion - ed.]

I assure you that I recognize what's important, that I have ethics, and that I care about people having reliable healthcare. [This seems a form of post-argument-lost attempt to seize the moral high ground - ed.]

I then point out the nature of what is likely a bold-faced lie.  Someone who's read the Federal Register in depth would likely know FDA's authority is not a "Constitutional power", as bolded below: 20. MIMD on June 1, 2012 6:44 AM writes... @19 The FDA taxonomy of HIT safety issues in the leaked Feb. 2010 "for internal use only" document "H-IT Safety Issues" available at the link in my post #6 is quite clear: - errors of commission - errors of omission or transmission - errors in data analysis - incompatibility between multi-vendor software applications or systems This is further broken down in Appendices B and C, with actual examples. Both this FDA internal report and the public IOM report of 2011 (as well as Joint Commission Sentinel Events Alert on health IT of a few years ago, and others) make it abundantly clear there is a dearth of data on the harms, due to multiple cultural, structural and legal impediments to information diffusion. Yes, it's in the linked IOM report at #6 entitled "Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care". See for instance the summary pg. S-2 where IOM states about limited[ed] transparency on H-IT risk that "these barriers to generating evidence pose unacceptable risks to safety." Argue with them, not me. Back to my original point: national rollout of this medical device (whatever you call it is irrelevant to my point, but see Jeff Shuren's statement to that effect here) under admitted conditions of informational scarcity regarding risks and harms represents a cheapening of the value of patient's lives. Cybernetics Over All. As to your other misdirection, spare me the lecture. It's not ad hominem to call statements like "The FDA, as a governmental entity has no constitutional power to mandate certain devices or implementations are to be used" for what they are - laughable (and I am being generous). FDA's authority is statutory, not written in the Constitution. Same with their parent, HHS. To get quite specific, on human subjects experimentation, which the H-IT national experiment is, the statutory authority for HHS research subject protections regulations derives from 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b); and 42 U.S.C. 28. [The USC or United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States.  HHS revised and expanded its regulations for the protection of human subjects in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The HHS regulations on human research subjects protections themselves are codified at 45 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations, aka Federal Register) part 46, subparts A through D. See http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/. - ed.] A real scientist would have known things like this before posting, or have made it their business to know. Tell me: are you in sales? Not to point fingers, but with your dubious evasion of the ethical issue that was the sole purpose of my post, and your other postings using misdirection and logical fallacy to distract, you fit that mindset. You certainly don't sound like a scientist. Any med chemist worth their salt (pun intendend) would have absorbed the linked reports and ethical issues accurately, the first time. I then pointed out I've moved this 'discussion' to the HC Renewal Blog, as it is not relevant per se to pharma, the major concern of In the Pipeline. Industry shill/sockpuppet (as in the perverse example at this link) or just a dull, ill-informed but opinionated person who happens to read blogs for medicinal chemists, where layoffs have been rampant in recent years, takes issue with my attacks on those practices, and defends health IT like a shill? You be the judge. Whether a shill or know-nothing contributed the cited comments, it is my hope this post contributes to an understanding of pro-industry sockpuppetry. -- SS

Merck Admits Little While Settling the Vioxx Case

A week ago, another legal settlement with some noteworthy aspects came marching along.  As reported by the Wall Street Journal, here are the details.

A Guilty Plea to "Misbranding"

First, there was a guilty plea (to a misdemeanor):

Merck & Co. agreed to pay $950 million and plead guilty to a criminal misdemeanor charge to resolve government allegations that the company illegally promoted its former painkiller Vioxx and deceived the government about the drug's safety.

In particular,

The Justice Department said Merck illegally promoted Vioxx for rheumatoid arthritis before that use was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2002. The drug was initially approved in 1999 to treat certain types of pain. Drug companies are barred from promoting drugs for unauthorized, or 'off label,' uses, though doctors may prescribe off-label uses.

Merck agreed to plead guilty to introducing a 'misbranded' Vioxx into interstate commerce, which is a misdemeanor violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and to pay a $321.6 million criminal fine.

So the company actually admitted to violating the law in the form of a misdemeanor, selling a drug for unapproved uses. The importance of this sort of activity has been frequently challenged, especially by those who claim that corporations have free speech rights that allow them to promote practically anything they want.

However, this was not the only issue apparently resolved.

A Civil Settlement

The company agreed to pay $628.4 million to settle civil allegations.

What were these allegations?

The government also made allegations against Merck in parallel civil litigation related to Vioxx in addition to the criminal charges.

According to the government, Merck representatives made inaccurate, unsupported or misleading statements about Vioxx's cardiovascular safety, in order to increase sales of the drug. The government also said Merck made false statements to state Medicaid agencies about the drug's safety.

However,

Merck isn't admitting liability or wrongdoing in the civil aspect of the settlement. Mr. Rogers said Merck expressly denies the civil allegations.

'We believe that Merck acted responsibly and in good faith in connection with the conduct at issue in these civil settlement agreements, including activities concerning the safety profile of Vioxx,' said Merck General Counsel Bruce Kuhlik in a statement.

So this is yet another example of a legal settlement made by a health care organization involving that organization paying a fine, but not admitting it did anything wrong.

The Parallel with the Citigroup Settlement

Last week, we wrote about how one US federal judge refused to accept a settlement (in a case of alleged financial misbehavior involving Citigroup) which did not require the company to admit wrongdoing. The judge noted that this presented the logically incomprehensible situation of a company apparently being punished for a reason that is unknown. At that point, one (admittedly outspoken) critic wrote, "This has essentially created a parallel or secret criminal justice system, in which both crime and punishment are adjudicated behind closed doors." Furthermore, these

settlements have evolved into a kind of cheap payoff system, in which crimes may be committed over and over again, and the ... [government's] only role is to take a bribe each time the offenders slip up and get caught.

If you never have to worry about serious punishments, or court findings of criminal guilt (which would leave you exposed to crippling lawsuits), then there’s simply no incentive to stop committing fraud. These SEC settlements simply become part of the cost of doing business....

What No One Had to Admit
In the case of the current Merck settlement, we do know something about the activities that lead to the settlement.  The settlement arose out of what was called the "Vioxx scandal." In summary, Vioxx (rofecoxib, Merck) a Cox-2 inhibitor non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug used for pain, and touted for its ostensibly low risk of gastrointestinal side-effects, was withdrawn from the market in 2004 because of its cardiac risks.  The Vioxx case is flush with examples of how the company used deception to market a very profitable drug without regard to its risks to patients. 

There is evidence is that the company knew about these effects since 2000, but suppressed the clinical research evidence until 2003.(1)  In particular, in 2005, the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine raised concerns that an article published in that journal in 2000 about the results of the VIGOR study of rofecoxib sponsored by Merck failed to report data that would have suggested that the drug caused excess cardiovascular risks.(2) In 2007, the company paid more than $4.9 billion to settle patient lawsuits alleging harm due to Vioxx.(3)  Also in 2008, the company made a $58 million settlement of claims its advertising of Vioxx deceptively minimized its risks.(4) In 2008, it became clear that at least one apparently clinical trial of Vioxx, the ADVANTAGE trial, was merely a "seeding trial,' that is, a marketing exercise.(5)

On Health Care Renewal, we starting writing about Vioxx in 2005, including,
- here about ghost-writing of a Vioxx research publication;
- here, and here about allegations that Merck executives tried to intimidate Vioxx critics;
- here about how advocates of an extreme laissez faire approach to regulation of health care corporations used illogical arguments about the Vioxx case;
- here about the ADVANTAGE "seeding trial," that is, a study really meant to recruit supposed physician-researchers as prescribers; and
- here about how one once prominent Vioxx researcher pleaded guilty to fraud in connection with his research on other drugs.
-  here about how in settling a shareholder lawsuit Merck vowed to improve its scientific and academic integrity, and refrain from manipulating and suppressing clinical research.

In 2010, we summarized the Vioxx case thus, " the Vioxx case provides a good lesson about some of the tactics used to deceptively and unethically promote health care products (pharmaceuticals in this case)." 

In case there are any doubts about the harms patients suffered as a result of using Vioxx as a pain reliever, in 2004, a cumulative meta-analysis of published trials of Vioxx known by then estimated the risk of myocardial infarction (heart attack) due to Vioxx compared with placebo or other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was 2.3 times the baseline rate.(6)  That analysis suggested that there was data by 2000 that Vioxx increased the risk of bad cardiovascular events.  A cumulative meta-analysis from 2009 suggested that the risk of death due to Vioxx was 1.7 times the baseline rate.(7)   That analysis suggested there was data by 2001 that Vioxx increased the risk of bad cardiovascular events.  Graham and colleagues' nested case-control study of Vioxx use in a large managed care organization lead them to estimate that "88 000 - 140 000 excess cases of serious coronary heart disease probably occurred in the USA over the market-life of rofecoxib."(8)

Yet despite all the evidence of deceptive practices used to market Vioxx as a first-line pain reliever, and all the evidence that Vioxx may have lead to a large number of myocardial infarctions and premature deaths, the US government's settlement with the maker of Vioxx allowed it to deny that its marketers concealed the dangers of the drug.  This shows that the US regulation of health care organizations has been reduced to Kabuki theatre, detached from reality, and in this case, from what appears to be very clear clinical epidemiological evidence. 

As noted above, and by us frequently in the past, as long as the only punishments for bad behavior are fines (paid by the entire organization, not those who authorized, directed or implemented the bad behavior), such "punishments" only modestly add to the cost of doing business, and do not deter future bad behavior.  The continuing bad behavior, indicated in part in the parade of legal settlements we have documented, doubtless leads to much of our health care problems, particularly high costs, poor access, poor quality, and demoralized health care professionals.

Like a broken record (for anyone who remembers what that means), I repeat...   to really deter bad behavior, those who authorized, directed or implemented bad behavior must be held accountable. As long as they are not, expect the bad behavior to continue. Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich.


References


1. Topol EJ. Failing the public health - rofecoxib, Merck and the FDA. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 1707-1709.  Link here.
2. Curfman GD, Morrisey S, Drazen JM et al.  Expression of concern reaffirmed. N Engl J Med 2006; 354:1193. Link here.
3. Charatan F. Merck to pay $5bn in rofecoxib claims. Brit Med J 2007; 335: 1011. Link here.
4. Charatan F. Merck to pay $58m in settlements over rofecoxib advertising. Brit Med J 2008; 336: 1208-1209. Link here.
5. Hill KP, Ross JS, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM. The ADVANTAGE seeding trial: a review of internal documents. Ann Int Med 2008; 149: 251-258. Link here.
6.  Juni P, Nartey L, Reichenbach S et al. Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis.  Lancet 2004; 364: 2021-2029.  Link here.
7.  Ross JS, Madigan D, Hill KP et al.  Pooled analysis of rofecoxib placebo-controlled clinical trial data: lessons for postmarket pharmaceutical safety surveillance.  Arch Intern Med 2009; 169: 1976-1984.  Link here.
8.  Graham DM, Campen D, Hui R et al.  Risk of acute myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death in patients treated with cyclo-oxygenase 2 selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: nested case-control study.  Lancet 2005; 365: 475-481.  Link here.

Do Health Care Leaders Realize They Do Not Practice What They Preach?

When we began Health Care Renewal in late 2004, we focused on "concentration and abuse of power" as a driver of dysfunction in the health system.  We have frequently discussed how problems with the leaders of health care organizations, who may be uninformed, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted, or even corrupt, may be a major cause of rising costs, declining access, and poor quality.  This week, the news reminded us how unsustainable US health care costs have become.  The average cost of health care insurance for those fortunate enough to have it provided by employers exceeded $15,000 last year (look here), a year in which median house-hold income fell under $50,000 (look here).  Yet there is no evidence that the country with the world's most expensive health care has anything approaching the world's best health care. 

From the Harvard Business School, a Call to Rethink Management's Conventional Wisdom

So it was with some hope that I read about a call to change the fundamental beliefs of corporate leaders, particularly corporate health care leaders.  An adjunct faculty member at the august Harvard Business School, Raymond V Gilmartin, posting on the school's blog first summarized the conventional wisdom of corporate leaders:

Most CEOs and corporate board members would agree that the theories and beliefs listed below drive their decision-making on how best to meet the challenges they face:

- The focus of the CEO and the board should be on maximizing shareholder value.
- The stock market is short-term-oriented.
- Stock-based incentive compensation aligns the self-interest of management with shareholders, and a performance-based pay system increases employee motivation.
- Societal concerns should be addressed through corporate social responsibility programs.
- The 'best athlete' from inside or outside the company should be chosen as the successor to the CEO.

In my experience, these beliefs have led managers and boards to take actions that have had unintended, destructive consequences.

Some of these issues seemed to overlap those we have discussed. We have written about the harmful effects of some of these aspects of the conventional wisdom of health care leaders, particularly the perverse incentives supplied by excess executive compensation that seems unrelated to how his or her or the organization's performance affects patients' and the public's health, that health care leaders seem to care little about the organization's health care mission, if they are not actively hostile to it, and that leaders often seem to be chosen because of their perceived ability as generic managers, not their knowledge of health care or their understanding of its values. 

Furthermore, Mr Gilmartin advocated for a new set of guiding beliefs that also were at least somewhat resonant:

Shareholders benefit most when CEOs and boards maximize value for society and act as agents of society rather than shareholders.

Actions to address societal issues should be an integral part of strategy, and operations and should not be isolated as a separate activity under the heading of corporate social responsibility.

Thus Mr Gilmartin seemed to be supporting the notion that health care corporations should focus on providing products and services that actually improve health care, and should operate in ways that support health care's core values.

Also,

Purpose, meaning, and recognition are more powerful motivators than economic self-interest, and large external rewards can reduce intrinsic motivation.

Here Mr Gilmartin seemed to be calling for less extravagant monetary rewards within health care corporations, and perhaps implying that awards should be aligned with health care outcomes and values rather than financial goals.

Did He Practice What He Preached?

Long-time readers of Health Care Renewal know that we often base our arguments about how health care should be renewed on demonstrations of the internal contradictions within the current dysfunctional system. So for those of you wondering if this is one of our rare upbeat posts about the message getting out, it is time to demonstrate the paradoxical aspects of Mr Gilmartin's apparently reformist views.

If you did not recognize his name right away, Mr Gilmartin, besides being a current adjunct faculty member at Harvard, was the CEO and Chairman of Merck from 1994 to 2005 (see here). When he proclaimed his beliefs above, he did not assert they were new revelations, but rather his guiding beliefs since before he became the leader of Merck:

Listed below are an alternative set of beliefs that guided me when I was the CEO of Merck and Becton Dickinson. I strongly feel that they have greater validity, are more effective in meeting today's management challenges, will lead to superior outcomes, and will help restore public faith in business and its leaders.

However, his record as leader of Merck, a record that supplied considerable grist to the Health Care Renewal mill since 2005, stands in stark contrast to these stated beliefs.

CEOs should "maximize value for society and act as agents of society"

Mr Gilmartin presided over what became known as the Vioxx scandal, one so big that it was actually eventually well-documented in medical journals, thus escaping the anechoic effect.

In summary, Vioxx (rofecoxib, Merck) a Cox-2 inhibitor non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug used for pain, and touted for its ostensibly low risk of gastrointestinal side-effects, was withdrawn from the market in 2004 because of its cardiac risks.  The Vioxx case is flush with examples of how the company used deception to market a very profitable drug without regard to its risks to patients. 

There is evidence is that the company knew about these effects since 2000, but suppressed the clinical research evidence until 2003.(1)  In particular, in 2005, the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine raised concerns that an article published in that journal in 2000 about the results of the VIGOR study of rofecoxib sponsored by Merck failed to report data that would have suggested that the drug caused excess cardiovascular risks.(2) In 2007, the company paid more than $4.9 billion to settle patient lawsuits alleging harm due to Vioxx.(3)  Also in 2008, the company made a $58 million settlement of claims its advertising of Vioxx deceptively minimized its risks.(4) In 2008, it became clear that at least one apparently clinical trial of Vioxx, the ADVANTAGE trial, was merely a "seeding trial,' that is, a marketing exercise.(5)

On Health Care Renewal, we starting writing about Vioxx in 2005, including,
- here about ghost-writing of a Vioxx research publication;
- here, and here about allegations that Merck executives tried to intimidate Vioxx critics;
- here about how advocates of an extreme laissez faire approach to regulation of health care corporations used illogical arguments about the Vioxx case;
- here about the ADVANTAGE "seeding trial," that is, a study really meant to recruit supposed physician-researchers as prescribers; and
- here about how one once prominent Vioxx researcher pleaded guilty to fraud in connection with his research on other drugs.
-  here about how in settling a shareholder lawsuit Merck vowed to improve its scientific and academic integrity, and refrain from manipulating and suppressing clinical research.

In 2010, we summarized the Vioxx case thus, " the Vioxx case provides a good lesson about some of the tactics used to deceptively and unethically promote health care products (pharmaceuticals in this case)."

The widespread deceptions of the Vioxx case, which likely fooled many patients into taking and physicians into prescribing a drug whose harms greatly outweighed its benefits, seem to be the antithesis of "maximizing value for society."

"Purpose, meaning, and recognition are more powerful motivators than economic self-interest"

Yet Mr Gilmartin embraced compensation that greatly boosted his economic self-interest even as the scope of the Vioxx case became well-known.

In 2005, we noted that Merck CEO and Chairman Raymond V Gilmartin got a 2004 salary of US $1.6 million, plus a $1.4 million bonus, and stock options worth $19.2 million. Also, he exercised other stock options that year, gaining a further $34.8 million.  All this he received soon after the withdrawal of Vioxx, and  despite Merck's stock 30% drop after this withdrawal.

Lack of Insight

We have occasionally discussed evidence that a significant proportion of organizational leaders, including health care leaders, are "snakes in suits," that is, sociopaths who only care about their own self-interest. However, it is likely that the majority of leaders are certainly not sociopathic.

Why, then, do so many health care leaders preside over, if not directly authorize, direct or implement actions they ought to have known were wrong?  The stark contrast between Mr Gilmartin's stated beliefs and the history of Vioxx case which occurred on his watch suggest a failure of insight about his own actions.  He did not seem to realize that what he practiced appeared at odds with the beliefs he now says he espouses.

We constantly hear that our health care organizational leaders, particularly the CEOs of large health care organizations, are the "best and the brightest," especially when their enormous compensation needs justification (for example, look here for a recent example, and here for more.)  A reasonable assumption would be that the "best and the brightest" have some insight into their own actions, and the extent their actions live up to their principles and beliefs.

This new extension of the Vioxx case suggests that an important reason that health care leaders continue to appear ill-informed, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted, or even corrupt is that they lack insight into how their actions might make them seem such. If their mental model of their own actions tells them they well-informed, competent, devoted to the mission of their organization, and honest, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, this faulty insight will allow them to continue actions that make them appear otherwise.

The challenge then is to somehow provide real feedback to health care leaders when their actions appear ill-informed, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted or corrupt. Some reasonable hypotheses would be:
- CEOs and other top leaders must be removed from their bubbles, must relinquish their "imperial" status. They must not be too sheltered from the vicissitudes of daily life, or shielded from criticism or disagreement.
- We must end the perverse incentives that reward CEOs for doing wrong, particularly for making short-term revenue, or even the illusion thereof, their primary benchmark.
In other words, as we have said before, health care leaders must become accountable for what they do, particularly for the effects of what they do on patient's and the public's health.

Maybe if health care leaders can begin to see themselves as others see them, they will start to act to benefit patient's and the public's health, and we might see some improvement in our drastically expensive, inaccessible, and poor quality health care system.

Hat tip to Ed Silverman on the PharmaLot blog.

References


1. Topol EJ. Failing the public health - rofecoxib, Merck and the FDA. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 1707-1709.  Link here.
2. Curfman GD, Morrisey S, Drazen JM et al.  Expression of concern reaffirmed. N Engl J Med 2006; 354:1193. Link here.
3. Charatan F. Merck to pay $5bn in rofecoxib claims. Brit Med J 2007; 335: 1011. Link here.
4. Charatan F. Merck to pay $58m in settlements over rofecoxib advertising. Brit Med J 2008; 336: 1208-1209. Link here.
5. Hill KP, Ross JS, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM. The ADVANTAGE seeding trial: a review of internal documents. Ann Int Med 2008; 149: 251-258. Link here.

Merck Settles Another Vioxx Case

All the shenanigans that went on in the course of Merck's marketing of the now withdrawn Cox-2 inhibitor non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx have provided grist for the Health Care Renewal mill since 2005.  For example, see these posts:

- here about ghost-writing of a Vioxx research publication;
- here, and here about allegations that Merck executives tried to intimidate Vioxx critics;
- here about how advocates of an extreme laissez faire approach to regulation of health care corporations used illogical arguments about the Vioxx case;
- here about how an apparently major clinical trial of Vioxx turned out to be a "seeding trial," that is, a study really meant to recruit supposed physician-researchers as prescribers; and
- here about how one once prominent Vioxx researcher pleaded guilty to fraud in connection with his research on other drugs. 

Thus, the Vioxx case provides a good lesson about some of the tactics used to deceptively and unethically promote health care products (pharmaceuticals in this case).

Merck just announced just the latest settlement of Vioxx related legal actions, as reported by Business Week:

Merck & Co. agreed to settle shareholder lawsuits over the withdrawn Vioxx painkiller by strengthening its drug-safety procedures, appointing a new chief medical officer and paying $12.2 million in legal fees.

Merck would appoint one committee to address risks that require immediate action and another to monitor the safety of drugs, the company said in a regulatory filing. Merck would also amend its code of conduct to promote scientific and academic integrity as well 'honest communication' with doctors.

'In all research endeavors that are sponsored by Merck, we will refrain from attempting to influence inappropriately the results and conclusions of such research,' according to the amended code. 'We strive for all communications with the medical community to be accurate, truthful and consistent with labeling.'

Also,

The company will be required to make corporate governance changes and “supplement existing policies and procedures,” ... [a Merck spokesperson] said.

Merck would submit results of clinical trials to a public registry, with its compliance overseen by an independent third party.

The chief medical officer will have an 'executive voice' on product safety issues independent of Merck Research Laboratories.

Note that this settlement is only of one type of lawsuit, as described in a Wall Street Journal article,

The pact, which is pending final court approval, would resolve state and federal shareholder 'derivative' complaints (which are brought by shareholders on behalf of a company) alleging that current and former Merck officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties in handling Vioxx.

Merck had already settled thousands of lawsuits,

Since the Vioxx controversy erupted, about 27,000 personal-injury lawsuits have been filed, the company says. Merck has been challenging all of the cases and settled many of them. Most notably, it agreed to a pay $4.85 billion to settle personal-injury claims of more than 40,000 people. In another settlement, the company will pay $80 million to resolve 190 claims filed by drug-benefit plans seeking to recover costs of paying for Vioxx use.

Merck has lots of other legal actions to go through,

The Vioxx litigation remains far from over. The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing a separate shareholder case, seeking billions of dollars in damages from the company. Merck disclosed last year the U.S. Attorney's office in Boston was conducting a grand-jury investigation of Merck's handling of Vioxx. The claims of some 310 plaintiff groups are outstanding in courts in the U.S., according to the securities filing. There are also cases overseas, including Australia and Turkey.

So the parade of legal actions and settlements thereof continues.  We believe that the scope of this parade provides some sort of index of bad behavior by the health care organizations needing to make such settlements.  Most of these legal results are reported on in the business media, and rarely appear in any medical, health care research, or health policy journals.  I submit that were health care professionals, health care researchers, and health policy makers more systematically aware of these cases, they might realize that unethical and sometimes illegal behavior, often generated by bad leadership unrestrained by poor organizational governance, is a major cause of the current, seemingly intractable health care crisis.

One notable attribute of the current Vioxx settlement is that it does mandate some changes in Merck's governance and leadership meant to prevent future cases similar to this one.  These include developing leadership structures and changing the company's code of conduct to emphasize the need for "truthful" communication, and the need to refrain from "inappropriately" influencing research. 

On Health Care Renewal we have discussed numerous examples of deceptive practices by health care organizations, often affecting marketing, and of manipulation and suppression of research.  It is a small step forward for one company to commit to honest communications and to not manipulate research.  A better code of conduct may at least be a start towards an organizational ethics policy, which in turn may have the potential to actually improve behavior. 

On the other hand, typical settlements that involve only monetary damages paid by the organization seem to have little deterrent effect on future bad behavior. Usually, the companies involved only need to pay fines, and no individual who performed, directed or approved unethical or illegal acts suffers any negative consequences. I submit once again that such fines are viewed merely as costs of doing business by the affected companies, and do not deter future bad behavior. Until the people who approve, direct, and perform unethical or illegal acts pay some penalties, expect such acts to continue, at best deterred only slightly by written policies that condemn them. I again suggest that to truly reform health care, we need rigorous regulation of health care organizations that has the power to deter unethical behavior that may risk patients' health

Physician Pleads Guilty to Fraud for Fabricating Celebrex (and Other) Study Data

As reported by the Springfield, MA, Republican:

A former chief of acute pain at Baystate Medical Center has agreed to plead guilty to falsifying medical research and must pay $420,000 in restitution to pharmaceutical companies, federal court records show.

Dr. Scott S. Reuben, of Longmeadow, was charged on Thursday with health care fraud. He signed a plea agreement with prosecutors a week earlier.

Reuben prompted a furor in the medical community in March, when he was accused of making up research results in at least 21 published studies and inventing patients in certain instances.

In one notable instance,

In 2005, Reuben received a $74,000 research grant from pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, agreeing to test Celebrex as a component of the multimodal therapy. He claimed to have treated 200 patients, 100 with Pfizer's product and 100 with a placebo.

'In fact, Reuben had not enrolled any patients into that study and the results reported both to Pfizer and to the Anesthesia and Analgesia Journal and in turn to the public were wholly made up by Reuben,' the charge states.

Albert said the fabrications were discovered by medical staff within the hospital during a routine review at the hospital's 'research week,' when clinicians design poster displays of their studies.

A report in the New London, CT, Day indicated the scope of Reuben's fake research:

Anesthesia & Analgesia later had to retract 10 papers authored by Reuben, and medical experts at the time said at least 21 journal articles by the anesthesiologist appeared to have been fabricated.

The agreement calls for Reuben to pay restitution of $296,557 to Pfizer and $16,000 to Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, two companies that merged last fall. Merck & Co. would receive $49,375 from the agreement, according to documents.

In addition to his fabricated Celebrex studies, Reuben had pretended to do research that backed the effectiveness of other pain drugs, including Pfizer's Bextra and Merck's Vioxx, according to prosecutors. Bextra and Vioxx later were pulled from the market because studies showed they increased the risk of death from heart attacks and strokes.

In addition, Reuben published data showing that Pfizer's antidepressant Effexor had exhibited painkilling properties.

Reuben's studies had been considered pioneering at the time they were published. His data had supported the use of two of Pfizer's major products - Celebrex and Lyrica - in combination to treat certain types of post-operative pain.

Reuben 'was a regular on the medical lecturing circuit,' according to court documents, and 'had become a well known figure in the anesthesia and pain management medical communities.'

Pfizer said previously that it had supported five of Reuben's research initiatives. Pfizer, which declined at the time to reveal how much it paid Reuben over the years to be part of its speakers' bureau, said the company played no part in the fraud.

Asked for a comment Friday, Pfizer was not able to provide a timely response.

Note that we usually do not post about stories of individual's clinical research misconduct, not because it is unimportant, but because individual misconduct may be related more to an individual's motives and character than to concentration and abuse of power in health care.

However, in this case it appears that Dr Reubens was enabled, at least in the psychological and logistical senses, by pharmaceutical companies happy to sponsor research which suggested the effectiveness of their products.  Since Dr Reubens apparently fabricated most of his data, notice that he apparently deliberately fabricated data that made Pfizer's Celebrex, Bextra, Lyrica, and Effexor, and Merck's Vioxx look good.  Perhaps there was careerism here.  Positive studies about "innovative" effective drugs are more likely to get published than negative studies or studies of old drugs.  However, we have noted before that pharmaceutical (and biotechnology and device) companies like to sponsor studies with results that make their products look good. 

One bit of good news in this story is that Reuben's colleagues at the hospital apparently were able to uncover the fabrications when they had an opportunity to critically look at data from several of his studies.

Certainly some Pfizer employees had easy access to the same data.  But perhaps they would not have thought to look at it critically as long as it was so unrelentingly positive about their company's products. 

As we have said before, health care professionals, policy makers and patients ought to be extremely skeptical of clinical studies sponsored (and often deeply influenced) by those with vested interests in the studies' turning out in certain ways.  We ought to reconsider national research policies that have turned over sponsorship of the majority of clinical research to those with such vested interests.

Hat tip to Prof Margaret Soltan on the University Diaries blog.

ADDENDUM (19 January, 2010) - see also comments on the Alison Bass Blog.

BLOGSCAN - Merck Hired Elsevier to Create Fake Peer-Reviewed Medical Journal

You just can't make this stuff up. On the Respectful Insolence blog, Orac recounted how pharmaceutical giant Merck hired medical publishing giant Elsevier to create what appeared to be a peer-reviewed journal, but theAustralasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine really was just a marketing outlet. The goal was to market Fosamax and Vioxx. This is another bizarre variant on the stealth marketing theme, taken to quite an extreme. And the pharmaceutical companies wonder why people don't trust them?

ADDENDUM (4 May, 2009) - Dr Aubrey Blumsohn is back online on his Scientific Misconduct Blog, and noted the academic luminaries who were willing to serve on the editorial board of this fake peer-reviewed journal.

ADDENDUM (11 May, 2009) - See also comments on Laika's MedLibBlog.

Response from author of "The ADVANTAGE Seeding Trial"

In response to my earlier post "Merck scientific debate hits bottom" I received the following from one of the authors of the VIOXX seeding trial paper The ADVANTAGE Seeding Trial: A Review Of Internal Documents, Ann Intern Med 2008", Dr. David Egilman, MD, MPH.

I posted Dr. Egilman's opinions below at his request. My own thoughts follow.

Dr. Egilman also posted numerous documents to and from Merck's lawyer at this link. (The tone of some of those documents towards Dr. Egilman is particularly disturbing, such as the one here.)

------------------------------------------------------

From: David Egilman, MD, MPH
To: Healthcare Renewal

I am one of the authors of the "Seeding" paper.

Merck executive Dr. Jonathan M. Edelman, Executive director, Global Center for Scientific Affairs wrote:

There's no doubt that the ADVANTAGE clinical trial had a legitimate scientific purpose. That purpose was to assess the gastrointestinal tolerability of VIOXX compared to naproxen – a commonly used arthritis medicine with known tolerability problems – in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis in a primary care setting, and for the first time allowed patients taking concomitant aspirin to participate.

Dr. Edelman's claim that ADVANTAGE was the first trial that permitted aspirin use with Vioxx is incorrect. Study 058, which was part of Merck's application for new drug approval submitted in November 1998, permitted the use of up to 325 mg of aspirin per day. ADVANTAGE only permitted up to 100 mg per day. Study 058 was a 30 week trial. ADVANTAGE was only a 12 week trial. Study 058 involved patients older than 80, comparing Vioxx to namebutone (another NSAID) and was completed in April 1998, about 10 months before ADVANTAGE enrolled a single patient. Study 078, the ghost-written Alzheimer’s trial also permitted aspirin, began in April 1998 and was scheduled to be completed by April 2000 before the end of the ADVANTAGE trial. More patients took low dose aspirin in the Vigor trial than the Advantage trial.

Further, ADVANTAGE was not designed to test the effect of aspirin on anything. Although aspirin was permitted, the examination of aspirin effects was not included as part of the study objective which Merck described: "[t]o assess the tolerability of rofecoxib (VIOXX) compared with naproxen for treatment of osteoarthritis." On the other hand, Merck Study 136 was designed to test the effects of concomitant aspirin and NSAID use. This study revealed that Vioxx offered no GI protection to low dose aspirin users who constituted the majority of potential Vioxx users.

By November 1998, when Merck sought FDA approval for an OA indication and three months before the ADVANTAGE trial enrolled any patients, Merck had already informed the FDA it had sufficient studies to prove Vioxx was efficacious for osteoarthritis patients. Merck's osteoarthritis trials (that it used to get FDA approval for use of VIOXX in osteoarthritis patients) had compared Vioxx to 3 other NSAIDS. The VIGOR trial, which tested Vioxx and naproxen in rheumatoid arthritis patients, started at the same time as ADAVANTAGE and used twice the dose of Vioxx than was used in ADVANTAGE. VIGOR was, therefore, a more valid scientific trial to determine relative safety of the two drugs.

This request for and subsequent approval meant that Merck could claim VIOXX was as effective for pain as naproxen. Beginning long before the Advantage trial Merck claimed Vioxx was safer than all NSIADS including naproxen.

While ADVANTAGE was the first study that compared Vioxx to naproxen in OA patients, Merck had completed trials comparing the two drugs in other pain patients.

It is for these reasons that the President of Merck Research Laboratories (MRL) Dr. Scolnick characterized ADVANTAGE as "intellectually redundant."

Merck wrote:

ADVANTAGE was a double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial with a legitimate scientific purpose designed to answer previously unanswered questions about the use of VIOXX in osteoarthritis in a primary care setting. It was not a seeding study.

Merck’s personnel called it a seeding trial internally but in an apparent effort to hide its true purpose wrote:

“I eliminated the reference to seeding. It may be a seeding study, but let’s not call it that in our internal documents.”

Merck apparently tried to make it look like a typical science-based clinical trial to mislead IRBs and journals. All seeding trials make some claim to some usually trivial scientific purpose. For example the question of whether or not Vioxx works better on people as a function of height is a scientific question. It is of course a trivial question. In this case Merck had studies that compared Vioxx to naproxen for pain control before the Advantage trial had started. Merck also had a larger trial that tested GI toxicity.

Merck wrote:

ADVANTAGE was important because although the earlier VIOXX clinical trial program provided extensive data on efficacy and safety, it did not include naproxen as a comparison Medication.

This is not correct. Merck had a study that compared Vioxx to naproxen for pain control before the Advantage trial started. This was presented to the FDA in the original New Drug Application and was published in October 1999.

Merck wrote:

The ADVANTAGE clinical trial was designed, conducted, analyzed, interpreted and published by the scientific department of Merck's U.S. Human Health (USHH) organization, Clinical Development (CDP), in conjunction with participating investigators. CDP was part of the Medical and Scientific Affairs department of USHH and was separate from the marketing department within USHH.

A more complete picture is:

USHH was the marketing division of Merck. It included sub-divisions including sales, marketing and a medical/scientific group called CDP. CDP performed “medical” studies that could be used by marketing to increase product sales. These studies were only conducted if favorable results could increase sales. They were not done to obtain new indications for drug use and Merck did not publish or provide the FDA with some of these studies (example 106).

Mr. David Anstice, a marketing executive with no apparent scientific training or background was the President of Merck's USHH division. In contrast Dr. Edward Scolnick, a physician/scientist of international renown, was the President of Merck’s research division which was called Merck Research Laboratories. Mr. Anstice the person ultimately responsible for the Advantage trial testified:

Q. I understand that. All I'm saying is, this is the study [Advantage trial] that was initiated and conducted by marketing, right?
A. Yes, by doctors in marketing.

A picture being worth a 1000 words I provide the Merck graphic for the organization of the Advantage trial:



Here is the power point description of marketing’s role in the Advantage trial:



While the marketing division of USHH set the study “objectives” CDP was in charge of the technical aspects of study implementation.

Further proof that ADVANTAGE served little scientific purpose is the fact that Merck had already claimed that Vioxx was safer than and as effective as all NSAIDS including naproxen prior to the initiation of the ADVANTAGE.

Merck did not rely on any ADVANTAGE results to make any claim about Vioxx efficacy or safety to the FDA. The lack of scientific purpose behind ADVANTAGE is demonstrated by the fact that Merck had withheld the ADVANTAGE results from its application to the FDA that requested a label change that would allow them to claim Vioxx was safer than naproxen. Merck only produced the results after the FDA made numerous oral and written requests for the safety data discovered during the trial.

Merck claims Advantage produced important scientific information:

In the end, ADVANTAGE showed a different gastrointestinal profile between VIOXX and naproxen that was unaffected by concomitant use of aspirin. This was an important medical result for physicians. In addition to measuring the GI tolerability of VIOXX, investigators also monitored patients for adverse events, which were required to be submitted to the FDA. Therefore, in ADVANTAGE, Merck was further evaluating any potential risks of VIOXX.

In fact the trial that Merck performed to test the effect of concomitant aspirin and Vioxx use (136) showed that aspirin use thwarted Vioxx’s GI advantage. (Gastroenterology. 2004 Aug;127(2):395-402.) The conclusion Merck reached based on the Advantage result was wrong precisely because Advantage was not designed to test this question. This conclusion was based on data mining.

Merck wrote:

We also want to underscore that the scientific purpose of ADVANTAGE was properly disclosed to physicians-investigators, participants, and institutional review boards, and Merck's business interests were clearly understood.

Merck never disclosed the marketing purpose of the trial which included the fact that Marketing “set objectives.”

Merck accuses the authors of "bias.”

In this open letter to the editors of The Annals of Internal Medicine, Merck would like to put in perspective the latest article by four authors who served as paid consultants to plaintiffs' lawyers in the VIOXX litigation against Merck. We are troubled by the biased article, which contains numerous inaccuracies, and wonder about the motivation behind this attack on Merck's scientific excellence and integrity.

Merck writes that the authors were “plaintiff witnesses” and “cherry picked” documents. As far as I know, all litigation ended about a year ago. None of the authors were paid on a contingency basis, the authors received no compensation from plaintiffs to work on the papers we have written and none of the authors are working on any Vioxx litigation at this time.

If money motivation equates to bias then it is Merck and its representatives who suffer from this problem. The same cannot be said of Merck or its representatives because while the authors have nothing to gain Merck’s future earnings depend, in some measure, on its reputation for honesty.

Merck does not explain how any theoretical bias impacted on the paper. They have not come forward with contradictory documents or testimony.

The authors agree that all the documents should be made public so readers can decide for themselves if we “cherry picked.” Merck, and Merck alone, continues to block the release of the documents.

Merck would not allow us to cite documents that showed that Advantage investigators were accused of fraud and at least one was convicted. Some of this data was deleted from the published paper but readers and editors were never informed of these problems.

It should be noted that eight Vioxx patients had heart attacks during the ADVANTAGE trial compared to one patient on naproxen. Merck never informed any of these patient volunteers of the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx before or after the trial although the informed consent stated that Merck would pay for treatment of drug related side effects. Unfortunately for some, this would have been funeral costs.

Merck wrote:

It is unfortunate that the authors and journal editors chose not to contact Merck before finalizing these publications. Had any of these individuals contacted Merck, factual errors could have been avoided.

I contacted Merck's main trial lawyer Ted Mayer and provided Merck an opportunity to comment on another paper related to the Advantage trial before it was submitted for publication. I did not send a pre-publication copy to plaintiff lawyers. Mr. Mayer provided comments and i included his comments in the final version.

Merck then complained about my contact to Mr. Mayer to Judge Higbee and requested that she sanction me for contacting their lawyer and then insisted that I make no further contact with them.

-- David Egilman

-----------------------------------------

My own thoughts on all of this are as follows:

The lessons of the Annals article are clear. The scientific community and the public are simply fed up with cavalier practices in the biomedical industry. While the article may affect remaining VIOXX litigation as pointed out here, it also should have an necessary "cleansing effect" on drug R&D.

It was not clinicians and scientists outside the industry who earned it the public's animosity. It was, and continues to be, the industry itself. As Roy Poses observed, there cannot be evidence based medicine if the evidence is distorted by commercial zealotry. I think the public recognizes this.

Further, marketing personnel have no place in pre-approval, pre-marketing scientific studies such as clinical trials. If they have a scientific role, it is perhaps in post-marketing studies, especially post-marketing surveillance for adverse effects. The latter is a function the pharma industry performs poorly.

Even in that latter domain, there must be honesty and transparency, characteristics with which the biases of marketing and its leaders (e.g., towards maximizing sales) may interfere.

Merck's responses to this new Annals article seem the antithesis of science. Instead, the responses appear to be right out of the political and legal warfare playbook (where logical argument prevails - except when presenting logical fallacy is to the advantage of the protagonists) ...

The response has been this:

• ignore the arguments and evidence [in this case, emails and documents from Merck itself],
  
• issue an ad hominem attack,
  
• issue slogans ("litigation in the name of science"),
  
• present a Red Herring as a distraction,
  
• issue accusations of bias,
  
• issue accusations of cherry picking,
  
• issue accusations of the authors taking evidence "out of context", etc.

and finally:

• produce no context or new evidence of your own, hoping the above tactics will make that unnecessary.
  

All that's seemingly missing are ... puppets.

Merck seems to expect the "courtesy" of being allowed to be a participant in any issues written about its conduct, as if the authors of this paper are its employees who under employment policies must permit any pubs they produce to be reviewed internally for approval. I believe the company's executives forget that their authority ends at the front gate.

It is also an odd and even arrogant request, especially considering the way the authors' evidence (Merck's own emails and documents) was essentially ignored in the responses, and the insinuations promulgated against the authors as serving plaintiff's lawyers -- which also implies that scientific integrity and the interest of patients is not their motivation.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, this is classic ad hominem and is insulting to authors in my opinion, as well as insulting to any clinician or scientist. Why would anyone want to provide a company that acts in this manner the courtesy of pre-publication involvement in investigative journalism?

Another issue I find interesting is noted in the limitations section of the paper where it is stated that:

... we did not identify, despite an exhaustive and systematic search strategy, documents detailing discussions between the marketing and research divisions, nor could we identify documents describing contracts between Merck and collaborating companies.

As well as the Annals editor's obervations that:

... despite the large body of documents searched by the authors, they discovered few details about exactly how Merck's marketing division carried out ADVANTAGE.

This is surprising. From an information science standpoint, it would not be unreasonable to believe there might be more related to this trial of a major drug in emails or powerpoints or other documents. This document sparsity could mean that the documents did not exist, but it also raises a speculative question about the document corpus produced in Discovery.

Could "inconvenient documents" have selectively been eliminated from the corpus of documents before it was released, and therefore not be present in the corpus of documents the authors searched? Could the documents the authors did find represent ones that were "missed" by some weeding out effort?

Finally, I believe the entire tenor of Merck's responses - ignoring evidence, stating the trial was "published in a peer reviewed journal" as a Red Herring and a justification of its legitimacy while ignoring Sox & Rennie's (the Annals editors) accompanying commentary Seeding Trials: Just Say "No" , belitting the authors, etc. - is very disturbing.

From "Seeding Trials: Just Say No":

No one told Annals the true purpose of ADVANTAGE. We learned about it when we received a letter to the editor from Dr. David Egilman, who was a consultant to the plaintiffs' attorneys in the civil suits against Merck. He had access to publicly accessible trial documents, which included Merck employees' e-mail messages that disclosed the true intent of the ADVANTAGE trial ... The article provides clear evidence that the intent of ADVANTAGE was to increase prescriptions of Vioxx (the study outcome of greatest interest to Merck seems to have been Vioxx prescribing rates) ... The documents do tell us that deception is the key to a successful seeding trial.

When I review NIH grant applications, if I suspect deception I will mention it to the study section leaders, and I can assure that if deception is verified higher up the chain, that application will not get funded (at the very least). I can also assure that legitimate medical journals do not willingly publish studies involving deception.

Merck's responses to the Annals article seem to represent a belief that the public (laypeople and physicians) are stupid and gullible.

This is not science, and is not a path to a return to the corporate greatness and respect that Merck once enjoyed and had earned.

Finally, a Red Herring of my own:



-- SS