10 replies to this topic

[Orpheus]

Drug giant Glaxo pleads guilty, fined $3B for drug marketing

I can't express how much this pleases me. I'm so sick of seeing fines in the hundreds of thousands or even low million for dishonest or harmful marketing of drugs that can make up to a billion dollars (or more!) each year - less than 0.1% of annual revenue, or put another way, a fraction of the thickness of one flimsy page in a big city phone book!

I was long past hoping for a move on this bold scale, though it's long overdue.

On the downside, the deal also lets Glaxo off the hook for decades of malfeasant marketing to date, involving dozens of major drugs -- but I can live with that: $3B will get their attention, instead of being the equivalent of a small tax surcharge, and I'm not looking to put the pharmcos out of business. They can easily handle this amount, even in this economy.

Now let's hope the govt moves on to the other major pharmcos. Every last one of them is guilty of similar abuses -- and most of the smaller ones, too. It's simply standard industry practice.

[DarthMarley]

At first I read you being pleased with a $38 fine.

Even with the problem of marketing a drug to children, I am concerned with punishments for "off label" uses of pharmaceuticals.

[Mark]

Orpheus, on 15 November 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

Drug giant Glaxo pleads guilty, fined $3B for drug marketing

I can't express how much this pleases me. I'm so sick of seeing fines in the hundreds of thousands or even low million for dishonest or harmful marketing of drugs that can make up to a billion dollars (or more!) each year - less than 0.1% of annual revenue, or put another way, a fraction of the thickness of one flimsy page in a big city phone book!

I was long past hoping for a move on this bold scale, though it's long overdue.

On the downside, the deal also lets Glaxo off the hook for decades of malfeasant marketing to date, involving dozens of major drugs -- but I can live with that: $3B will get their attention, instead of being the equivalent of a small tax surcharge, and I'm not looking to put the pharmcos out of business. They can easily handle this amount, even in this economy.

Now let's hope the govt moves on to the other major pharmcos. Every last one of them is guilty of similar abuses -- and most of the smaller ones, too. It's simply standard industry practice.

Mark: What the government needs to make certain of is...the major Pharmcos can't raise their current prices to make up for this fine. Government also need to investigate deeply into the seemingly overpriced drugs currently on the market. $220-$260 to a a Shingle's vaccine? Please! And how about the eye drops made for people after post-op cataract surgery that runs over $500 for a 2.5 ml. tube of drops? Or the $700 the lady in Wal-Greens told me she has to pay each month for a small quantity of lotion for Eczema?

Big pharmaceuticals is the number one culprit in MY mind (at least) as to the rising costs of American Health Care. Orpheus, you care to refute that or back it up?

[Orpheus]

And while it may just be "rubbing salt in the wound", I'm also pleased to report that 37 state Attorneys General [yup, that's the correct plural] are together levying a $90M fine for concealing the cardiovascular complications of the diabetes drug Avandia. That's just one drug.

Avandia Makers Hit With Another $90 Million Settlement

Quote

The states involved in the claim — Oregon, Illinois, Arizona, Florida, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin — alleged that the marketing for Avandia misled patients by downplaying the potential risk for heart attacks and strokes.

Though the dollar value is much less, I think it is important for three reasons.

First this is for a single concealment of a single issue with a single drug. Multiply it out by all the marketing malfeasances of all the new drugs of questionable value, and it's potentially not such a small monetary issue after all [Pharmcos openly admit that they downplay older, proven, and even more efficacious drugs once they go out of patent. You don't have to prove a new drug is better than the old ones, just that it's better than nothing] Indeed, this action helps brings the total of settlements and sanctions against Glaxo in recent years up to a total $6 Billion!

Secondly, it's important for the pharmcos to realize that they may face challenges from all sides: *multiple* Federal agencies, the DoJ, 50 state AGs, etc. rather than seduce one agency (they earlier argued --incorrectly but with some success-- that only the FDA had enforcement power over them) A number of prominent state AGs, especially in our most populous states like CA and NY, have made major inroads in national issues that particularly interested them, where the Feds seems paralyzed.

Third, AGs, whether Federal or state, have a broader scope than individual agencies. They can enforce the Big Picture with sanctions covering diverse bases where individual agencies and departments can only sanction limited pieces of the puzzle. The rather satisfying list of terms/restrictions imposed  is too long for me to post here under Fair Use (it's almost half the article), but I hope you'll click and read it.

[Omega]

High drug costs are one of the three major drivers of American health care costs vs. other industrialized countries. The other two are doctor compensation (probably driven in part by high student loan costs, driven by the higher education bubble), and administrative overhead.

[Omega]

Attorneys General? Not Attornies General?

[BklnScott]

DOJ says there are two types of pharmas: those operating under a Corporate Integrity Agreement and those not yet operating under a Corporate Integruty Agreement.  This is a good thing.  After pending in the senate for several years, the Sunshine Act -- sponsored by Grassley, a Republican -- was folded into Obamacare.  Another good thing.  The transparency reporting obligations come online as soon as HHS makes the rules. (Companies under CIA's already have to do it by the terms of their settlements.).

Some industries need to be highly regulated, and only the federal government can do it.  It's good for the public, and it's even good for the industry.  We should get tough with big oil next, yes?

[FnlPrblm]

While I agree that corporations and industries need to be watched for fraud/abuse and conspiracy issues, along with any type of law enforcement on quality breakdowns which endanger the public, I don't think the government needs to be involved in regulating industries/corps.  First of all, it gives the govt. as a whole, a lot more power (too much in some cases) once pandora's box is opened.  Secondly, you're asking/offering-to-have sketchy (and in some cases, crooked) politicians to implement plans which they have little to no knowledge on.  Hopefully, we can just keep everyone out of everyone else's business and have them focus on their own stuff.  It's obvious everyone has their plates full with their own stuff.  Why have second helpings of other's issues when they're not needing a spoon in their soup?

[Enkephalen]

Omega, on 15 November 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

Attorneys General? Not Attornies General?

Orpheus is correct - it is Attorneys General.  The plural of attorney is attorneys, and not attornies. Attorneys General refers to multiple Attorneys General.  You may be thinking of the plural of secretary which is secretaries.  So the it would be Secretaries of State.

[Omega]

Interesting! I had no idea there was an "-ey" pluralization rule. Makes perfect sense, though. If I'd spelled "Attorney" correctly in my pluralization, it'd've been "attorneies", which just looks stupid.

Edited by Omega, 19 November 2012 - 11:46 AM.

[Orpheus]

Just for the record: I don't pay Enke to speak for/defend me.

Any gifts I shower her with, I'd be doing anyway.