|
RyanSongSecondPaper 10 - 06 Jul 2010 - Main.RyanSong
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
Pfizer Reformed, Again | |
<
< | When the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approves a new drug, it only approves its usage for a specific reason. Off-label use is the practice of prescribing patients a drug for an unapproved purpose. Such practice is so customary that the failure to prescribe a drug for a specific off-label use may expose a doctor to medical malpractice. Unlike doctors, who appear to have good intentions when prescribing off-label uses, drug manufacturers are subject to suspicion of malicious motives when they promote any off label use. Therefore, the law generally permits doctors to practice off-label use while forbidding off-label use promotion by manufacturers. In 2004, the government fined Warner-Lambert (a Pfizer subsidiary) $430 million for promoting the off label use of Neurotin. In response, Pfizer pledged to reform. Yet, In 2009, the government fined Pfizer $2.3 billion for its off-label promotion of Bextra. And of course, Pfizer “reformed,” again. | >
> | When a drug manufacturer applies to the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for approval of a new drug, it must indicate the drug's specific usages on the application. If a doctor prescribes a drug for an usage which did not receive FDA approval, he engages in the practice of prescribing off-label use. Such practice is so prevalent in the medical community that the failure to prescribe the off-label use of certain drugs may expose a doctor to medical malpractice. Unlike doctors, who may act in good faith, drug manufacturers are often suspected of malicious motives when they promote any off label uses. Therefore, on the one hand, the law generally permits doctors to practice off-label use, but on the other land, forbids any promotion of off-label use by manufacturers. In 2004, the government fined Warner-Lambert (a Pfizer subsidiary) $430 million for promoting the off label use of Neurotin. In response, Pfizer pledged to reform. Yet, In 2009, the government fined Pfizer $2.3 billion for its off-label promotion of Bextra. And of course, according to Pfizer representative, Pfizer will “reform,” again. | | | Off-Label Settlement of Bextra |
|
|
RyanSongSecondPaper 9 - 16 Jun 2010 - Main.RobLaser
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
Pfizer Reformed, Again | |
<
< | When the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approves a new drug, it only approves its usage for a specific reason. Off-label use is the practice of prescribing patients a certain drug for a reason unapproved by the FDA. In the medical community, such practice is so prevalent that, in limited circumstances such as cancer treatment, the failure to prescribe patients a certain drug for its off-label use may expose a doctor to medical malpractice; thus the law generally permits physicians to prescribe drugs for off label use. Unlike doctors, who may have a good faith belief to prescribe off-label uses, drug manufacturers are much more suspicious of malicious motive when they promote any off label use. Therefore the law forbids any off label promotion by manufacturers. In 2004, the government fined Warner-Lambert, a Pfizer subsidiary, $430 million for its off-label promotion of Neurotin. Pfizer pledged to reform. In 2009, the government fined Pfizer $2.3 billion for its off-label promotion of Bextra. And of course, Pfizer “reformed,” again. | >
> | When the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approves a new drug, it only approves its usage for a specific reason. Off-label use is the practice of prescribing patients a drug for an unapproved purpose. Such practice is so customary that the failure to prescribe a drug for a specific off-label use may expose a doctor to medical malpractice. Unlike doctors, who appear to have good intentions when prescribing off-label uses, drug manufacturers are subject to suspicion of malicious motives when they promote any off label use. Therefore, the law generally permits doctors to practice off-label use while forbidding off-label use promotion by manufacturers. In 2004, the government fined Warner-Lambert (a Pfizer subsidiary) $430 million for promoting the off label use of Neurotin. In response, Pfizer pledged to reform. Yet, In 2009, the government fined Pfizer $2.3 billion for its off-label promotion of Bextra. And of course, Pfizer “reformed,” again. | | | Off-Label Settlement of Bextra | |
<
< | The story of Bextra began in 2001 when Pharmacia & UpJohn? Company (“P&U”), a Pfizer subsidiary, received approval from FDA for three indications of Bextra: osteoarthritis, adult rheumatoid arthritis, and primary dysmennorrhea. Due to safety concern, FDA rejected approving Bextra for general acute pain. Displaying complete disregard for patients’ safety, from 2002 through 2005, P&U promoted Bextra for general acute pain to physicians under false claims of safety. It used so-called advisory boards, consultant meetings, and paid vacation at lavish resorts to promote Bextra to, as one local manager claimed, "anyone that use[d] a scalpel for a living." | >
> | The story of Bextra began in 2001 when Pharmacia & UpJohn? Company (“P&U”), a Pfizer subsidiary, received approval from FDA for three indications of Bextra: osteoarthritis, adult rheumatoid arthritis, and primary dysmennorrhea. Due to safety concerns, the FDA did not approve Bextra for general acute pain. Displaying complete disregard for patients’ safety, P&U promoted Bextra for general acute pain to physicians claiming it was safe. From 2002 to 2005, Pfizer used so-called advisory boards, consultant meetings, and paid vacation at lavish resorts to promote Bextra to, as one local manager claimed, "anyone that use[d] a scalpel for a living." | | | | |
<
< | In 2005, Pfizer withdrew Bextra from the market on recommendation by the FDA, citing an increased risk of heart attack, stroke, and a serious, sometimes fatal, skin reaction. In September 2009, P&U pled guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead. In the plea agreement, it agreed to pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion. Furthermore, Pfizer paid an additional $1 billion to settle civil allegations that it induced physician with kickbacks to market four drugs, including Bextra. | >
> | In 2005, Pfizer withdrew Bextra from the market on recommendation by the FDA, citing an increased risk of heart attack, stroke, and a sometimes fatal skin reaction. In September 2009, P&U pled guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead. In the plea agreement, it agreed to pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion. Furthermore, Pfizer paid an additional $1 billion to settle civil allegations that it induced physicians using kickbacks to market Bextra and three other drugs. | | |
Why manufacturers will forego FDA approval and risk civil and criminal sanctions? | |
<
< | Manufacturers forego FDA approval and risk civil and criminal sanctions for many reasons: FDA approval process is expensive and takes a long time; in the case of Bextra, FDA may decline to approve; and FDA approval will expand the scope of generic competition once the patent expires. More importantly, manufacturers are motivated by profits. After realizing that the approved uses of a drug fail to generate enough revenue, manufacturers promote off-label uses to grab more profit. Bextra is 20 times more expensive than ibuprofen, but not shown to be more effective. Another reason for manufacturers to promote off-label use is that everyone else does it. Eli Lilly pled guilty to criminal misbranding of Evista, Serono paid 704 milion to resolve charges relating to its marketing of Serostim, and the list goes on. | >
> | Manufacturers forego FDA approval and risk civil and criminal sanctions for many reasons: FDA approval process is expensive and takes a long time; the FDA may decline to grant its approval at all; and FDA approval will expand the scope of generic competition once their patent expires. Most importantly, manufacturers are motivated by profits. After realizing that the approved uses of a drug fail to generate enough revenue, manufacturers promote off-label uses to grab more profit. Bextra is 20 times more expensive than ibuprofen, but not shown to be more effective. These massive profits explain why companies promote off label use even in the face of huge sanctions. Pfizer is not alone in promoting off label use. Eli Lilly pled guilty to criminal misbranding of Evista, Serono paid 704 milion to resolve charges relating to its marketing of Serostim, and the list goes on. | | |
too big to fail? |
|
|
RyanSongSecondPaper 8 - 10 Jun 2010 - Main.RyanSong
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | Off-Label Settlement of Bextra | |
<
< | The story of Bextra began in 2001 when Pharmacia & UpJohn? Company (“P&U”), a Pfizer subsidiary, received approval from FDA for three indications of Bextra: osteoarthritis, adult rheumatoid arthritis, and primary dysmennorrhea. Due to safety concern, FDA rejected approving Bextra for general acute pain. From 2002 through 2005, P&U promoted Bextra for general acute pain to physicians under false claims of safety. It used so-called advisory boards, consultant meetings, and paid vacation at lavish resorts to promote Bextra to, as one local manager claimed, "anyone that use[d] a scalpel for a living." | >
> | The story of Bextra began in 2001 when Pharmacia & UpJohn? Company (“P&U”), a Pfizer subsidiary, received approval from FDA for three indications of Bextra: osteoarthritis, adult rheumatoid arthritis, and primary dysmennorrhea. Due to safety concern, FDA rejected approving Bextra for general acute pain. Displaying complete disregard for patients’ safety, from 2002 through 2005, P&U promoted Bextra for general acute pain to physicians under false claims of safety. It used so-called advisory boards, consultant meetings, and paid vacation at lavish resorts to promote Bextra to, as one local manager claimed, "anyone that use[d] a scalpel for a living."
In 2005, Pfizer withdrew Bextra from the market on recommendation by the FDA, citing an increased risk of heart attack, stroke, and a serious, sometimes fatal, skin reaction. In September 2009, P&U pled guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead. In the plea agreement, it agreed to pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion. Furthermore, Pfizer paid an additional $1 billion to settle civil allegations that it induced physician with kickbacks to market four drugs, including Bextra. | | | | |
<
< | In 2005, Pfizer withdrew Bextra from the market on recommendation by the FDA, citing an increased risk of heart attack and stroke and also the risk of a serious, sometimes fatal, skin reaction. In September 2009, P&U pled guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead. In the plea agreement, it agreed to pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion. Additionally, Pfizer paid an additional $1 billion to settle civil allegations that it induced physician with kickbacks to market four drugs, including Bextra. | | |
Why manufacturers will forego FDA approval and risk civil and criminal sanctions? | |
<
< | Manufacturers forego FDA approval and risk civil and criminal sanctions for many reasons: FDA approval process is expensive and takes a long time; in the case of Bextra, FDA may decline to approve; and FDA approval will expand the scope of generic competition once the patent expires. More importantly, manufacturers are motivated by profits. After realizing that the approved uses of a drug fail to bring in enough profit, manufacturers will promote off-label uses to grab more profit. Bextra is 20 times the price of ibuprofen, but is not shown to be more effective. Another reason for manufacturers to promote off-label use is that everyone else does it. Eli Lilly pled guilty to criminal misbranding of Evista, Serono paid 704 milion to resolve charges relating to its marketing of Serostim, and the list goes on. | >
> | Manufacturers forego FDA approval and risk civil and criminal sanctions for many reasons: FDA approval process is expensive and takes a long time; in the case of Bextra, FDA may decline to approve; and FDA approval will expand the scope of generic competition once the patent expires. More importantly, manufacturers are motivated by profits. After realizing that the approved uses of a drug fail to generate enough revenue, manufacturers promote off-label uses to grab more profit. Bextra is 20 times more expensive than ibuprofen, but not shown to be more effective. Another reason for manufacturers to promote off-label use is that everyone else does it. Eli Lilly pled guilty to criminal misbranding of Evista, Serono paid 704 milion to resolve charges relating to its marketing of Serostim, and the list goes on. | | |
too big to fail? | |
<
< | Manufacturers always have the incentive to promote off-label use as long as doctors are allowed to prescribe it. Supporters of allowing doctors to prescribe off-label use argue that there exists a gap between patient care and FDA approval process. Doctors should be encouraged to provide the best available treatments when the FDA approval process fails to keep up with the progress in medicine or when lack of financial incentive in treating rare diseases causes manufacturers to forego FDA approval. Banning off-label use altogether will lead to an angry mob of HIV and Cancer patients to demand the Congress for their drugs. Therefore FDA has to allow some communications between manufacturers and doctors to ensure quality care. The manufacturers often disguise off-label promotion as dissemination of information or education about their drugs. | >
> | Manufacturers always have the incentive to promote off-label use as long as doctors are allowed to prescribe it. Supporters of allowing doctors to prescribe off-label use argue that there exists a gap between patient care and FDA approval process. Doctors should be encouraged to provide the best available treatments when the FDA approval process fails to keep up with the progress in medicine or when lack of financial incentive in treating rare diseases causes manufacturers to forego FDA approval. No government is willing to risk banning off-label use altogether because it will lead to a public outcry, especially from HIV and Cancer patients. Therefore the government will keep allowing doctors to prescribe off-label use and FDA has to allow some communications between manufacturers and doctors to ensure quality care. The manufacturers often disguise off-label promotion as dissemination of information or education about their drugs.
The government’s approach to tackle off-label promotion is to increase the probability of catching a non-complying manufacturer. One strategy the government implements is to award whistleblowers a portion of the settlement under the False Claim Act. Evidences of off-label promotion are conspicuous. Doctors know about it, and so does Pfizer’s competitors. But doctors are unlikely to sue because of the power which Pfizer wields in the medical community. The kickbacks and perks also sealed their mouths. Competitors are unlikely to bring whistleblower lawsuit because they fear retaliation of their own off-label promotion. | | | | |
<
< | The government’s approach to tackle off-label promotion is to increase the likelihood of catching a non-complying manufacturer. One strategy the government uses is to award whistleblowers a portion of the settlement under the False Claim Act. Evidences of off-label promotion are conspicuous. Doctors know about it, and so does Pfizer’s competitors. But doctors are unlikely to sue because of the power which Pfizer wields in the medical community. The kickbacks and perks also sealed their mouths. Competitors are unlikely to bring whistleblower lawsuit because they fear retaliation of their own off-label promotion. | >
> | In prosecuting off-label promotion, the government has a deadly trump card. Any company convicted of a major health care fraud is automatically excluded from Medicare and Medicaid. Convicting Pfizer would prevent the company from billing the government for any of its products. However, the government was afraid to hand out such corporate death sentence. It feared that Pfizer's collapse would disrupt the flow of medical products to Medicaid recipients and create mass layoffs of Pfizer employees. Therefore the government made a deal with Pfizer. Instead of convicting the real culprit, the government only excluded P&U, Pfizer’s great-great grandson (Pfizer Inc. owns Pharmacia Corp., which owns Pharmacia & Upjohn LLC, which owns Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, which in turn owns P&U.) | | | | |
<
< | In prosecuting off-label promotion, the government has a deadly trump card. Any company convicted of a major health care fraud is automatically excluded from Medicare and Medicaid. Convicting Pfizer would prevent the company from billing the government for any of its products. However, the government is afraid to give out such corporate death sentence. It fears that Pfizer's collapse will disrupt the flow of Pfizer products to Medicare and Medicaid recipients and create mass layoff of Pfizer employees. Therefore the government made a deal with Pfizer. Instead of convicting the real culprit, the government settled and Pfizer’s great-great grandson took the blame (Pfizer Inc. owns Pharmacia Corp., which owns Pharmacia & Upjohn LLC, which owns Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, which in turn owns P&U.) | >
> | When manufacturers can hide behind shell companies, the settlement fine will simply become a part of the risk calculation of doing business with the government. Manufacturers will continue to defraud patients as long as they make a profit, and the government will continue to aggressively pursue off-label actions and get a portion of that profit back. All the costs are ultimately passed down to the innocent taxpayers and the patients who listen to their doctors and buy expensive non-FDA-approved drugs. The government believed that it must protect the institutional creed of “too big to fail”, because otherwise the consequence would be unimaginable. But what about the patients whom Pfizer put under dangerous health risk and the taxpayers whom Pfizer stole from by defrauding Medicare? Keeping Pfizer out of Medicare and Medicaid will take Pfizer drugs from the patients because Pfizer hold patents on them, but patent protection is not absolute. The courts already invalidate patents based on certain illegal conducts. The day that the government invalidates patents on the ground of illegal off-label promotion will be the day that Pfizer finally seriously reconsiders its risk calculation. | | | | |
<
< | When manufacturers can hide behind shell companies, paying the settlement fine will simply becomes part of the risk calculation. Manufacturers will continue to defraud patients as long as they make a profit, and the government will continue to aggressively pursue off-label actions. Paying the fines becomes the same as paying a special tax for doing business with the government. All the costs are ultimately passed down to the innocent taxpayers and the patients who listen to their doctors and buy expensive non-FDA-approved drugs. The government believes that it must protect the institutional creed because the consequence of punishing Pfizer will be unimaginable. But what about the patients whom Pfizer puts under dangerous health risk and the taxpayers whom Pfizer continuously defrauds? Keeping Pfizer out of Medicare and Medicaid will take Pfizer drugs from the patients because Pfizer hold patents on them, but patent protection is not absolute. The courts already invalidate patents based on certain illegal conducts. The day that the government invalidates patents on the ground of illegal off-label promotion will be the day that Pfizer finally begins to seriously reconsider its risk calculation. | | |
| META TOPICMOVED | by="RyanSong" date="1271441030" from="LawContempSoc.TWikiGuestSecondPaper" to="LawContempSoc.RyanSongSecondPaper" |
|---|
|
|
|
RyanSongSecondPaper 7 - 03 Jun 2010 - Main.RyanSong
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
Pfizer Reformed, Again | |
<
< | Off-label use is the practice of prescribing drugs for an indication unapproved by the FDA. In the medical community, off-label use is so prevalent that the failure to do so may amount to medical malpractice, especially in treatment against HIV, cancer and etc. Contrary to the legal protection which doctors receive for prescribing off-label use, drug manufacturers are forbidden to promote it. In 2004, the government fined Warner-Lambert, a Pfizer subsidiary, $430 million for its off-label promotion of Neurotin. According to Pfizer, it reformed after this. In 2009, the government fined Pfizer $2.3 billion for its off-label promotion of Bextra. And of course, Pfizer “reformed,” again. | >
> | When the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approves a new drug, it only approves its usage for a specific reason. Off-label use is the practice of prescribing patients a certain drug for a reason unapproved by the FDA. In the medical community, such practice is so prevalent that, in limited circumstances such as cancer treatment, the failure to prescribe patients a certain drug for its off-label use may expose a doctor to medical malpractice; thus the law generally permits physicians to prescribe drugs for off label use. Unlike doctors, who may have a good faith belief to prescribe off-label uses, drug manufacturers are much more suspicious of malicious motive when they promote any off label use. Therefore the law forbids any off label promotion by manufacturers. In 2004, the government fined Warner-Lambert, a Pfizer subsidiary, $430 million for its off-label promotion of Neurotin. Pfizer pledged to reform. In 2009, the government fined Pfizer $2.3 billion for its off-label promotion of Bextra. And of course, Pfizer “reformed,” again. | | | Off-Label Settlement of Bextra |
|
|
RyanSongSecondPaper 6 - 17 Apr 2010 - Main.RyanSong
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Are drug manufacturers too big to fail?
Off-label use is the practice of prescribing drugs for an FDA unapproved indication. In the medical community, off-label use is so common that the failure to do so may amount to medical malpractice, especially in areas such as treating HIV and cancer. Contrary to the legal protection which doctors receive for prescribing off-label use, drug manufacturers are forbidden to promote it. In 2004, Warner-Lambert, one of Pfizer’s subsidiaries, settled with the government for $430 million for its violation of FDA regulation by promoting off-label use of Neurotin. Pfizer vowed to reform. In 2009, Department of Justice fined Pfizer $2.3 billion for its off-label promotion of Bextra. And of course, once again, Pfizer “reformed”. | >
> | Pfizer Reformed, Again | | | | |
>
> | Off-label use is the practice of prescribing drugs for an indication unapproved by the FDA. In the medical community, off-label use is so prevalent that the failure to do so may amount to medical malpractice, especially in treatment against HIV, cancer and etc. Contrary to the legal protection which doctors receive for prescribing off-label use, drug manufacturers are forbidden to promote it. In 2004, the government fined Warner-Lambert, a Pfizer subsidiary, $430 million for its off-label promotion of Neurotin. According to Pfizer, it reformed after this. In 2009, the government fined Pfizer $2.3 billion for its off-label promotion of Bextra. And of course, Pfizer “reformed,” again. | | | Off-Label Settlement of Bextra | |
<
< | The story began in 2001 when Pharmacia & Upjohn Company (P&U), a subsidiary of Pfizer, received approval from FDA for three indications of Bextra: osteoarthritis, adult rheumatoid arthritis, and primary dysmennorrhea. Due to safety concern, FDA rejected P&D’s request to approve Bextra for general acute pain. From 2002 through 2005, P&U promoted Bextra for these unapproved uses to physicians under false claims of safety. It used so-called advisory boards, consultant meetings, and paid vacation at lavish resorts, to promote Bextra to, as one local manager claimed, "anyone that use[d] a scalpel for a living." | | | | |
<
< | On April 7, 2005, Pfizer withdrew Bextra from the U.S. market on recommendation by the FDA, citing an increased risk of heart attack and stroke and also the risk of a serious, sometimes fatal, skin reaction. The American Heart Association soon released a study indicating that patients using Bextra after heart surgery were 2.19 times more likely to suffer a stroke or heart attack than those taking placebos.
In September 2009, P&U pled guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, for misbranding the drug, Bextra, with the intent to defraud or mislead. In the plea agreement, it agreed to pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter. Additionally, Pfizer agreed to pay an additional one billion dollars to settle civil allegations that it induced physician with kickbacks to market four drugs, including Bextra. | >
> | The story of Bextra began in 2001 when Pharmacia & UpJohn? Company (“P&U”), a Pfizer subsidiary, received approval from FDA for three indications of Bextra: osteoarthritis, adult rheumatoid arthritis, and primary dysmennorrhea. Due to safety concern, FDA rejected approving Bextra for general acute pain. From 2002 through 2005, P&U promoted Bextra for general acute pain to physicians under false claims of safety. It used so-called advisory boards, consultant meetings, and paid vacation at lavish resorts to promote Bextra to, as one local manager claimed, "anyone that use[d] a scalpel for a living."
In 2005, Pfizer withdrew Bextra from the market on recommendation by the FDA, citing an increased risk of heart attack and stroke and also the risk of a serious, sometimes fatal, skin reaction. In September 2009, P&U pled guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead. In the plea agreement, it agreed to pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion. Additionally, Pfizer paid an additional $1 billion to settle civil allegations that it induced physician with kickbacks to market four drugs, including Bextra. | | |
Why manufacturers will forego FDA approval and risk civil and criminal sanctions? | |
<
< | There are several possible reasons: FDA approval process is expensive and it takes years of testing; in the case of Bextra, FDA declined to approve; and seeking FDA approval will expand the scope of generic competition once patent expires. Most importantly, manufacturers are motivated by profits. After realizing that there isn’t enough money for its approved use, manufacturers will promote off-label use to bring in more profit. Bextra is 20 times the price of ibuprofen, but with no medical evidence to show that it is more effective. Another incentive for manufacturers to promote off-label use is because everyone else does it. Eli Lilly pled guilty to criminal misbranding of Evista, Serono paid 704 milion to resolve charges relating to its marketing of Serostim, and the list goes on. | >
> | Manufacturers forego FDA approval and risk civil and criminal sanctions for many reasons: FDA approval process is expensive and takes a long time; in the case of Bextra, FDA may decline to approve; and FDA approval will expand the scope of generic competition once the patent expires. More importantly, manufacturers are motivated by profits. After realizing that the approved uses of a drug fail to bring in enough profit, manufacturers will promote off-label uses to grab more profit. Bextra is 20 times the price of ibuprofen, but is not shown to be more effective. Another reason for manufacturers to promote off-label use is that everyone else does it. Eli Lilly pled guilty to criminal misbranding of Evista, Serono paid 704 milion to resolve charges relating to its marketing of Serostim, and the list goes on. | | |
too big to fail? | |
<
< | One of the obstacles in stopping the promotion of off-label use is that doctors are continuingly allowed to prescribe it. The rationale focuses on a gap between patient care and FDA approval process. Proponents of off-label use argue that physicians should be encouraged to provide the best available treatments when the FDA approval process failed to keep up with the progress in medicine or when manufacturers do not bother apply for FDA approval due to lack of financial incentive in treating rare uses. Therefore FDA allows a certain level of communication between the manufacturers and the physicians to ensure quality care. The manufacturers often disguise off-label promotion as dissemination of information or education about their drugs. No politician is going to push for banning off-label use altogether because they do not want to deal with angry HIV and Cancer patients demanding to know where is their drug.
The government’s approach to deal with off-label promotion is to increase the probability of risk that a manufacture will get caught. Evidences of off-label use are conspicuous. Doctors know about it, and so does Pfizer’s competitors. The False Claim Act awards whistleblowers for suing those defrauding the government through Medicaid. But doctors have very little incentive to sue when they are the ones receiving the kickbacks and perks. Competitors are unlikely to bring whistleblower lawsuit as well because they are promoting off-label use as well. For example, two competitors, TAP and Astra Zeneca, exchanged nasty letters against each other regarding their unlawful off-label conducts, but none filed suits due to fear of retaliation. | >
> | Manufacturers always have the incentive to promote off-label use as long as doctors are allowed to prescribe it. Supporters of allowing doctors to prescribe off-label use argue that there exists a gap between patient care and FDA approval process. Doctors should be encouraged to provide the best available treatments when the FDA approval process fails to keep up with the progress in medicine or when lack of financial incentive in treating rare diseases causes manufacturers to forego FDA approval. Banning off-label use altogether will lead to an angry mob of HIV and Cancer patients to demand the Congress for their drugs. Therefore FDA has to allow some communications between manufacturers and doctors to ensure quality care. The manufacturers often disguise off-label promotion as dissemination of information or education about their drugs. | | | | |
>
> | The government’s approach to tackle off-label promotion is to increase the likelihood of catching a non-complying manufacturer. One strategy the government uses is to award whistleblowers a portion of the settlement under the False Claim Act. Evidences of off-label promotion are conspicuous. Doctors know about it, and so does Pfizer’s competitors. But doctors are unlikely to sue because of the power which Pfizer wields in the medical community. The kickbacks and perks also sealed their mouths. Competitors are unlikely to bring whistleblower lawsuit because they fear retaliation of their own off-label promotion. | | | | |
<
< | In prosecuting off-label promotion, the government has a deadly trump card. Any company convicted of a major health care fraud is automatically excluded from Medicare and Medicaid. Convicting Pfizer would prevent the company from billing federal health programs for any of its products. It would be a corporate death sentence. However, the government is also afraid to use its leverage. "We have to ask whether by excluding the company [from Medicare and Medicaid], are we harming our patients," said Lewis Morris of the Department of Health and Human Services. Essentially, the government fears that Pfizer's collapse will disrupt the flow of Pfizer products to Medicare and Medicaid recipients and lead to job loss of Pfizer employees who were not involved in the fraud. End result is that the government made a deal with Pfizer. P&U took the blame and pled guilty. If we examine the relationship between P&U and Pfizer, it raises suspicion that Pfizer has purposely structured its business to insulate itself from liability. Pfizer Inc. owns Pharmacia Corp., which owns Pharmacia & Upjohn LLC, which owns Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, which in turn owns P&U. Instead of convicting the real culprit, the government went after its great-great-grandson. | >
> | In prosecuting off-label promotion, the government has a deadly trump card. Any company convicted of a major health care fraud is automatically excluded from Medicare and Medicaid. Convicting Pfizer would prevent the company from billing the government for any of its products. However, the government is afraid to give out such corporate death sentence. It fears that Pfizer's collapse will disrupt the flow of Pfizer products to Medicare and Medicaid recipients and create mass layoff of Pfizer employees. Therefore the government made a deal with Pfizer. Instead of convicting the real culprit, the government settled and Pfizer’s great-great grandson took the blame (Pfizer Inc. owns Pharmacia Corp., which owns Pharmacia & Upjohn LLC, which owns Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, which in turn owns P&U.) | | | | |
<
< | There are so much profits involved in the business of off-label use, paying the fines will simply become a factor in the risk calculation. Pharmaceutical companies will continue to promote off-label use to steal from patients, and the government will aggressively pursue off-label actions to force settlement to get some of its money back. Then the cycle continues. Paying these fines will be simply treated as doing business with the government. All the cost will be ultimately passed to the taxpayers and the patients who listen to their doctors and buy expensive FDA non-approved drugs they don’t need. The government believes it has to protect the institutional creed because punishing Pfizer will lead to job loss and deprive patients of Pfizer drugs. But what about the patients and taxpayers that Pfizer are continuously defrauding from? Keeping Pfizer out of Medicare and Medicaid will deprive patients of Pfizer drugs because Pfizer hold patents on them, but patent right is not absolute. The court already invalidates patents based on certain illegal conducts. The day that the government starts to invalidate patent on the ground of illegal conducts such as off-label promotion is the day that Pfizer will seriously reconsider its risk calculation. | >
> | When manufacturers can hide behind shell companies, paying the settlement fine will simply becomes part of the risk calculation. Manufacturers will continue to defraud patients as long as they make a profit, and the government will continue to aggressively pursue off-label actions. Paying the fines becomes the same as paying a special tax for doing business with the government. All the costs are ultimately passed down to the innocent taxpayers and the patients who listen to their doctors and buy expensive non-FDA-approved drugs. The government believes that it must protect the institutional creed because the consequence of punishing Pfizer will be unimaginable. But what about the patients whom Pfizer puts under dangerous health risk and the taxpayers whom Pfizer continuously defrauds? Keeping Pfizer out of Medicare and Medicaid will take Pfizer drugs from the patients because Pfizer hold patents on them, but patent protection is not absolute. The courts already invalidate patents based on certain illegal conducts. The day that the government invalidates patents on the ground of illegal off-label promotion will be the day that Pfizer finally begins to seriously reconsider its risk calculation. | | |
| META TOPICMOVED | by="RyanSong" date="1271441030" from="LawContempSoc.TWikiGuestSecondPaper" to="LawContempSoc.RyanSongSecondPaper" |
|---|
|
|
|
RyanSongSecondPaper 5 - 16 Apr 2010 - Main.RyanSong
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | The Prisoner Con | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> |
Are drug manufacturers too big to fail?
Off-label use is the practice of prescribing drugs for an FDA unapproved indication. In the medical community, off-label use is so common that the failure to do so may amount to medical malpractice, especially in areas such as treating HIV and cancer. Contrary to the legal protection which doctors receive for prescribing off-label use, drug manufacturers are forbidden to promote it. In 2004, Warner-Lambert, one of Pfizer’s subsidiaries, settled with the government for $430 million for its violation of FDA regulation by promoting off-label use of Neurotin. Pfizer vowed to reform. In 2009, Department of Justice fined Pfizer $2.3 billion for its off-label promotion of Bextra. And of course, once again, Pfizer “reformed”.
Off-Label Settlement of Bextra
The story began in 2001 when Pharmacia & Upjohn Company (P&U), a subsidiary of Pfizer, received approval from FDA for three indications of Bextra: osteoarthritis, adult rheumatoid arthritis, and primary dysmennorrhea. Due to safety concern, FDA rejected P&D’s request to approve Bextra for general acute pain. From 2002 through 2005, P&U promoted Bextra for these unapproved uses to physicians under false claims of safety. It used so-called advisory boards, consultant meetings, and paid vacation at lavish resorts, to promote Bextra to, as one local manager claimed, "anyone that use[d] a scalpel for a living."
On April 7, 2005, Pfizer withdrew Bextra from the U.S. market on recommendation by the FDA, citing an increased risk of heart attack and stroke and also the risk of a serious, sometimes fatal, skin reaction. The American Heart Association soon released a study indicating that patients using Bextra after heart surgery were 2.19 times more likely to suffer a stroke or heart attack than those taking placebos.
In September 2009, P&U pled guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, for misbranding the drug, Bextra, with the intent to defraud or mislead. In the plea agreement, it agreed to pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter. Additionally, Pfizer agreed to pay an additional one billion dollars to settle civil allegations that it induced physician with kickbacks to market four drugs, including Bextra.
Why manufacturers will forego FDA approval and risk civil and criminal sanctions?
There are several possible reasons: FDA approval process is expensive and it takes years of testing; in the case of Bextra, FDA declined to approve; and seeking FDA approval will expand the scope of generic competition once patent expires. Most importantly, manufacturers are motivated by profits. After realizing that there isn’t enough money for its approved use, manufacturers will promote off-label use to bring in more profit. Bextra is 20 times the price of ibuprofen, but with no medical evidence to show that it is more effective. Another incentive for manufacturers to promote off-label use is because everyone else does it. Eli Lilly pled guilty to criminal misbranding of Evista, Serono paid 704 milion to resolve charges relating to its marketing of Serostim, and the list goes on.
too big to fail?
One of the obstacles in stopping the promotion of off-label use is that doctors are continuingly allowed to prescribe it. The rationale focuses on a gap between patient care and FDA approval process. Proponents of off-label use argue that physicians should be encouraged to provide the best available treatments when the FDA approval process failed to keep up with the progress in medicine or when manufacturers do not bother apply for FDA approval due to lack of financial incentive in treating rare uses. Therefore FDA allows a certain level of communication between the manufacturers and the physicians to ensure quality care. The manufacturers often disguise off-label promotion as dissemination of information or education about their drugs. No politician is going to push for banning off-label use altogether because they do not want to deal with angry HIV and Cancer patients demanding to know where is their drug.
The government’s approach to deal with off-label promotion is to increase the probability of risk that a manufacture will get caught. Evidences of off-label use are conspicuous. Doctors know about it, and so does Pfizer’s competitors. The False Claim Act awards whistleblowers for suing those defrauding the government through Medicaid. But doctors have very little incentive to sue when they are the ones receiving the kickbacks and perks. Competitors are unlikely to bring whistleblower lawsuit as well because they are promoting off-label use as well. For example, two competitors, TAP and Astra Zeneca, exchanged nasty letters against each other regarding their unlawful off-label conducts, but none filed suits due to fear of retaliation.
In prosecuting off-label promotion, the government has a deadly trump card. Any company convicted of a major health care fraud is automatically excluded from Medicare and Medicaid. Convicting Pfizer would prevent the company from billing federal health programs for any of its products. It would be a corporate death sentence. However, the government is also afraid to use its leverage. "We have to ask whether by excluding the company [from Medicare and Medicaid], are we harming our patients," said Lewis Morris of the Department of Health and Human Services. Essentially, the government fears that Pfizer's collapse will disrupt the flow of Pfizer products to Medicare and Medicaid recipients and lead to job loss of Pfizer employees who were not involved in the fraud. End result is that the government made a deal with Pfizer. P&U took the blame and pled guilty. If we examine the relationship between P&U and Pfizer, it raises suspicion that Pfizer has purposely structured its business to insulate itself from liability. Pfizer Inc. owns Pharmacia Corp., which owns Pharmacia & Upjohn LLC, which owns Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, which in turn owns P&U. Instead of convicting the real culprit, the government went after its great-great-grandson.
There are so much profits involved in the business of off-label use, paying the fines will simply become a factor in the risk calculation. Pharmaceutical companies will continue to promote off-label use to steal from patients, and the government will aggressively pursue off-label actions to force settlement to get some of its money back. Then the cycle continues. Paying these fines will be simply treated as doing business with the government. All the cost will be ultimately passed to the taxpayers and the patients who listen to their doctors and buy expensive FDA non-approved drugs they don’t need. The government believes it has to protect the institutional creed because punishing Pfizer will lead to job loss and deprive patients of Pfizer drugs. But what about the patients and taxpayers that Pfizer are continuously defrauding from? Keeping Pfizer out of Medicare and Medicaid will deprive patients of Pfizer drugs because Pfizer hold patents on them, but patent right is not absolute. The court already invalidates patents based on certain illegal conducts. The day that the government starts to invalidate patent on the ground of illegal conducts such as off-label promotion is the day that Pfizer will seriously reconsider its risk calculation.
| META TOPICMOVED | by="RyanSong" date="1271441030" from="LawContempSoc.TWikiGuestSecondPaper" to="LawContempSoc.RyanSongSecondPaper" |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|