Posts Tagged ‘antipsychotic drugs’

J&J drug protocols cost taxpayers millions—Lawsuit claims Investigator fired after going public on J&J’s anti-psychotic drug campaign

Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011

The Daily Record, by Michael L. Diamond
November 22, 2011

Allen Jones was curious.

Why did Pennsylvania use a computer program that often pointed to a Johnson & Johnson drug over other, cheaper medicine to treat certain mental illnesses, the investigator for the Keystone State’s Office of Inspector General wanted to know (article continued below video)

Video: Whistleblower Allen Jones on pharmaceutical ties to nation wide efforts to screen children for ‘mental disorders’

(Cont…) While the computer program mandated doctors use a new line of anti-psychotic drugs, including Risperdal, sold by J&J’s subsidiary Janssen companies, Jones said he couldn’t find government-funded medical studies showing that these new drugs were any more effective than their generic predecessors.

Jones’ 2002 inquiry into the drug added to a chain of events that ultimately led Texas to sue New Jersey-based health care giant Johnson & Johnson on claims it orchestrated a multimillion-dollar violation of the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act.

Jones said in an interview that it was his belief that the company “substituted opinion for science.”

Johnson & Johnson’s sales strategy turned Risperdal, a drug approved by the FDA to treat only schizophrenia and bipolar disease, into a blockbuster that the company sold for those illnesses and, unlawfully, many more, according to the Texas lawsuit.

Risperdal cost substantially more than older, generic drugs and generated more than $25 billion for the company before its patent expired in 2007, according to court records. But the drug often was no more effective at treating mental disorders than older drugs, the National Institute of Mental Health found. Because Medicare and Medicaid paid many of the bills, it cost taxpayers millions, according to federal and state lawsuits.

Twelve states, including Pennsylvania and Texas, have sued Janssen to recover some of the money they spent on Risperdal. South Carolina and Louisiana each were awarded more than $250 million last year. The case brought by Pennsylvania, where Jones first made his discovery, was dismissed in June 2010 after a state judge ruled prosecutors didn’t provide enough evidence. West Virginia lost its case on appeal. The cases in Louisiana and Pennsylvania have been appealed. The company said it intends to appeal the case in South Carolina. Texas and the seven remaining cases are awaiting trial.

The U.S. Justice Department also is investigating the marketing of Risperdal. J&J said in an August filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is negotiating a settlement and has agreed, “in principal,” to plead guilty to a misdemeanor for violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. No plea has been made yet.

New Jersey hasn’t filed a lawsuit. It isn’t clear how much the state spent on Risperdal in the last 10 years. New Jersey’s Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services refused to provide the information unless the Asbury Park Press paid a $5,071 processing fee. The Press declined to pay the fee.

The Risperdal legal dispute is an example of a problem that is endemic in the pharmaceutical industry, some doctors say. Government-funded studies about the drug’s effectiveness weren’t published until more than a decade after the drug was first approved.

In the case of Risperdal, “we’re spending money on a drug that isn’t superior and might be inferior to other drugs that cost a fraction as much,” said Dr. John David Abramson, a health care policy expert at Harvard University and author of “Overdosed America,” who investigated the drug for Louisiana’s lawsuit.

“It ought to make honest citizens … want to throw up to see that this money is being extracted from society for no gain, when our country is headed toward financial ruin,” Abramson said.

Whistle-blower fired

Allen Jones, the Pennsylvania investigator, was fired in 2004 after going public with his claims, but he continued to investigate, eventually becoming a plaintiff and whistle-blower in a Texas state lawsuit against Janssen. That trial is scheduled to start Jan. 9.

Risperdal was approved by the FDA in 1993 to treat patients with schizophrenia and, a decade later, patients with bipolar disorder. Janssen, on its website, also says the drug can help treat some symptoms of autism in children and adolescents.

With it came the chance for Janssen to replace Haldol, an anti-psychotic drug that Belgian scientist Paul Janssen himself helped develop in the 1950s, just before Johnson & Johnson bought his company in 1961.

Older anti-psychotic drugs had been available in generic form for decades. Risperdal and a new generation of anti-psychotics came to market in the 1990s at a cost that far exceeded the older drugs, according to the Texas lawsuit.

J&J said Risperdal not only would be safer and more effective than the first generation of anti-psychotic drugs, but also could treat mental disorders other than schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, according to the Texas lawsuit.

Janssen’s medical studies weren’t conclusive enough for the FDA to claim Risperdal was more effective than either Haldol and its generic versions or the new anti-psychotic medicine on the market, the Texas lawsuit said.

Unable to tout Risperdal’s superiority, Janssen got the message to doctors anyway, according to legal documents and interviews. The methods included:

Middlemen. Johnson & Johnson teamed with Omnicare, the nation’s largest pharmacy manager for long-term care facilities, to ensure Omnicare’s pharmacists would recommend Johnson & Johnson’s drugs, according to a lawsuit against J&J filed in Massachusetts in 2010 by the U.S. Justice Department.

Omnicare cared for 1.4 million clients in 47 states. Its annual purchases of Johnson & Johnson drugs climbed from $100 million in 1999 to $280 million in 2004. And its purchases of Risperdal alone exceeded $100 million a year, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims J&J paid Omnicare tens of millions of dollars in grants, rebates, sponsorships and educational funding — payments that the federal government considered kickbacks.

A substantial portion of the prescriptions were paid by taxpayers through Medicaid, the government said. (Omnicare in 2009 agreed to pay $98 million and settle separate charges by the U.S. that it took kickbacks from J&J. The company didn’t admit wrongdoing).

Read the rest of the article here

« Return to news items


Share

Canadian Kids are All on Drugs

Tuesday, November 15th, 2011

The Mark – November 14, 2011

Kids as young as six are being prescribed powerful antipsychotic drugs

The number of prescriptions for antipsychotic drugs for kids in Canada more than doubled between 2005 and 2010. A study in the journal Pediatrics & Child Health shows that the number of prescriptions jumped 114 per cent across those years, despite most antipsychotics not being cleared for use in Canada among people younger than 17. The drugs are used to offset the symptoms of attention deficit hyperactive disorder, autism, mood disorders, and all manner of behavioural problems in kids as young as six. According to Postmedia‘s Sharon Kirkey and Pamela Fayerman:

Once reserved for schizophrenia and mania in adults, one antipsychotic alone, risperidone, was recommended by Canadian-office-based doctors for children 17 and younger a total of 340,670 times in 2010 – a near-doubling since 2006 – according to data provided to Postmedia News from prescription-drug tracking firm IMS Brogan.

Not too surprisingly, the level of prescriptions has some doctors wondering if these drugs are being overprescribed. Complicating matters are the side effects of the drugs, which can lead to rapid weight gain, pre-diabetes, obesity, tremors, and more. Likewise, long-term studies on the drugs’ effects on kids’ health aren’t readily available.

Get the facts about antipsychotic drugs here

http://www.themarknews.com/news/?open=7441

« Return to news items


Share

JAMA: Spotty results with off-label antipsychotic use

Wednesday, September 28th, 2011

FiercePharma
By Tracy Staton
September 27, 2011

Off-label use of powerful antipsychotic drugs has come in for plenty of debate in recent years. The expensive, newer-generation “atypicals” have been used to treat dementia, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, dementia, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder…the list goes on. And all this while the Justice Department was investigating Big Pharma for off-label promotion of the drugs.

An updated analysis now finds that antipsychotic drugs’ utility in off-label uses is minimal, but the risks are significant, Medscape reports. Several illnesses didn’t respond at all to antipsychotic therapy, the data showed, including eating disorders and addiction problems. The evidence for treatment of personality disorders was a toss-up. Meanwhile, side effects were sometimes severe, including weight gain, metabolic problems, fatigue, urinary tract symptoms and even an increased risk of death, the researchers said.

A few off-label uses won support from the new data. Anxiety patients got moderate benefit from AstraZeneca’s ($AZN) Seroquel, and OCD sufferers were helped by treatment with Johnson & Johnson’s ($JNJ) Risperdal. Elderly patients with dementia saw a small benefit with antipsychotic use.

“We need to use this information and be wary of prescribing when it isn’t warranted,” said Dr. Alicia Ruelaz Maher, lead author of the JAMA-published study. “I think the biggest takeaway is that instead of just prescribing blindly, we now have evidence to guide us.” And, as Maher told Reuters, “Each individual patient needs to be considered as opposed to, ‘This is good for this condition.’”

http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/jama-spotty-results-label-antipsychotic-use/2011-09-28

« Return to news items


Share

The Detroit Mother Who Refused to Defer to Authority & Drug Her Child—Maryanne Godboldo

Wednesday, August 31st, 2011

Freedom Watch with Charles Payne
Fox Business Channel
August 30, 2011



Transcript:

Charles Payne:  Charges for allegedly shooting at policemen when they came to take way her daughter. The department of human services issued an order because she took her daughter off an antipsychotic medication. Godbolbo denied ever firing a weapon.  A judge dismissed the criminal charge yesterday saying there was no evidence to support them and agreeing with Godboldo’s lawyers that child services order was invalid.

Here to discuss this case from is the President of the Future of Freedom Foundation, Jacob Hornberger.

Jacob, I almost don’t know where to begin on this. You know first and foremost this kid is on an antipsychotic medication the mother obviously doesn’t want that to happen. Secondly the police come and try to forcibly take away the child. Help us understand this case.

Jacob Hornberger: Yeah, it’s an act… it’s a remarkable model of of how a parent will react when the state is trying to do something that the parent thinks is harmful to the children. This woman refused to defer to authority.  It’s something that a lot of parents would never think about doing. The cops show up, they’ve got a court order commanding the woman to relinquish her 13-year-old little girl for the purpose of injecting mind-altering drugs into this child. The mother says “no I’m taking her of this junk, she’s not going to go on it and you’re not going to take her away,” and she barricades herself in her house and she says the cops aren’t going to do this. Well the cops ultimately charge this woman with resisting arrest, firing a weapon at them, barricading in her house, and refusing to obey this court order.  The thing goes to court and it turns out the cops where there with an invalid court order, they didn’t even have the Judges signature on the court order. They’d gotten the clerk to just stamp the Judge’s signature on it. The Judge throws the charges out, he dismisses the gun charges, says she never fired a weapon at the police. But really it’s a model of how parents should not defer to authority under any circumstance. But especially when your child’s welfare is at stake.

Charles: Jacob it could also be a model of just how arrogant government at all levels has become and many case the police are just following a lock step with this, just thinking, “hey, I can get someone to just stamp this, this women probably doesn’t know her rights, she’ll probably hand over the kid and we’ll have, you know, all in a days work.”

Jacob: Absolutely. This is what goes on in totalitarian countries, this is what went on in the form soviet union, this is what went on in fascist Italy, this is what goes on in Burma. The police operate effectively as thugs and they are in there saying, “we don’t need to follow the law, we don’t need to follow the procedures that are established by the law, we’re gonna just come over here and seize this child because we’ve got the guns,” and this mother said “oh no you’re not gonna do that.” And the other thing, you notice Charles you know, that the Government has been waging this 30-year-old fail war on drugs and they won’t let it go, yet here they are the purveyors of drugs. They’re trying to inject these mind-altering substances in this little girl just like they do in many of the public schools, where they, where they, a kid resists authority [Charles: right] he’s bored with schools they put him on Adderall, Ritalin, they screw up his life for the rest of his life, because he did not defer to their authority in these government schools.

Charles: Jacob I say amen to that. We have over-medicated our kids and taken away all kinds of parental responsibilities. We’ve got a couple of seconds left. The ultimate message here for parents watching this show, is stand your ground, defend yourself, even when its against a big, big government that looks like you can’t beat, you know the old saying, you can’t beat city hall.

Jacob: Absolutely, and especially when they welfare of your children are concerned, that’s the for most importance not deferring to what you think the state knows about what’s best for your child or your family.

Charles: Jacob thanks very much, we appreciate it. That’s a message we needed to hear tonight. Appreciate it.

Jacob: Thank you.

« Return to news items


Share

Australian Psychiatrist Patrick McGorry Aborts Controversial Antipsychotic Drug Trial on Kids Amid Protests

Saturday, August 20th, 2011

Drug Trial Scrapped Amid Outcry

The Age
By Jill Stark
August 21, 2011

FORMER Australian of the Year Patrick McGorry has aborted a controversial trial of antipsychotic drugs on children as young as 15 who are “at risk” of psychosis, amid complaints the study was unethical.

The Sunday Age can reveal 13 local and international experts lodged a formal complaint calling for the trial not to go ahead due to concerns children who had not yet been diagnosed with a psychotic illness would be unnecessarily given drugs with potentially dangerous side effects.

Quetiapine, sold as Seroquel, has been linked to weight gain and its manufacturer AstraZeneca, which was to fund the trial, last month paid $US647 million ($A623 million) to settle a lawsuit in the US, alleging there was insufficient warning the drug may cause diabetes.

Professor McGorry, one of the Prime Minister’s key mental health advisers, planned to conduct the trial at Orygen Youth Health in Parkville, listing it on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry last March. It was to investigate whether the drug would decrease or delay the risk of people aged between 15 and 40 with early signs of mental illness developing a psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia.

Last month, psychiatrists, psychologists and researchers from Australia, Britain and the US lodged a complaint with the ethics committee of Melbourne Health, the umbrella health service that includes Orygen.

They argued there was little evidence onset of psychosis can be prevented and it was potentially dangerous to use antipsychotics on people who merely have risk factors for a psychotic illness. They said there was evidence that up to 80 per cent would never develop a disorder.

Professor McGorry insists the decision to scrap the trial was made in June and is unrelated to the complaint, which he said he was only alerted to just over a week ago.

He maintained the trial received ethics approval in July last year but was abandoned due to “feasibility issues” with recruiting participants in European and American sites, which were to form the international arm of the study. He said Orygen had to choose between investing in the drug trial or pursuing another trial using fish oil, which had proven to be useful as an early intervention treatment for schizophrenia in a smaller study. He opted for fish oil because it had less potential for side effects than antipsychotics.

Melbourne Health confirmed the complaint will still be considered by its research ethics committee in September. Yesterday the trial was listed as “prospective” on the clinical trials registry but Professor McGorry said it was being removed.

Earlier this month The Sunday Age revealed a growing backlash against the government’s mental health reforms, with Professor McGorry’s peers claiming his youth early intervention model had been “massively oversold”.

Associate Professor Geoff Stuart of La Trobe University’s school of psychological sciences, who signed the complaint, said questions remained about the trial.

“If these feasibility obstacles can be overcome in future [would] Professor McGorry embark on such a trial again? He was willing to endorse a trial which was exploring the use of antipsychotic medication in an at-risk group. There’s a major ethical issue about medicating four people to supposedly save the fifth when you’re not saving them anyway, you’re just masking their symptoms. We’re talking about kids as young as 15 who could get a full dose of antipsychotics and they’re not psychotic.”

Professor McGorry acknowledged the evidence suggested antipsychotics were not effective as a first-line treatment for the at-risk group. But he said the risks had been exaggerated and he would consider a similar trial on patients for whom other treatments had failed. “I wrote the guidelines which said do not use antipsychotics in ultra-high risk patients, so I’ve never been supportive of it in clinical practice … [but] we should have the freedom to research all available options for this population,” he said.

The controversy over the aborted trial largely centres on “psychosis risk syndrome”, a condition that some mental health advocates want formally recognised. But critics say that could lead to young people being wrongly labelled, stigmatised and medicated for symptoms that may be temporary. They also fear that while Professor McGorry says his Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centres prescribe drugs only to those who have experienced a psychotic episode, his willingness to medicate an at-risk group could mean the criteria will broaden. Professor McGorry insists this will not happen.

Early intervention What is it?

EARLY intervention is based on identifying and treating psychosis in its early stages to prevent patients developing full-blown psychotic illnesses such as schizophrenia.

Patrick McGorry’s Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centres (EPPIC) treat young people who have experienced a psychotic episode with treatments such as psychotherapy, family therapy, medication or a combination. He says early treatment significantly improves the chance of recovery and reduces long-term impairment. But diagnosing psychotic disorders is difficult and McGorry’s critics say there is no reliable diagnostic tool to predict if someone will develop a psychotic illness and there is insufficient evidence intervention can prevent it.

Critics say up to 80 per cent of those with ”psychosis risk syndrome” – which refers to people who only have risk factors such as a family history or a deterioration in mental health – never develop an illness. They fear early intervention will lead to many patients being wrongly labelled as psychotic and medicated unnecessarily.

A recently released literature review by The Cochrane Collaboration found there was insufficient evidence that early intervention could prevent psychosis and that any benefits were not long term. Professor McGorry said it used flawed methodology.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/drug-trial-scrapped-amid-outcry-20110820-1j3vy.html?from=age_sb

August 21, 2011

« Return to news items


Share

Scandalous Off Label Use Of Antipsychotics: Another Warning For DSM-5

Monday, August 8th, 2011

Psychiatric Times

By Allen Frances, MD | August 5, 2011

I never would have entered the DSM-5 controversy were it not for two of its proposals that risk furthering the already frightening overuse of antipsychotic medication, particularly in children and teenagers. DSM-5 plans to introduce two new and untested diagnoses that would offer natural targets for poor drug prescribing–psychosis risk syndrome (AKA attenuated psychotic symptoms) and temper dysregulation (AKA disruptive mood dysregulation). There is no evidence whatever that antipsychotics would confer any benefit on the kids so labeled (and too often mislabeled), but great reason to worry that this would not stop their being used needlessly and recklessly.

The DSM-5 supporters of these two proposals believe my concern is ill founded, or at least excessive. They argue that they would not recommend antipsychotics for the new diagnoses and that there is no FDA approved indication for their use. This misses the crucial point that new DSM categories, once made official, take on an independent life. If they can possibly be misused (and clearly these can), they will be misused. And experience teaches the clear lesson that antipsychotic overuse will insinuate itself insidiously and inappropriately whenever any crack of opportunity opens up.

A recent paper by Mojtabai and Olfson1 presents a chilling testimony to the spreading creep of antipsychotic misuse. In 1996, antipsychotics were prescribed for patients with an anxiety disorder in 10% of office visits. One decade later, this had more than doubled despite there being no evidence that antipsychotics work for anxiety disorders and clear evidence that they cause dangerous side effects. Because antipsychotics have no FDA indication for anxiety disorders, all this massive overprescription was done completely off-label.

This is truly alarming, but unfortunately it is not really surprising. Antipsychotics have managed to become the top class of drugs– generating the highest revenue with sales of $15 billion per year– despite the troubling facts that much of the prescribing is off label, unsupported by scientific evidence, and likely to cause the dreadful side effect of obesity with all its consequent risks. This is an astounding reflection on the lack of caution in everyday medical practice. Used appropriately, antipsychotics are extremely valuable and necessary tools– but what could possibly justify their becoming such promiscuous best sellers?

DSM-5 cannot off-load responsibility for causing harmful unintended consequences– especially when these are so obvious that they smack you in face. It is foolhardy to risk causing a further wave in the antipsychotic deluge. I continue to despair of a process that allows such smart and well meaning people to make such really dreadful decisions.

 https://member.cmpmedica.com/index.php?referrer=http://member.cmpmedica.com/cga.php?assetID=422&referrer=http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blog/couchincrisis/content/article/10168/1921927

« Return to news items


Share

DSM 5 Will Further Inflate The ADD Bubble

Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011

Psychology Today
by Allen Frances, Former Chairman, DSM Task Force

Video: ADHD Labeling Normal Kids "Mentally Ill"

The Child Work Group Fails Again To Learn From Its Experience

Martin Whiteley is an MP who represents Perth in the Australian parliament. He has been actively involved in mental health issues and succeeded in a crusade to curb what had been Perth’s alarming overdiagnosis and overmedication of  Attention Deficit Disorder Disorder (ADD). Mr Whiteley has become expert in the intricacies of ADD and is alarmed that the changes suggested for DSM 5 will greatly exacerbate the ADD fad he worked so hard to tame. Read Mr Whiteley’s careful item by item review and you will be alarmed too:

http://speedupsitstill.com/dsm-5-proposal-adhd-%e2%80%93-making-l…

We are already in the midst of a false epidemic of ADD. Rates in kids that were 3-5% when DSM IV was published in 1994 have now jumped to 10%. In part this came from changes in DSM IV, but most of the inflation was caused by a marketing blitz to practitioners that accompanied new on-patent drugs amplified by new regulations that also allowed direct to consumer advertising to parents and teachers. In a sensible world, DSM 5 would now offer much tighter criteria for ADD and much clearer advice on the steps needed in its differential diagnosis. This would push back ,however feebly, against the skilled and well financed drug company sell. DSM 5 should work hard to improve its text, not play carelessly with the ADD criteria in a way that may unleash a whole set of dreadful unintended consequences- unneeded medication, stigma, lowered expectations, misallocation of resources, and contribution to the illegal secondary market peddling stimulants for recreation or performance enhancement.

The DSM 5 child and adolescent work group has perversely gone just the other way. It proposes to make an already far too easy diagnosis much looser.

How puzzling and troubling. Child mental health has already promoted no fewer than three false epidemics in just 15 years- ADD, childhood bipolar, and autism. Any reasonable group would now be learning from this past experience. For the future, it would be chastened, cautious, and eager to correct the damage it has done- rather than embarking on any reckless new adventures. A prudent DSM 5 would tighten its criteria for ADD and put in a black box warning against the blatant current off-the-DSM-label diagnosis of childhood bipolar. DSM 5 instead does everything wrong it possibly could with ADD and then remarkably takes the mischievous further step of adding yet another new candidate for diagnostic fad (Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder) likely that will increase the already scandalous overprescription of dangerous antipsychotic medication to children. Go figure.

In many circles, the accepted wisdom is that DSM 5 workers are making such unaccountably bad decisions because they want to promote drug sales to kids. To support this accusation, cynics raise the Biederman affair and also APA’s previous excessive financial support from Pharma.

This is one time when the cynics are dead wrong. The DSM 5 work group is making simply disastrous decisions for the purist of reasons. These are not people with close industry ties and their conflict of interest is intellectual, not financial. Experts in child psychiatry are dangerously naïve about the likely misuses of their well meaning suggestions. They are blind, not corrupt.

What is needed is outside supervision to curb child psychiatry’s seemingly endless taste for diagnostic excess. And APA should also realize the grave harm done to its credibility by the appearance that DSM 5 is far too Pharma friendly even if this has not been the real motivation behind the bad DSM 5 proposals.

To make matters worse, the DSM 5 field trial will be completely worthless- providing no information at all about the magnitude of the rate increase in ADD that will occur once DSM 5 opens the floodgates even wider. We did careful field trials before DSM IV to compare the impact on rates of the different possible definitions and predicted a 15% increase for the one finally chosen. Instead, the rates more than doubled- courtesy of pressure from the drug companies. For obscure reasons, DSM 5 is conducting extraordinarily expensive field trials that (again perversely) avoid the only question that really counts- just how high will the rates skyrocket under the even easier to meet new DSM 5 definition.

DSM 5 will be flying completely blind into dangerous territory, unimpeded by adult supervision. The leaders of child psychiatry (who already have the unfortunate track record of producing fads) will now be given a free pass to further feed their blossoming ADD fad. Will they never learn from past mistakes?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201108/dsm-5-will-further-inflate-the-add-bubble

« Return to news items


Share

According to Psycho/Pharma—1 In 66 Americans Is A Psycho

Wednesday, July 20th, 2011

Business Insider – July 20, 2011

by Robert Johnson

Image: wikipedia commons

Outselling even common drugs to treat high blood pressure and acid reflux, antipsychotic medications are the single top-selling prescription drug in the United States.

Once reserved for hard-core, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest type of mental illnesses to treat hallucinations, delusions or major thought disorders; today, the drugs are handed out to unruly kids and absent minded elderly.

A recent story in Al Jazeera by James Ridgeway of Mother Jones illuminates the efforts by major pharmaceutical companies to get doctors prescribing medicines like Zyprexa, Seroquel, and Abilify to patients for whom the drugs were never intended.

Focusing on psychiatrists because they rely on subjective diagnoses, the drug reps have been so successful that they’ve changed the criteria for mental illness and disability payments. Ridgeway quotes former New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell.

“[T]he tally of those who are so disabled by mental disorders that they qualify for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) increased nearly two and a half times between 1987 and 2007 – from one in 184 Americans to one in seventy-six. For children, the rise is even more startling – a thirty-five-fold increase in the same two decades. Mental illness is now the leading cause of disability in children.” Under the tutelage of Big Pharma, we are “simply expanding the criteria for mental illness so that nearly everyone has one.” Fugh-Berman agrees: In the age of aggressive drug marketing, she says, “Psychiatric diagnoses have expanded to include many perfectly normal people.”

Particularly vulnerable because medication decisions are often out of their hands the old and the young suffer most.

For kids: the number diagnosed with bi-polar disorder rose 40-fold between 1994 and 2003 and one in five comes away from a psychiatrist with a prescription for an antipsychotic.

Dosing the elderly at nursing homes has become so common that sales reps have coined the term “five at five” — meaning 5 milligrams of Zyprexa at 5 pm to sedate difficult residents.

For all their nefarious wrangling, in 2009, Lily agreed to pay $1.4 billion, including a $515 million criminal fine. The largest ever in a health care case and the largest criminal fine on any corporation in the U.S.

That year, Lilly sold $1.8 billion of Zyprexa alone.

http://www.businessinsider.com/zyprexa-antipsycotics-top-selling-drugs-in-us-2011-7

« Return to news items


Share

Antidepressant Nation

Thursday, July 14th, 2011

Truthdig – July 14, 2011

10 percent of Americans over age six now take antidepressants

A serious conversation is under way in the United States on the subject of psychiatric drugs. The debate consists of three fundamental issues: first, whether antidepressants actually treat depression; second, the vast, growing body of evidence that psychotropic medications alter the brain permanently; and third, the pharmaceutical industry’s continuing, decades-old corruption of American psychiatrists, many of whom have been made by drug companies’ shenanigans into little more than handsomely paid industry shills.

A careful questioning of these issues written by the spectacularly decorated Harvard Medical School lecturer Dr. Marcia Angell appeared as a two-part essay published earlier this summer in The New York Review of Books. In addition to holding a medical degree from Boston University School of Medicine and undergraduate diplomas in both chemistry and mathematics, Angell is a Fulbright Scholar, a board-certified pathologist, author of two books, a member of numerous professional health care associations and a retired 20-year staffer at the New England Journal of Medicine, which she ultimately left as editor-in-chief.

The recent publication of three books, each of which takes up one of the issues raised above, provided the occasion for Angell’s essay. In it, she argues convincingly that antidepressants are not known to do what drug companies and many psychiatrists say they do. It is this claim that drew the attention of practicing psychiatrist and Brown University professor Dr. Peter D. Kramer, who in a New York Times commentary published last Sunday questioned some but not all of what Dr. Angell wrote.

Both articles deserve to be read, but there is a crucial difference between them. While Kramer points to much data that must be taken seriously, his wandering defense of the utility of antidepressants does not undo the diligent, methodical inquiry one would expect from someone with Angell’s credentials—and which she delivers. Otherwise, he too is a critic of Big Pharma’s shady dealings. Kramer nods with genuine concern toward the dangers associated with the prolonged use of psychotropics and, in his conclusion, expresses support for treatment via effective alternatives. Both professionals agree that serious research needs to be done to understand exactly what these drugs are doing. —ARK

Marcia Angell in The New York Review of Books:

Nowadays treatment by medical doctors nearly always means psychoactive drugs, that is, drugs that affect the mental state. In fact, most psychiatrists treat only with drugs, and refer patients to psychologists or social workers if they believe psychotherapy is also warranted. The shift from “talk therapy” to drugs as the dominant mode of treatment coincides with the emergence over the past four decades of the theory that mental illness is caused primarily by chemical imbalances in the brain that can be corrected by specific drugs. That theory became broadly accepted, by the media and the public as well as by the medical profession, after Prozac came to market in 1987 and was intensively promoted as a corrective for a deficiency of serotonin in the brain. The number of people treated for depression tripled in the following ten years, and about 10 percent of Americans over age six now take antidepressants. The increased use of drugs to treat psychosis is even more dramatic. The new generation of antipsychotics, such as Risperdal, Zyprexa, and Seroquel, has replaced cholesterol-lowering agents as the top-selling class of drugs in the US.

Read Part 1: The Epidemic of Mental Illness: Why?

Read Part 2: The Illusions of Psychiatry

« Return to news items


Share

Dosed in juvie jail: Troubled doctors hired to treat kids in state custody

Monday, June 20th, 2011

By Michael LaForgia

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

By the time Florida started paying Dr. Gold Smith Dorval to counsel and medicate jailed children, the Pembroke Pines psychiatrist already had experience with kids in state custody.

He had used them, authorities said, to bilk the government out of money for the poor.

When Dorval pleaded no contest to a felony grand theft charge, it should have barred him, by law, from working for Florida’s Department of Juvenile Justice.

It didn’t.

And, like Dorval, other doctors have emerged from past troubles and gotten jobs at DJJ – with authority to prescribe drugs to kids in state jails, a Palm Beach Post investigation has found.

Some psychiatrists took DJJ jobs after they were cited for breaking the law, making grave medical missteps or violating state rules. Others were hired after they were accused of overmedicating patients, sometimes fatally.

All were empowered to prescribe drugs to jailed kids as powerful antipsychotic pills flowed freely into Florida’s homes for wayward children.

“It’s appalling. A psychiatrist is a psychiatrist. They’re licensed, they’ve been to medical school, and there is a certain trust placed in that person’s judgment when they tell you that this child needs to be medicated,” said John Walsh, an attorney with the Palm Beach County Legal Aid Society who has represented children in juvenile court. “This just illustrates that we always have to be on guard with children.”

In two years, Florida bought hundreds of thousands of tablets of Seroquel, Abilify, Risperdal and other antipsychotic drugs for children housed in state-run jails and programs. The meds were administered in a juvenile justice system that doesn’t track prescriptions and has no way of telling whether doctors are prescribing to make kids easier to control.

In some jails and homes, pills were prescribed by psychiatrists who took huge speaker fees from companies that make antipsychotic drugs, The Post found. In others, the task fell to doctors with troubled pasts.

In response to the newspaper’s first reports, published last month, DJJ Secretary Wansley Walters launched an investigation into the department’s use of antipsychotic drugs. DJJ officials declined to discuss The Post’s latest findings, citing the probe.

Spokesman C.J. Drake acknowledged, though, that the department has struggled to find psychiatrists willing to work in jails and programs. He also said DJJ sometimes has relied on companies that employ a stable of doctors, rather than signing a contract with a single physician.

As a result, Dorval went to work in a Broward County jail for children – even though he would have failed a state-mandated background check required by the contract.

Doctor’s bogus billings

In the late 1990s, Dorval claimed he was providing juvenile delinquents and other vulnerable children with needed therapy. Instead, state investigators said, he used bogus counselors to bill Medicaid for more than $350,000 in fraudulent claims.

He charged the government for offering more than 24 hours’ worth of children’s therapy in a single day, investigators said, and structured the scheme around kids who were homeless or in DJJ custody or foster care.

He tended to bill “for those children that the system ‘lost,’ ” according to an affidavit for his arrest.

Originally charged with four felonies in Broward, Dorval pleaded no contest to one count of grand theft in 2004.

Later, to keep his medical license, he agreed to pay $10,000 and was suspended, reprimanded and put on four years’ probation.

Although a judge withheld a formal finding of guilt, the plea disqualified Dorval from seeing patients in a juvenile jail. Even so, his employer, Miami-based Compass Health Systems, sent him to work at the Broward Juvenile Detention Center between August and December 2007.

No one screened his background beforehand.

In written responses to questions, Dorval said he was doing as he was told when Compass sent him to work in the Broward juvenile jail.

“At that period you cited, the psychiatrist that was seeing patients at the DJJ was out. Therefore I was designated by the management office to go and cover for that psychiatrist, until they switched me again to another place. I was not aware of any wrongdoing,” wrote Dorval, who stressed that he never signed a contract with DJJ. “I am only an employee. Wherever they send me to work I have to go.”

As for the criminal charges, he offered this explanation: “This case was a simple matter that became complicated, because my first lawyer messed me up.” After wrangling over the facts, “they decided to offer me a plea that would allow me to get a chance to fight for my license to practice medicine,” he wrote. “It was a real nightmare that generated in me a post-traumatic syndrome that I will never forget.”

DJJ officials declined to comment on Dorval’s hiring, again citing the investigation.

Compass officials didn’t respond to questions about Dorval.

DJJ had no contract with Compass as of May, records show.

Patient’s death missed in screening

In state-operated jails and programs, the rules say DJJ must screen doctors’ backgrounds and verify that physicians’ hold valid medical licenses. In privately run programs, which house the majority of children in the department’s custody, that responsibility falls to contracted companies.

Such screenings don’t catch everything: Doctors who kept their licenses after the state accused them of serious lapses have gone on to work in juvenile jails and homes.

Dr. Charles J. Dack is an example. For six years, Dack, a Lakeland-based physician who is board-certified in addiction and child psychiatry, prescribed a cocktail of antidepressants and powerful painkillers, including methadone and morphine, to a patient named Mary Tuxbury.

Eventually, Dack ramped up the doses of pills Tuxbury was taking, keeping her “at a toxic level of morphine for approximately two and a half years,” regulators from the state health department said. In March 2002, Tuxbury was found dead. She was 42.

An autopsy showed she died of “multiple drug intoxication, namely opiates and tricyclic antidepressants.”

Regulators charged Dack with failing to meet care standards and inappropriate prescribing. Dack settled the allegations in August 2007. He admitted no wrongdoing but agreed to pay a $7,000 fine and complete a course on “misprescribing” drugs.

A year later, he was hired to care for children at three privately run programs in Central Florida: Wilson Youth Academy, Peace River Youth Academy and New Beginnings Youth Academy. He worked in the homes until April.

Dack didn’t respond to messages seeking comment.

Doctor hired after child’s death

Other DJJ doctors weren’t cited by regulators, but they were accused in court of fatal neglect. Roughly one in eight of the psychiatrists who have worked for DJJ in the past five years has settled a malpractice lawsuit in Florida, records show.

Among these was Dr. Samuel McClure. As a psychiatrist in Orlando, McClure diagnosed an 11-year-old boy named David Morganthal with attention deficit disorder. He prescribed powerful, mind-altering drugs for David – even though the child was much smaller than other kids his age, according to court documents.

One morning in November 2001, David’s mother woke to find her son dead on the floor of her double-wide mobile home. When they laid David out at the morgue, he measured less than 4-foot-2 and weighed 49 pounds.

Lab tests showed his blood contained an unusually high concentration of an antidepressant: about 60 percent more of the medication than doctors had expected.

The drug, mirtazapine, still hasn’t been approved as safe for children. David was taking the drug along with another antidepressant that hasn’t been approved for kids, citalopram.

The autopsy concluded the boy probably died from a seizure and heart problems caused by “reaction to prescription medication.”

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/dosed-in-juvie-jail-troubled-doctors-hired-to-1549240.html?viewAsSinglePage=true

« Return to news items


Share