Posts Tagged ‘criminal fines’

Profiting from mental ill-health

Tuesday, March 15th, 2011

There’s a reason psychiatrists prescribe drugs rather than talking therapy: the latter makes no money for pharmaceutical firms

The Guardian
By Harriet Fraad
March 15, 2011

More than one in ten Americans takes Prozac; the US comprises 5% of the world's population, yet consumes two thirds of psychological medications. Photograph: Stone/Jonathan Nourok/Getty

The New York Times recently led with a front-page splash about psychiatry’s propensity to prescribe pills, “Talk Doesn’t Pay, So Psychiatry Turns Instead to Drug Therapy”. That news is already widely known in the mental health field, but it has vast ramifications for Americans trying to maintain their sanity in our market-driven and medical system for delivering mental healthcare.

What does the turn to drug therapy mean for the mass of Americans?

Mental illness has not decreased with the change from talk therapy to drugs. In fact, as Robert Whitaker’s book diagnoses, mental illness in America has become an established epidemic. So-called miracle drugs like Prozac are taken by 11% of the population – and Prozac is only one of the 30 available antidepressants on the market. Antidepressants are accompanied by anti-anxiety and anti-psychotic drugs. Xanax, America’s leading anti-anxiety medication, is so ubiquitous that Xanax generates more revenue than Tide detergent, reports Charles Barber in his Comfortably Numb.

Anti-psychotics drugs alone net the pharmaceutical industry at least $14.6bn dollars a year. Psycho-pharmaceuticals are the most profitable sector of the industry, which makes it one of the most profitable business sectors in the world. Americans are less than 5% of the world’s population, yet they consume 66% of the world’s psychological medications.

Do these psycho pharmaceuticals work to restore mental health? Actually, the evidence is overwhelming that they fail. Antidepressants, the most popular psycho-pharmaceuticals, work no better than placebos. They work 25% of the time and stop working when the user stops taking them. In addition, they may actually harm patients in the long run. They disrupt brain neurotransmitters and may usurp the brain’s organic soothing functions.

Psycho-pharmaceuticals are less effective in the long run than talk therapy. Talk therapy, like drugs, does change brain and body chemistry; unlike drugs, though, talk therapy has no side-effects. Instead, talk therapy gives a patient tools that usually help to solve future problems. The latest research is most clearly expressed in both Irving Kirsch’s Antidepressants: The Emperors New Drugs and Gary Greenberg’s, Manufacturing Depression, both published last year. Kirsch is one of the world’s leading psychiatrists; Greenberg is one of the world’s most prestigious psychologists. Their views are echoed by many voices in the field of mental health. Why is prestigious and extensive research so widely ignored by doctors and patients alike? Our market-driven healthcare system gives us clues.

All 30 of the available antidepressants have suffered lawsuits within five years of their appearance on the market. These suits are often settled with large payments and gag clauses. The new generation of anti-psychotics are the latest case in point. Anti-psychotics were the single biggest targets of the False Claims Act. Every major company selling anti-psychotics – Bristol Meyers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson and AstraZeneca – has either settled investigations for healthcare fraud or is currently being investigated for it. Two recent settlements involving charges of illegal marketing set records for the largest criminal fines ever imposed on corporations. Their corporate logic is expressed in the words of Dr Jerome Avorn, a medical professor and researcher at Harvard: “When you are selling a billion a year or more of a drug, it’s very tempting for a company to just ignore the traffic ticket and keep speeding.”

There is also the widespread practice of paying physicians and psychiatrists heavy subsidies to recommend psycho-pharmaceuticals to their colleagues in small meetings at which a drug company representative is present. If doubt or criticism of the discussed drug is expressed, the doctor’s stipend stops. Another legally acceptable tool is to publish praise of a company’s drug in a scholarly article, which is often written by drug company personnel and simply tweaked by the physician whose name appears on the article. The physician is paid handsomely for such a service.

Under the pressure of legal settlements and embarrassing disclosures, eight pharmaceutical companies began posting doctors’ names and compensation on the web. ProPublica compiled these disclosures, totaling $320m, into a single database that allows patients to search for their doctor. Receiving payments for publishing articles written by drug companies is not illegal.

Two doctors, Dr Joseph Biederman and Dr Timothy Wilens of Harvard University Medical School, illustrate the close and cozy relationship between medical “scholarship” and drug companies. Drs Biederman and Wilens netted $1.6m each from drug companies for their work in recommending powerful anti-psychotic drugs for children. Biederman, Wilens and other extremely well-rewarded child psychiatrists are in part responsible for giving children the diagnosis of paediatric bipolar disorder for which anti-psychotic drugs like Risperidal and Zyprexa are used.

Experts agree that there is no long-term improvement in children’s lives from taking anti-psychotic drugs. In fact, these drugs have a substantiated pattern of metabolic problems and rapid weight gain that often leads to diabetes. The use of bipolar diagnoses and bipolar medications is one small example of how market-driven mental healthcare works in the United States. It illustrates the transformation of US healthcare into a system dominated by some of the richest corporations in the world.

Caring about profit is first, and that is why psychiatry has turned to drug therapy.

Read article here:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/15/psychology-healthcare

« Return to news items


Share

Booming Sales of Antipsychotic Drugs Often Fueled by Illegal Marketing Tactics

Wednesday, October 6th, 2010

FairWarning, October 6, 2010

By Jessica Roberts 

Antipsychotic drugs, once used to treat only the most serious mental illnesses, have emerged as the top-selling class of pharmaceuticals in the U.S., generating annual revenue of about $14.6 billion. Yet much of the sales boom has been achieved with illegal or controversial marketing tactics by major pharmaceutical companies to promote uses of the drugs that have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The result, according to an account by The New York Times, is that every major manufacturer of antipsychotic drugs — Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson  — has recently settled criminal or civil government cases for hundreds of millions of dollars or is under investigation by the Department of Justice for possible health care fraud. The criminal fines paid by Eli Lilly and Pfizer last year set records last year for the largest criminal fines ever imposed on corporations, although in the case of Pfizer, the case was built only partly on the marketing of an antipsychotic drug.

In their defense, the companies say that they follow tight business ethics guidelines and that all possible side effects of their medicines are fully disclosed. Recently, however, the government has warned that some of the drugs may be fatal for older patients and have unknown effects on children. And critics question how drugs approved by the agency for use by 1 percent of the population, to treat illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar mania, could have turned into top sellers, prescribed for everyone from preschoolers to octogenarians.

At least part of the answer lies in the companies’ marketing tactics. The Times reports that civil and criminal lawsuits against big pharmaceutical companies have revealed hundreds of documents showing that some company officials knew they were using questionable tactics when they marketed these powerful, expensive drugs.

According to analysts and court documents, these tactics have included payments, gifts, meals and trips for doctors, biased studies, and ghostwritten medical journal articles. These all are meant, federal investigators say, to promote the benefits and downplay the risks of the drugs, while encouraging off-label uses — that is, uses the FDA has not approved but which doctors, if they choose, can pursue with their patients anyway.

Drug companies skirt restrictions on promoting off-label uses by hiring consultants, researchers and educators to handle the job, delivering the marketing message verbally and through company-sponsored studies. “They can give a small hint, and people will take the bait,” Dr. Robert Rosenheck, a professor of psychiatry and public health at the Yale School of Medicine, told the Times. “Psychiatric disorders are vaguely defined enough that you can stretch definitions.”

The Justice Department claims drug companies trained sales representatives to rebut valid medical concerns about unproved uses of antipsychotic drugs. For example, the department says, Eli Lilly produced a video called “The Myth of Diabetes” to sell Zyprexa, which became its all-time best-selling drug, even though evidence showed that Zyprexa could cause diabetes.

Read the rest of this article here: http://www.fairwarning.org/2010/10/booming-sales-of-antipsychotic-drugs-often-fueled-by-illegal-marketing-tactics/

« Return to news items


Share

Pfizer pays $300 million to resolve allegations of off-label marketing of its antipsychotic drug Geodon

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009

PRNewswire
September 2, 2009

PHILADELPHIA — Pfizer, Inc. announced today it has agreed to plead guilty to criminal conduct and to pay more than $2 billion in criminal and civil fines, penalties and damages to settle allegations made in multiple whistleblower lawsuits that the pharmaceutical giant defrauded Medicare, Medicaid and other government-funded health care programs in connection with its market practices for four of its drugs. The settlement is the largest qui tam settlement in U.S. history.

Brian Kenney and Tavy Deming of Kenney Egan McCafferty & Young represented the Geodon whistleblowers and served as co-counsel to the Zyvox whistleblower.

As part of the record settlement, Pfizer agreed to pay $300 million to resolve allegations that it engaged in off-label marketing of its blockbuster atypical antipsychotic Geodon, which generated over $1 billion dollars in sales in 2008. The allegations were first made in a qui tam lawsuit filed by Kenney and Deming on behalf of Harrisburg psychiatrist, Dr. Stefan Kruszewski. Pfizer also agreed to pay $100 million to resolve allegations that it improperly marketed its antibiotic Zyvox. That case was filed by Ronald Rainero, a former Pfizer sales manager from New Jersey.

Read entire article: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-02-2009/0005087128&EDATE

« Return to news items


Share