Posts Tagged ‘lawsuit’

« Older Entries

Risperdal drug maker faces $1B in lawsuits, yet mother charged for refusing use on child

Tuesday, August 16th, 2011

NaturalNews – August 16, 2011

by Monica G. Young

Click image to visit CCHRInt's Psychiatric Drug Side Effects Search Engine

What irony. Detroit mother, Maryanne Godboldo, was just charged with child neglect for refusing to obey a Child Protective Services order to give her daughter Risperdal, a powerful psychoactive drug. Meanwhile federal and multiple state prosecutors are suing Johnson & Johnson for deceptively marketing the drug – including mismarketing its use on children – and hiding dangerous adverse effects. J&J now faces a potential $1 billion in damages.

Having earlier observed the drug’s dreadful effects on her child, Maryanne was correctly pursuing holistic treatment for the child instead when the legal battle began. The jury’s ruling, now handed down against the mother, is not only a travesty of justice, but a reflection of psychopharma’s vast propaganda machine. (http://www.naturalnews.com/033295_p…)

Fortunately not everyone is fooled. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has been investigating J&J for years in regards Risperdal – its sales practices, pay-offs to doctors to promote the drug, and failures to disclose harmful effects. The pharma giant has now tentatively agreed to settle a misdemeanor criminal charge, however the DOJ and US attorney’s office are pursuing additional criminal actions.

The government plans to join civil lawsuits filed by company whistleblowers, aiming to recover millions of dollars paid for prescriptions via government health programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Already multimillions in fines have been levied against J&J for this powerful antipsychotic which is widely prescribed not only for schizophrenia but mood and anxiety disorders, dementia and other unapproved uses.

In June, a South Carolina judge demanded the company pay $327 million to the state for deceptively marketing Risperdal and concealing its dangers. The judge called J&J’s practices “detestable.” Last October, a Louisiana jury ordered the company to ante up $257.7 million for misleading claims about the drug’s safety.

Recently, Massachusetts Attorney General joined the fight, filing a lawsuit against J&J for illegal marketing and failing to disclose “an increased risk of death” connected with the drug.

In Texas the Attorney General Office has joined forces with whistleblowers, with a jury trial scheduled for this fall. This lawsuit alleges that Janssen, J&J’s pharmaceutical division, intentionally marketed Risperdal for use on children even though it was only approved for adult schizophrenia. The suit also involves a company scheme to boost prescriptions by paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to “experts” to evaluate and recommend the drug state-wide and nationally. Awarded damages are anticipated to be much larger than in South Carolina or Louisiana. Texas has paid more than $500 million for the drug since it was first brought to the market.

Attorneys general in about 40 other states have shown interest in suing the company.

Users speak out – beware of this drug!

(Note from CCHRInt –search Risperdal or antipsychotic drug side effects in CCHR’s Psychiatric Drug Database here http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/drug_warnings.php – simply type in Risperdal  in the Red Search box or choose it from the drop down menu)

Risperdal’s documented “side effects” include huge weight gain, diabetes, lethargy, muscular tics, breast development in males, and many more.

Below are just a few sample statements made online by individuals from their experience with this so-called “medication” (the root word of medicate means “to heal”):

“Basically I lost the drive for everything. Total shut down to my outgoing personality. Massive weight gain.”

“Tardive dyskinesia [involuntary movement disorder], diabetes, gained 100 pounds in the first year, was a zombie… I was put on this nightmare drug when I was six. I was forced to take it against my will, and it ruined my life… This is a horrible, HORRIBLE drug, and should be banned.”

“Apathy, not talking, just staring, sleeping constantly, tongue movements, loss of sexual function. This is a very BAD DRUG…a mental straight jacket. DO NOT put children on this drug!!! It’s poison.”

“I gained weight, became very tired, and of course that just led them to put me on antidepressant medications…. I have been on it since fifth grade and hardly knew what was happening to me.”

“My son has gained over 100 pounds… He was an excellent student, received a doctorate and now cannot even remember what he studied. He sleeps all day and cannot work a job. His quality of life is nil. His mouth twitches and he has no control over it… It is like taking a dose of legalized poison every day. This is a LIFE WASTED AND RUINED, a brilliant mind destroyed and tortured. As a mother, it rips out my heart every day.”

Yet per Johnson & Johnson annual reports, global Risperdal sales from 1994-2010 totaled nearly $29 billion.

http://www.naturalnews.com/033336_Risperdal_child_neglect.html

Sources for this article include:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap…

http://www.thefix.com/content/jj-su…

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011…

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/invest…

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | 2 Comments »

California claims drug giant bribed docs to prescribe

Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011

Ventura County Star, March 22, 2011

Associated Press

photo by Boaz Yiftach

LOS ANGELES – California has joined a whistleblower lawsuit that claims Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. bribed doctors to prescribe its drugs, costing insurers perhaps millions of dollars in the largest alleged health care fraud case ever handled by the state, Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones announced Friday.

The suit claims company salespeople plied physicians with speaking fees, expensive meals, gifts and trips to induce or reward them for prescribing large amounts of its drugs, which were billed to private insurers.

For example, the company invited doctors to attend Los Angeles Lakers games at Staples Center and spent thousands of dollars on luxury suites, the suit claimed.

“Golf outings, basketball camps, samba lessons, you name it,” Jones said at a news conference.

The lawsuit said the aim was to boost prescription levels for legally approved and so-called “off-label” uses of drugs ranging from the antipsychotic Abilify to the blood thinner Plavix.

The company is accused of setting up a speakers bureau that doled out thinly veiled kickbacks in the form of cash payments to influential or high-prescribing doctors for speaking about its products.

One doctor received a $2,500 honorarium even though he never actually spoke, Jones said.

The company denied any wrongdoing.

“Bristol-Myers Squibb believes this lawsuit has no merit and the company will defend itself vigorously,” said Laura Hortas, a company spokeswoman.

California joined a 2007 lawsuit filed by one current and two former employees of the pharmaceutical giant. If they win, the whistleblowers and the state would share damages.

The amended complaint was filed by state insurance department lawyers two weeks ago in Los Angeles Superior Court.

It’s not the first time New York-based Bristol-Myers Squibb has been accused of kickbacks by its own workers.

In 2007, the company agreed to pay $515 million to settle federal lawsuits brought by whistleblowers in Massachusetts and Florida.

The current lawsuit says the company tracked prescription figures, and low-prescribing doctors were threatened with loss of perks.

A sales plan entitled “Rounding Up the Docs!” instructed salespeople at dinner events to get physicians to commit to prescribing for specific types of patients and to monitor the number of new prescriptions by doctors. the suit states.

The company is believed to have made at least 15,000 kickbacks from 1999 to 2005, and investigators suspect that the practice is continuing, Jones said.

The cost of the alleged practice was unclear, but Jones noted the size of the previous federal settlement.

No doctors have been sued or charged with a crime because the insurance department is focusing on the company in its civil action.

The suit seeks unspecified damages that include a $10,000 fine for each prescription obtained through fraud and repayment of any profit the company made from the alleged scheme.

The investigation was continuing.

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Court Ruling Clears Way for Jury Trial in $1 Billion Texas Medicaid Whistleblower Lawsuit

Friday, March 4th, 2011

AUSTIN, TX, Mar 04, 2011 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX News Network)

A recent state district court ruling has cleared the way for a jury to hear claims filed by the State of  Texas and plaintiff Allen Jones based on allegations that pharmaceutical manufacturer Janssen L.P. used false marketing tactics to convince state officials to spend millions on a schizophrenia drug.

The ruling was issued late Thursday, March 3, 2011, in Judge John Dietz’ 250th District Court in Travis County following summary judgment motions filed by both the State of Texas and Janssen, a division of New Brunswick, N.J.-based Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ).

The original complaint was filed in 2004 based on evidence uncovered by Mr. Jones during his work as an investigator with the Pennsylvania Inspector General’s Office. The lawsuit says Janssen engaged in a systematic and wide-ranging scheme to convince state Medicaid officials to give preferential treatment to the company’s Risperdal schizophrenia medication.

The drug was no better and no safer despite being substantially more expensive than older medications that treat the same illness, the lawsuit alleges. Janssen worked to build revenue by actively and purposefully marketing the powerful antipsychotic drug for use in children, the lawsuit says, even though the medication was approved only for the very narrow purpose of treating adult schizophrenia. In the years since Risperdal was first introduced, Texas has paid more than $500 million for the drug.

“We are very pleased that a Texas jury finally will be able to scrutinize Janssen’s actions, which we allege have unfairly cost the state’s taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars for a drug that was no better than older, cheaper medicines,” says Dallas attorney Tom Melsheimer, who represents Mr. Jones with Austin attorney Tommy Jacks. “The defendants fought tooth-and-nail to keep this case from a jury, and that effort has failed.”

The defendants’ total exposure in the anticipated jury trial, currently set for June 21 in Austin, exceeds $1 billion, including damages, penalties, and other potential liabilities, Mr. Melsheimer says.

http://www.stockhouse.com/News/USReleasesDetail.aspx?n=8081412

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Wyeth Execs Can’t Hide Behind Silence on Antidepressant Data

Wednesday, December 1st, 2010

BNET – December 1, 2012

Image by Francesco Marino

by Jim Edwards

A lawsuit that alleges Wyeth executives told a series of lies about the antidepressant Pristiq — suggesting that it was a good treatment for post-menopause hot-flashes when they were sitting on study data showing a risk of heart and liver problems — gives new guidance to management on what counts as a false or misleading disclosure to investors.

In the case, the judge ruled that front-loading your investor presentations with a bunch of boilerplate language about “safe-harbor” predictions and “forward-looking statements” that ought to be treated with caution does not allow you to stay silent about negative data that you know will affect the fortunes of your company. (The order was reaffirmed just before Thanksgiving.)

A pension plan that was invested in Wyeth stock (before it merged with Pfizer (PFE)) alleged that Wyeth CEO Bernard Poussot and others knew by 2005 that using Pristiq for post-menopausal vasomotor symptoms (hot flashes) carried increased risks of liver and heart damage. The ruling says:

Of the 707 participants [in a Phase III clinical trial], 27 suffered serious adverse effects (“SAEs”), including three coronary occlusions and two heart attacks.

No one taking the placebo experienced a serious adverse event. Wyeth did not reveal this data to investors, however, and instead applied to the FDA for approval to market the drug as if nothing was wrong.

At the time, Pristiq was crucial to Wyeth’s fortunes. It previous antidepressant, Effexor, was losing its exclusive patent protection and the company’s two post-menopause drugs, Prempro and Premarin, turned out to be associated with blood clots and cancer. If the company could get Pristiq approved for hot flashes, it would be a double-blockbuster.

In 2007, however, Wyeth announced that the FDA turned down Pristiq for hot flashes. Wyeth’s stock dropped more than 10 percent, losing $5.70 per share.

Between learning of the negative data in 2005 and the FDA’s thumbs down in 2007, Poussot’s team fed investors a stream of upbeat chatter about the likelihood of getting Pristiq approved for post-menopausal women:

February 9, 2006, Merrill Lynch Pharma Conference, CFO Kenneth Martin: The opportunity clearly is there. The market clearly is there. And if the profile of the product is where we hope it be, we think this is a –- this could be a very big opportunity. … This is a drug that we’re very optimistic about.

October 5, 2006, annual investor conference, svp/president Joseph Mahady: [Pristiq] begins to really differentiate itself with its ability to reduce the frequency and severity of moderate to several [sic] vasomotor symptoms associated with … menopause. … [W]e predict that Pristiq has the potential to exceed $2 billion in peak sales, and that’s the cost of the two indications that we’ve spoken about, MDD and VMS.

At the same conference, svp R&D Robert Ruffolo: We think that [Pristiq] will also be important for the vasomotor indication where – it would obviously be our intent for this drug to be used as another option for women who are suffering from vasomotor symptoms, which is the number one reason women will go to the doctor to seek treatment. … In fact, the way Pristiq looks like it’s positioning itself right now, it’s a drug primarily for women’s health.

Wyeth’s defense was that safe harbor statements about future predictions ought to be treated with caution as “forward-looking statements” — i.e. all the legal disclaimers you see in front of every investor presentation — so Wyeth could not have predicted the FDA’s decision.

The judge agreed with that, but he then ruled that managers’ statements about Pristiq’s safety were not forward-looking because Wyeth already had all the safety data in hand when the statements were made.

Wyeth also argued that the adverse events were not statistically significant, and that they were disclosed at a poster-session at an ob-gyn conference and in a single analyst’s note to investors. The judge dismissed both of those arguments, as statistical significance is an issue of fact to be decided by a jury not a matter of law, and because the conference poster disclosure was too minimal to count as a disclosure to investors.

The case is a warning from the federal judiciary that sometimes CEOs and their lieutenants go too far in concealing negative data. Recently, the federal judiciary has sided with executives who lie to investors and to the federal government. Nonetheless it appears there is still a limit to judges’ sympathy for managers who have difficulty disclosing the whole truth.

http://www.bnet.com/blog/drug-business/wyeth-execs-can-8217t-hide-behind-silence-on-antidepressant-data/6592

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

New Jersey Is Sued Over the Forced Medication of Patients at Psychiatric Hospitals

Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010

New York Times
by Richard Perez-Pena
August 3, 2010

Patient advocates filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday charging that New Jersey psychiatric hospitals routinely medicate patients against their will without a review by an outside arbiter, a practice that is banned in most other states.

Twenty-nine states require a judge’s ruling for involuntary medication, according to the suit, including New York, Connecticut and other large states, like California, Florida and Texas. Five other states leave the decision to an individual or panel outside the hospital. Some states also provide an advocate to represent a patient in a hearing on forced medication.

But in New Jersey, state rules allow a patient in a state hospital to appeal medication decisions only to people in the hospital. The lawsuit contends that the internal appeal process is routinely ignored and that psychiatric patients in private hospitals lack any opportunity to appeal medication regimens at all.

The suit, filed in Federal District Court in Trenton by the group Disability Rights New Jersey, seeks a court order requiring the state to provide judicial review of involuntary medication. It notes that a prison inmate has more power to contest treatment decisions than a psychiatric patient.

The drugs forced on patients include powerful medications for conditions like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. They help many people with those diseases function better, but can have serious side effects, including diabetes, tremors, seizures, high blood pressure, obesity, sedation, aches and impaired mental function.

“As a patient in a state hospital, it’s your legal right to refuse and go through a process, but you get severely penalized if you try,” said W. Emmett Dwyer, litigation director of Disability Rights New Jersey, a federally financed organization. “They view you as noncompliant with treatment. They give you an injection instead of a pill. And they tell you if you don’t take it, you won’t get out.”

There are about 1,800 patients at any given time in New Jersey’s five state psychiatric hospitals, and 1,000 in private ones.

Michael D. Reisman, a lawyer with Kirkland & Ellis, which is helping bring the lawsuit, said recent records from one state hospital showed that fewer than 20 percent of patients contested their medication.

But the advocates and several former patients said many more objected to their prescriptions but submitted quietly, rather than risk painful injections or a longer hospital stay. Others, they said, are too medicated to object.

“When I said no, they just shot me up instead, so pretty soon I gave up,” said Alice Hsia, 34, who has been in and out of hospitals for schizophrenia. “The times I was sedated, I would sign anything they wanted.”

Mr. Reisman said the question often was not whether some medication was needed, but rather one of dosage or a desire to try a “different drug with fewer side effects.” Some hospital

psychiatrists do not take such concerns seriously, he said, but “a judicial hearing would give the patient more leverage and force the doctors to listen.”

The State Department of Human Services, which runs the hospitals, declined to comment on the suit. But among advocates for the mentally ill, there are wide-ranging opinions on involuntary treatment.

Phil Lubitz, associate director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness of New Jersey,  said he did not see forced medication as a major issue, noting that it was extremely difficult to get patients committed in New Jersey, and that most who were presented “a danger to themselves or others.”

But Robert Davison, executive director of the Mental health Association of Essex County,  called New Jersey’s policy “beneath contempt.”

Yana Paskova for The New York Times

Joseph Cichowski said he would have challenged forced medication if he had the opportunity.

Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times

Alice Hsia said she submitted to prescriptions at hospitals quietly rather than risk painful injections.

Read the entire article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/health/policy/04psych.html

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Glaxo To Pay $1Billion To Settle Paxil Birth Defect Cases

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

Pharmalot
By Ed Silverman
July 21, 2010

In an effort to get its arms around massive litigation, GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to settle yet another wad of product-liability lawsuits involving one of its popular meds. The latest deal involves an agreement to pay more than $1 billion to settle some 800 cases alleging its Paxil antidepressant caused birth defects in children borne to women who took the drug, Bloomberg News writes.

The move comes after a Pennsylvania state court jury last October awarded a woman $2.5 million in damages for failing to properly warn docs and pregnant women about the risks of the antidepressant. This case, which was filed by the family of a three-year-old boy who was born with heart defects his mother blamed on the drug. It was the first of 600 such lawsuits and was seen as a test of Glaxo’s vulnerability (background).

Last week, Glaxo disclosed plans to take a $2.4 billion charge in its second quarter to settle product-liability lawsuits over its Avandia diabetes pill, litigation involving the Paxil antidepressant and a US government investigation into its manufacturing site at Cidra, Puerto Rico.

The Paxil deal, which would provide an average payout of more than $1.2 million to families of the affected children, leaves more than 100 similar cases pending. The birth-defect settlements bring to more than $2 billion the amount Glaxo has agreed to pay to resolve a variety of Paxil-related suits, including claims the pill caused suicides or attempted suicides and addiction problems, Bloomberg writes.

Read the entire article here:  http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/07/glaxo-to-pay-1b-to-settle-paxil-birth-defect-cases/

See all international studies/warnings on Paxil: http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/drug_warnings.php

See what doctors, pharmacists, health care providers and others have reported to the US FDA on Paxil side effects (such as birth defects): http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/medwatch_psych_drug_adverse_reactions.php

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

GlaxoSmithKline settles case with woman who linked her use of antidepressant Paxil to the death of her infant son

Monday, July 19th, 2010

The Associated Press
By Wayne Ortman
July 19, 2010

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit filed against a pharmaceutical company by a Watertown woman who linked her prescribed use of Paxil to the death of her infant son, according to court files.

Jennifer Berg of Watertown sued SmithKline Beecham, doing business as GlaxoSmithKline, in October 2007. The complaint said Nathan Berg died in 2004 because of a heart disorder caused by her use of the antidepressant Paxil while she was pregnant.

The federal court lawsuit sought unspecified damages from the company for failing to warn of a link between the two. Letters from her attorneys to the presiding judge indicate there’s a settlement. No settlement documents have been filed in court.

Lawyers at a California firm handling the case for Berg did not immediately return a phone call Monday for comment.

GlaxoSmithKline said last week that it expects to take a $2.36 billion charge against second-quarter earnings for settlements, agreements to settle and other provisions for long-standing legal cases over Paxil, the diabetes drug Avandia and other issues. The company said settlement details would be confidential.

According to the lawsuit, Nathan Berg was born Aug. 20, 2004 at Watertown and was immediately transferred to a Minneapolis hospital where he died 58 days later of Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension of the Newborn (PPHN), a disorder which prevents proper oxygenation of the blood.

“At the time Paxil was prescribed to Ms. Berg, GSK (GlaxoSmithKline) knew or should have known through pre-market studies and post-market studies and reports that Paxil was associated with an increased risk of PPHN in babies whose mothers ingested Paxil during pregnancy,” according to the lawsuit.

Read entire article:  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j7UU4otrHhelqaJFcC3ttvwj4bYgD9H29RK00

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | 1 Comment »

AstraZeneca Denied Antipsychotic Drug’s Link to Diabetes for Years After Admitting Link to Japanese Physicians

Thursday, June 17th, 2010

Natural News
By David Gutierrez
June 17, 2010

Drug giant AstraZeneca attempted to obscure the connection between one of its blockbuster drugs and diabetes risk for years after it knew of the problem, according to documents recently unsealed as part of lawsuits against the company.

More than 15,000 patients have sought damages from the company, alleging that they were harmed by side effects from its atypical antipsychotic Seroquel. According to the plaintiffs, AstraZeneca deliberately hid information linking the drug to an increased risk of weight gain and diabetes. The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single case for the purpose of pre-trial proceedings.

The recently unsealed documents include notes from a meeting between salesperson Nancy White and a doctor in July 2006, during which the doctor said that his patients were expressing concern about Seroquel’s links to diabetes. White reported telling the doctor that “there has been no causative effect” proven between the drug and the disease.

Yet in November 2002, AstraZeneca had issued a warning to doctors in Japan that due to dozens of reports linking Seroquel to diabetes, “causality with the drug could not be ruled out.” The company cautioned doctors not to prescribe the drugs to diabetics and to encourage all Seroquel patients to monitor their blood sugar. Just over a year later, the company issued a similar warning to doctors in the United States.

Read entire article:  http://www.naturalnews.com/029012_AstraZeneca_diabetes_drug.html

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Wrongful Death Suit Claims Anti-depressant Led to Elderly Couple’s Murder-Suicide

Friday, May 28th, 2010

The West Virginia Record
By Lawrence Smith
May 28, 2010

RIPLEY — The murder-suicide of a Jackson County couple is at the center of a wrongful death, and product liability suit against New York pharmaceutical company.

Forest Laboratories and Forest Pharmaceuticals are named as co-defendants in a lawsuit filed in Jackson Circuit Court on April 30 by Robin J. Hall. In her six-count complaint, Hall, 49, a resident of Staats Mill, alleges Forest failed to alert both her father, and his physician of potentially dangerous side-effects of medication he was taking which resulted in him taking the life of his wife, then his own.

Located in New York, N.Y., Forest Laboratories is the parent company of Forest Pharmaceuticals based in St. Louis, Mo. Forest Pharmaceuticals handles the manufacture, sell and distribution of all Forest products in the United States.

In her suit, Hall says her father, Robert Raines, was prescribed Celexa by his doctor on April 24, 2008. Later that day, Raines purchased Celexa in 20 mg tablets.

Celexa is the brand name for Citalopram, a psychoactive drug in the class of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. It is used mostly for treatment of depression by altering a person’s serotonin levels.

Forest, Hall alleges, was aware Celexa caused an increased risk of suicidal behavior in people over 65, yet failed to conduct any further testing or investigation. Also, she alleges in its promotional materials, Forest failed to warn not only patients, but also physicians and pharmacists of that risk.

As early as Oct. 15, 2004, Forest was aware of the causality between SSRI drugs like Celexa and suicidal behavior in children. It was then, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered Forest to put a “black box warning” on Celexa for anyone under the age of 24 about the potential risk of suicidal behavior.

Read entire:  http://www.wvrecord.com/news/227152-anti-depressant-led-to-elderly-couples-murder-suicide-jackson-suit-claims

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Lawsuit Alleges Johnson & Johnson Pushed Drugs on Seniors

Thursday, April 8th, 2010

ConsumerAffairs.com
By Jon Hood
April 8, 2010

A lawsuit filed last week accuses Johnson & Johnson of conspiring with pharmaceutical consultant Omnicare in an effort to push J&J drugs on nursing home residents, and violating federal Medicaid laws in the process.

As a result of the scheme, “residents were overcharged for their medications, had additional medications administered and were unlawfully switched to Johnson & Johnson drugs,” all in the name of increasing revenue, according to the lawsuit.

The suit, filed in federal court in California, says Omnicare — which “occupies a ‘dual’ role of a dispensing pharmacy and consulting pharmacy” — gave certain J&J drugs “elevated status as the default drug of choice” for thousands of nursing home patients. J&J allegedly gave Omnicare “performance rebates” — essentially kickbacks — in return for its services. This arrangement was memorialized in a 1997 “Supply Agreement” between the two companies, the suit states.

The agreement provided that the two companies would “meet quarterly to review their joint ‘business plan’ and ‘performance goals,’” and came up with a novel way to deal with the performance-rebates: they would be treated as year-end bonuses.

The drugs allegedly targeted for promotion under the agreement included Floxin, Levaquin, Risperdal, Ultram, Duragesic, Procrit, and Aciphex.

The suit contends that under the agreement, J&J paid to have its drugs labeled as “preferred” — a status that Omnicare purportedly confers on drugs that receive high marks “for their clinical effectiveness in the geriatric community.”

Read entire article:  http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/04/jnj_omnicare_suit.html

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries