Posts Tagged ‘US Department of Justice’

Forest Pharmaceuticals Sentenced to Pay $164 Million for Criminal Violations

Wednesday, March 2nd, 2011

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Public Affairs—March 2, 2011

WASHINGTON — Drug manufacturer Forest Pharmaceuticals Inc. was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner to pay a criminal fine of $150 million and forfeit assets of $14 million following the company’s guilty plea in November 2010 to one felony count of obstructing justice, one misdemeanor count of distributing an unapproved new drug in interstate commerce and one misdemeanor count of distributing a misbranded drug in interstate commerce, the Justice Department announced. The company, a subsidiary of New York City-based Forest Laboratories Inc., pleaded guilty to charges related to obstruction of an FDA regulatory inspection, to the distribution of Levothroid, which at the time was an unapproved new drug, and to the illegal promotion of the anti-depressant drug Celexa for use in treating children and adolescents.

Today’s sentencing of Forest was the final component of a global resolution totaling more than $313 million to resolve criminal and civil allegations against Forest and its parent company in connection with the distribution and marketing of certain drugs. In September 2010, Forest Laboratories and Forest Pharmaceuticals entered a civil settlement to resolve False Claims Act charges involving three of its drugs: Levothroid, Celexa and Lexapro. As part of the civil settlement, Forest agreed to pay more $149 million, including more than $88 million to the federal government and more than $60 million to the states.

According to court documents, Forest Pharmaceuticals began distributing Levothroid for treatment of hypothyroidism in the early 1990s without first obtaining Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. In 1997, the FDA, after determining that the drugs were medically necessary, gave manufacturers a certain amount of time to conduct the necessary studies and obtain FDA approval. In 2001, the FDA stated that it would continue to permit manufacturers of unapproved levothyroxine sodium drugs to distribute their unapproved drugs after Aug. 14, 2001, on certain conditions. One of those conditions was that any manufacturer which had not obtained approval needed to comply with a gradual distribution phase-down of its unapproved drug until it obtained FDA approval. According to court documents, Forest made a deliberate decision to continue distributing its unapproved Levothroid product in quantities far exceeding the amounts permitted by the FDA’s distribution phase-down plan.

The FDA sent a warning letter to Forest Pharmaceuticals on Aug. 7, 2003, informing the company that it was no longer entitled to distribute its unapproved Levothroid product.

According to prosecutors, after Forest received the letter, the company directed its employees at its St. Louis distribution center to work overtime until approximately 1:00 a.m. the following morning and, during that time, to continue shipping as much of its unapproved Levothroid as possible.

Court documents also indicate that Forest obstructed an FDA regulatory inspection relating to Levothroid at Forest’s Cincinnati plant in November 2003. According to prosecutors, management personnel at the Cincinnati plant were aware that serious equipment malfunctions had resulted in testing conditions that, for hundreds of days and thousands of hours, did not comply with the FDA’s requirements for Levothroid that had been manufactured for research purposes. Prosecutors stated that in an attempt to remedy this problem, certain Forest management personnel at the Cincinnati plant decided to use a portable home humidifier in the testing room as a temporary fix. Later, when FDA inspectors saw this humidifier in the testing room during a regulatory inspection of the plant, certain management personnel falsely told the investigators that the portable humidifier was merely being stored in the room and had not been used for humidity control. This conduct was the basis for the felony obstruction charge to which Forest pleaded guilty.

Forest halted its commercial distribution of its unapproved version of Levothroid as of August 9, 2003. Since the fall of 2003, Forest has been commercially distributing a different orally administered levothyroxine sodium drug, also called Levothroid. This resolution does not involve that product.

Regarding Celexa, court documents state that Forest promoted the drug for use in treating children and adolescents suffering from depression despite the fact that the FDA had only approved the drug to treat adult depression. Prosecutors stated that Forest’s off-label promotion consisted of various sales techniques, including directing its representatives to promote pediatric use of Celexa in sales calls to doctors who treated children and adolescents, and hiring outside speakers to talk to pediatric specialists about the benefits of prescribing Celexa to children and teens. Prosecutors stated that in conjunction with this off-label promotion, Forest aggressively publicized the positive results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled Forest study on the use of Celexa in adolescents while, at the same time, Forest Pharmaceuticals suppressed the negative results of a contemporaneous double-blind, placebo-controlled European study on the use of Celexa in adolescents.

” Forest Pharmaceuticals pleaded guilty to obstructing justice and marketing drugs for unapproved uses, including improperly promoting an anti-depressant to children and adolescents,” said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “As the court’s stiff sentence demonstrates, not only is such conduct unacceptable, taxpayers should not foot the bill for practices that violate the law.”

“Both the criminal and civil cases were predicated upon the fact that Forest Pharmaceuticals made a calculated decision to place a higher priority on increasing corporate sales than on complying with the basic, legal requirements that Congress and the FDA created to protect the American public,” said Carmen Ortiz, U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts.

In addition to its sentence today, and previously agreeing to a civil settlement, Forest also previously signed a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG).

“Today’s sentencing of Forest Pharmaceuticals is a victory for the system designed to protect patients from potentially harmful prescription drugs,” said Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General of the Department of Health & Human Services. “Attempts to circumvent that system by selling misbranded and unapproved drugs simply will not be tolerated.”

The criminal case was investigated and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney James E. Arnold of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts and Trial Attorney Jeffrey I. Steger of the Justice Department’s Office of Consumer Litigation. The case was investigated by agents from the FBI, the HHS-OIG, the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations and the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Office of Inspector General. Assistance was also provided by the FDA’s Office of General Counsel and the Office of Personnel Management.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/March/11-civ-270.html

« Return to news items


Share

Psychiatrists Dominate “Doctor-Dollars” Database Listing Big Pharma Payments

Friday, October 22nd, 2010

Medscape, October 22, 2010

Shelley Wood and Robert Lowes

October 22, 2010 — Psychiatrists dominate a list of physicians receiving the most in payments from pharmaceutical companies, according to a free, interactive database of such payments launched by investigative journalism group ProPublica, in partnership with other US media outlets

So far, the database includes payments made by 7 of the biggest pharmaceutical companies — some of which the US Department of Justice has required to disclose physician payments as part of settlement agreements over illegal drug marketing — which account for a boggling $258 million in payments to roughly 17,700 physicians. The plan is to add 70 more companies.

Any US physician is searchable by name in the database.

“Receiving payments isn’t necessarily wrong,” says the homepage for the Dollars for Docs, “but it does raise ethical issues.”

The payments covered by the project include fees for such items as speaking, consulting, meals, and travel; the different types of payments from different companies have been compiled, streamlined, and tallied by ProPublica.

The 10 highest-paid physicians in 2009 to 2010 for each of the 7 companies are listed on the site, spanning all medical disciplines.

Endocrinologist Firhaad Ismail, MD, from Las Vegas, Nevada, ranked number one in pharmaceutical industry compensation, receiving $303,558 from GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, and Merck. Dr. Ismail did not return messages left with his office requesting an interview.

Top-Paid Psychiatrist Says Payments Do Not Cloud Clinical Judgment

ProPublica researchers also compiled a list of physicians who were paid more than $100,000 (typically from more than 1 company) during the past 18 months, turning up 384 names, including 41 who earned more than $200,000 through speaking or consulting arrangements and 2 who earned more than $300,000 from 1 or more of the 7 companies.

More psychiatrists are listed in the database than any other kind of specialist. Of the 384 physicians in the $100,000 group, 116 are psychiatrists. Leading all psychiatrists was Roueen Rafeyan, MD, in Chicago, Illinois, who received $203,936 from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, mostly for professional education programs.

In an interview with Medscape Medical News, Dr. Rafeyan said that compensation from pharmaceutical companies does not cloud his clinical judgment at the expense of patients.

The day I’m influenced by that is the day I’m not fit to practice medicine,” Dr. Rafeyan said.

He noted that the majority of the drugs he prescribed were generics. “If someone looked at my prescribing patterns, it would be the opposite of the [pharmaceutical] money I receive,” said Dr. Rafeyan, an assistant clinical professor at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago.

Dr. Rafeyan said that although the extra income is always welcome, patient well-being was his prime motivation to talk to other physicians about brand-name psychiatric drugs. “When you educate other physicians, hopefully 1 patient will benefit from it.”

When asked how he found the time to earn more than $200,000 as a pharmaceutical company educator over 18 months, Dr. Rafeyan said, “I work very hard, like many other physicians. None of us have 40-hour work weeks.”

Dollar Value of Psychiatric Drugs Is Enormous

The preponderance of psychiatrists on the ProPublica list may reflect the proportion of prescription activity involving psychiatric drugs. In 2009, the dollar value of antipsychotic drugs came to $14.6 billion, topping all other therapeutic classes, according to research firm IMS Health. Antidepressants occupied the number 4 spot on the list, valued at $9.9 billion.

IMS Health put the total US prescription market in 2009 at $300.3 billion.

Carol Bernstein, MD, president of the American Psychiatric Association, told Medscape Medical News that the thorny issue of pharmaceutical industry compensation went beyond her specialty.

People with high-profile, high-visibility [positions] sometimes get carried away.

“Academic medicine needs a different relationship with the pharmaceutical industry,” she said. Physicians must find new ways to facilitate the development of new drugs that do not compromise their ethics or patient care.

“People with high-profile, high-visibility [positions] sometimes get carried away,” she said.

Research has shown, Dr. Bernstein added, that heavy pharmaceutical marketing indeed influences physician prescribing.

Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/731028

« Return to news items


Share

Drug Firms Face Bribery Probe from US Department of Justice

Tuesday, October 5th, 2010

Justice Department, SEC Seek Information From Companies on Payments to Overseas Officials

Wall Street Journal, October 5, 2010

by Michael Rothfeld

Federal investigators are looking at ways that drug makers could be paying bribes overseas to boost sales and speed approvals, according to letters sent to the companies and people close to the matter.

Big companies—including Merck & Co., AstraZeneca PLC, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and GlaxoSmithKline PLC—in recent months have disclosed they are being investigated for possible violations of a 1977 law that makes it illegal for companies whose stock is traded in the U.S. to bribe government officials in other countries to get business.

[PHARMA]

The companies said they are cooperating with the government, with several adding that the investigation is industry-wide and broader than their companies specifically. Many said they have policies meant to ensure compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

So far, none of the companies has been accused of wrongdoing, and the investigation ultimately may not result in charges.

The Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission requested that companies voluntarily report any violations of the FCPA. Some companies, including SciClone Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Eli Lilly & Co., disclosed receiving subpoenas from the SEC. Baxter International Inc. also has said it is being investigated.

The investigation is targeting transactions in Brazil, China, Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia and Saudi Arabia, people familiar with the matter said.

The Justice Department and the SEC declined to comment.

Such requests from the government typically kick off internal investigations at companies, which generally comply with the requests in order to win leniency from the government if a violation is found.

A lawyer for one drug company said the industry has been vexed because the recent requests were so broad and because the investigations, across operations in several countries, can cost millions of dollars.

“If you don’t have any specifics, a lot of this is just guesswork,” the lawyer said. “Everyone was running around to get in the door to meet with the government so they can better understand what the issues are.”

Letters from the government to one of the companies, which were reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, identified four types of possible violations: bribing government-employed doctors to purchase drugs; paying company sales agents commissions that are passed along to government doctors; paying hospital committees to approve drug purchases; and paying regulators to win drug approvals.

People familiar with the situation said the other companies received similar letters.

The requests are similar to the government’s actions in an older bribery probe involving medical devices. In that investigation, settlement talks are ongoing with several companies, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Representatives for Merck, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers, Glaxo and Baxter declined to comment on the probe beyond saying they were cooperating fully with the government.

A SciClone spokeswoman declined to comment beyond the company’s SEC filings, in which it said it was subpoenaed for documents relating to its practices in China. A Lilly spokesman referred to an SEC filing in which the company said the U.S. government expanded to other countries an investigation of its Polish subsidiaries that began in 2003.

U.S. officials and European regulators have become increasingly aggressive in investigating foreign bribery cases in recent years. U.S. officials recently have threatened to file charges against executives and not just their companies.

The pharmaceutical industry is particularly vulnerable because government plays a bigger role in administering medicine in many foreign countries than it does in the U.S. and drugs are highly regulated, which creates contact with public officials. Doctors and hospital administrators often are government employees overseas.

Some of the alleged bribes could involve payments to doctors to influence drug trials, people familiar with the situation said. Justice Department officials have said publicly that drug companies also could face charges if they bribe government officials in the guise of payment for travel, meals, entertainment or speaking fees.

Read the rest of this article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704847104575532091781199092.html

« Return to news items


Share