Pharma 101 - Pharmaceutical Fraud

Straightforward information & insight on qui tam lawsuits based upon unlawful kickbacks, marketing & pricing conduct.

Pharma 101
This site is designed to provide a one-stop overview of pharmaceutical fraud issues and the latest qui tam related news.

Right now the pharmaceutical industry is in the middle of its biggest challenge in history. Whistleblowers have exposed and continue to expose fraudulent practices ranging from pricing issues to sales and marketing practices at a rate never anticipated by either the pharmaceutical industry or the Department of Justice. Settlements and jury verdicts have been headline grabbing and large, attracting the attention of pharma, regulators, Congress and taxpayers. The qui tam pharmaceutical fraud cases settled since 2000 alone have amounted to over 3.5 billion dollars, representing various patterns of fraud. We expect to see some new patterns as time goes by, especially with the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Pharmaceutical fraud is still abundant and this blog is intended to keep readers up to date with all pharmaceutical fraud related news and to provide commentary when warranted. This blog also contains an array of laws and regulations concerning the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act set out in an easy to read format.

  What is Qui Tam?
 

Big Pharma Pays $13.6 million for Price Inflation

U.S. District Court Judge Patti Saris has ordered drug companies AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squib to pay a total of $13.6 million in a Masachusetts case that alleged that they inflated the average wholesale price (AWP) of expensive and in some cases, life-saving drugs.  Judge Saris also found that the companies “unfairly and deceptively caused to be published false” average wholesale prices of drugs and thus caused “real injuries to the insurers and the patients who were paying grossly inflated prices for critically important, often life-sustaining drugs.”  Judge Saris said that she decided to double the assessed damages because the conduct was willful on the part of the companies. Judge Saris further stated that “The Defendants well understood the devastating impact the mega-spreads had on old and sick patients required to make co-payments they could ill afford.”  

Bristol-Myers is maintaining that their pricing was fair and that they intend to appeal this decision. 

Of note is the fact that Judge Saris remarked and doubled the damages due to the wilfulness on the part of the defendants.  Further, this can expand to a nationwide class action lawsuit.   

To read more click on:  http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/11/02/drugs_companies_ordered_to_pay_136_million_for_inflating_prices/  or to read more about pharmaceutical fraud go to www.whistleblowerfirm.com/pharmaceuticalfraud 

  or to read more about go to  

No Tags
Posted By Marcella Auerbach Responses 0
Category Legal Posted March 25th, 2008
Bookmark

FDA Issues a draft Guidance for Dissemination of Information on Unapproved Uses of Medical Products

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last Friday issued a draft guidance on “Good Reprint Practices” for regarding the distribution of medical or scientific journal articles and reference publications that involve unapproved uses of FDA-approved drugs and medical devices. Draft guidances are often put into final form with substantially the same wording.

“Articles that discuss unapproved uses of FDA-approved drugs and devices can contribute to the practice of medicine and may even constitute a medically recognized standard of care,” said Randall Lutter, FDA deputy commissioner for policy. “This guidance also safeguards against off-label promotion.”

Previously, Section 401 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act set out guidelines that allowed the dissemination of information on unapproved uses of FDA-approved products. As long as the guidelines were met by the manufacturers, the dissemination of such materials was not viewed by the FDA as evidence of an intent to promote the product for an “off-label” use. However, Section 401 expired on Sept. 30, 2006.

The FDA’s “Good Reprint Practices” draft guidance recommends principles manufacturers should follow when they distribute scientific or medical journal reprints, articles, or reference publications.

Publications that the medical community rely on should be independent. Accordingly, some of the principles include ensuring that the article or reference be published by an organization that has an editorial board. The organization also should fully disclose any conflicts of interest or biases for all authors, contributors or editors associated with the journal article. Articles should be peer-reviewed and published in accordance with specific procedures.

Not surprisingly, the draft guidance also recommends against distribution of special supplements or publications that have been funded by one or more of the manufacturers of the product in the article, and further, (stating the obvious), that articles that are not supported by credible medical evidence are considered false and misleading and should not be distributed.

, , , ,
Posted By Marcella Auerbach Responses 0
Category Legal, Pharmaceutical, Off-Label Posted March 25th, 2008
Bookmark

FDA Needs Help

The rise in Qui Tam cases that we and other qui tam law firms have experienced is no doubt a result of the lax enforcement that has occurred over the years-as fraud has been allowed to increase.This month, consistent with the notion that the FDA has been under-resourced from a regulatory enforcement standpoint, the FDA’s Subcommittee on Science and Technology issued a report which concluded, in part, that:

The FDA cannot fulfill its mission because its scientific base has eroded and its scientific organizational structure is weak.

The FDA lacks the information science compatibility and information infrastructure to fulfill its regulatory mandate

The FDA cannot provide the information infrastructure support to regulate products based on new science.

In the scathing 300-page report , the distinguished subcommittee panel of experts concludes that the state of FDA’s scientific and regulatory programs could not be separated from the lack of resources. It urged appropriate funding to support the FDA’s scientific workforce and information technology infrastructure.

Its report has been posted on the FDA website and is available here.

To read more about the False Claims Act application to FDA violations, click here.

No Tags
Posted By Marcella Auerbach Responses 0
Category Legal Posted December 4th, 2007
Bookmark

Off Label Marketing Costs Jazz Pharmaceuticals $20 Million

Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (”Jazz”) has agreed to pay $20 million in order to resolve both criminal and civil investigations which were conducted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York. Specifically, Jazz Subsidiary Orphan Medical, Inc. plead guilty to the off label, illegal marketing of Xyrum (also known as “GHB”) and agreed to pay $17.2 Million in restitution and penalties. Both Jazz and Orphan were also to pay an additional $2.8 Million through a Civil Settlement Agreement.

 

The government’s investigation of the pharmaceutical fraud began as the result of a whistleblower lawsuit under the False Claims Act by a former sales representative for Orphan. Orphan engaged in a scheme to expand the market for Xyrum by marketing and promoting the drug to physicians for “off-label” use which included using a psychiatrist in promotional speaking engagements. The psychiatrist with the approval of Orphan sales personnel also showed physicians how to obtain reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid for these unapproved uses. The criminal prosecution arose out of a criminal misbranding scheme by which physicians would write presciptions for Xyrum that were not reimburseable for Medicare and Medicaid.

 

“Pharmaceuticals manufactured under strict standards can still injure or kill if used for unapproved purposes. Here, the risk was not from willful abuse by users; it was from a concerted campaign by the manufacturer to push a drug for off-label uses. This posed a serious health risk and constitutes a serious crime,” said FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge, New York Field Office, Mark J. Mershon.

To learn click here or Nolan & Auerbach.

 

, ,
Posted By Marcella Auerbach Responses 2
Category Legal Posted August 29th, 2007
Bookmark

CRO’s Conflict of Interest

St. Petersburg Reporter Chris Hundley wrote (July 1, 2007)  a well-written, balanced and comprehensive (as can get in an article) about Contract Research Organizations (CRO’s).  The article points out the inherent conflict of interest for CRO’s to manage clinical trials pre-approval (for NDA submission) and at the same time substantially invest  in the pharmaceutical company that is the owner of the drug in trials. Although  the FDA is quoted as not seeing the conflict of interest as a problem, and indicating that only 1-2% of inspections of clinical trials uncover fraud, it seems unlikely that the FDA is out looking for such fraud, or has enough resources to police the issue adequately. To read the complete article; to read more about pharmaceutical fraud

, ,
Posted By Marcella Auerbach Responses 0
Category Legal Posted July 2nd, 2007
Bookmark

Federal Judge Rules Drug Companies Engaged in Drug Price Deception

In a class action lawsuit that claims drug companies unfairly adjusted prices of medication, the plaintiffs scored a major victory when Judge Saris found that defendants “unfairly and deceptively caused false AWPs to be published knowing that payers and the government did not understand the truth and the severity of the markups.”  The named defendants are AstraZeneca, Schering-Plough and Bristol-Myers Squib. 

In her opinion dated June 21, 2007, Judge Saris wrote that “Unscrupulously taking advantage of the flawed AWP system … by establishing secret mega-spreads far beyond the standard industry markup was unethical and oppressive.” She also wrote that such practices, “caused real injuries to the insurers and patients” who paid inflated prices for life-sustaining drugs. Such drug pricing fraud is part of a broad category of pharmaceutical fraud.

AWP is Average Wholesale Price, the measure by which drugs were generally paid for by healthcare payors in years past. Medicare now pays for drugs on an Average Sales Price basis, which is an actual price and less likely to be manipulated.   

To read more of the story look here. 

, , , ,
Posted By Marcella Auerbach Responses 0
Category Legal Posted June 25th, 2007
Bookmark

Clinical investigator indicted for fraud in pharmaceutical trials of blockbuster drug

NEW ORLEANS — Dr. Maria Carmen Palazzo was indicted by a federal grand jury on 55 counts of health care fraud and false documentation in connection with a clinical trial of Paxil in children and adolescents, U.S. Attorney Jim Letten said on Thursday.

One area of charges involves clinical trial fraud. According to the indictment, Palazzo, as a clinical investigator for SmithKline Beecham doing business as GlaxoSmithKline, fraudulently failed to maintain and prepare records required by the FDA for evaluation the drug’s safety and effectiveness in children and adolescents.

During approximately a five-year period, Palazzo also defrauded Medicare in connection with services she claimed to have rendered to patients in a Psychiatric Partial Hospitalization Program at Touro Infirmary , according to the indictment.

The indictment also charges that Palazzo defrauded Medicare by submitting fraudulent invoices to Touro for consulting and medical director services. The indictment says because of that Medicare paid Palazzo over $653,000 she was not entitled to receive. (Consulting and Medical director costs of hospitals are passed on to Medicare in part, under the cost report system).

See the full story here

, , , ,
Posted By Marcella Auerbach Responses 0
Category Legal, Medicare Posted June 15th, 2007
Bookmark

Purdue Pharma Agrees to $19.5 Million Settlement Over Off Label Marketing of OxyContin

Purdue Pharma has agreed to settle claims by 26 states and the District of Columbia for marketing and promoting OxyContin for unapproved uses i.e. for use every 8 hours as opposed to the FDA approved dosage of every 12 hours.  The states alleged that FDA rules were violated by Purdue promoting OxyContin as the painkiller “to start with and the one to stay with” for numerous kinds of pain even though the drug was specifically approved a more limited use in patients who need long-term pain management.  Further, the states contend that Purdue paid its sales force based on how much physicians prescribed OxyContin which led to the “misuse, diversion and abuse” of OxyContin according to Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. Pursuant to the $19.5 million settlement, Purdue must immediately stop its off-label marketing and heed the warning label contained on its packaging.
 

To read more click here or more about pharmaceutical fraud at Nolan & Auerbach.

, , , ,
Posted By Marcella Auerbach Responses 0
Category Legal, Off-Label Posted May 25th, 2007
Bookmark

Eli Lilly and Company in More Hot Water

Montana is the latest state to sue Eli Lilly and Company, alleging that the company improperly and fraudulently marketed Zyprexa, an antipsychotic drug for unapproved uses.  According to Montana Attorney General Mike McGrath, Eli Lilly improperly promoted Zyprexa for off label use and illegally paid kickbacks to physicians.  Lilly created a sales force of 280 persons according to the State of Montana complaint, “to promote Zyprexa exclusively for off-label uses, specifically for long-term-care facilities to maximize off-label use of Zyprexa sales.” Under federal laws, pharmaceutical companies are prohibited from marketing their drugs for off-label or unapproved uses. Lilly’s worldwide sales of Zyprexa were $4.36 billion in 2006.

To read more click here.

, , , , ,
Posted By Marcella Auerbach Responses 2
Category Pharmaceutical Posted May 17th, 2007
Bookmark

FDA Launches Draft Guidelines On Financial Ties With Drug Companies

If an outside expert has more than $50,000 in ties to drug and medical device companies regulated by the Food and Drug Administration he will be barred from advising the FDA under the new draft guidelines. The money calculations include corporate grants, contracts, consulting fees and/or company stock.  Although it was not clear how many advisors would be disqualified, Randall Lutter, the Food and Drug Administration’s acring commissioner for policy, said it was a “significant number.” 

To read more click here. To learn more about drug company inducements as a violation of the False Claims Act, click here.

No Tags
Posted By Marcella Auerbach Responses 0
Category Legal Posted March 23rd, 2007
Bookmark

 

Regulatory Documents (PDF)

Nolan Law Firm Articles

Site Sponsored By:

Nolan & Auerbach, P.A. is a qui tam law firm whose practice is uniquely limited to healthcare fraud cases under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act. We know healthcare fraud because that's what we do! Toll free: 800-FRAUD 04