Merck Pays $58M To States Settle Vioxx Fraud
8 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // May 20th, 2008 // 12:51 pm
The drugmaker reached the deal with attorneys general from 29 states and the Washington DC to “fully resolve” investigations under state consumer protection laws related to marketing the notorious Vioxx painkiller.
Specifically, the drugmaker was cited for allegedly launching an aggressive and deceptive advertising campaign which misrepresented the safety and improperly concealed the increased risks associated with Vioxx, according to Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett.
Merck is also required to refrain from ghostwriting and using scientific data deceptively when marketing to doctors; delay any DTC television ads for a pain med if recommended by the FDA; and submit all television ad campaigns to the FDA before release for review and to adhere to any recommendations by the FDA.
“Using Merck’s Vioxx, which was a prescription pain relieving drug, carried an increased risk of having a heart attack or another serious cardiovascular side effect,” Corbett says in a statement. “Merck allegedly knew about this, but continued to misrepresent the safety of their product in their advertisements until they finally admitted that Vioxx caused serious side effects and pulled the product from the market in 2004.”
“We believe that Merck acted in good faith and that the company’s activities in support of Vioxx were intended to fully comply with relevant regulations,” Bruce Kuhlik, Merck’s executive vp and general counsel, says in a statement.
“Merck remains committed to communications that help patients and their physicians choose medicines based on accurate, fair and balanced information,” he continues. “Today’s agreement enables Merck to put this matter behind us and focus on what Merck does best, developing new medicines.”
Merck, by the way, had taken a pre-tax charge in the first quarter of $55 million in anticipation of the settlement.
Paul
With such a small settlement (like $2M per state), one can only conclude that the states did not find any wrongdoing and just asked for a bit of money to cover their costs, save face and go away.
We all know that among 29 states there must have been enough salivating to try to find any trace of bad stuff. If they had found it, they would have plastered it all over the media.
Wish they would come out in the open and tell everyone that they could not find wrongdoing and therefore were dropping the claims.
Not sure there are other explanations.
Bruce
To make the claim that there was “nothing” there is absurd. The “cardiovascular risks flashcard” used by reps at Merck to dispel “myths” surrounding increased MI risk to Vioxx treated patients ought to be enough. How about the “ghost written” articles, the expunged (”reclassified”) deaths immediately before the NEJM publication, withholding evidence of increased trending of MI from the medical communityfrom studies they had completed and not released. How about sales reps telling doctors that highest doses of 50mg would do no harm and could be used safely for lengths of time despite the fact it was not true. The common practice of paying a room of 50 or more local doctors, $250 per head to listen to a 30 minute presentation on Vioxx. The $10,000 a month in expense spending per quarter for speaker programs? The practice of making every areas top prescriber a “consultant”. Paying ridiculous fees for local specialists ($2000 for 30 minutes)to speak at lunches in the offices of primary care doctors across the USA. Nothing like quieting the critics by paying off those who could clearly see the swollen ankles of those who took your medicine. The tales of telling doctors that pedal edema could be safely cleared by using a diuretic and it was nothing to be concerned about and was no different than other NSAIDS. How many have you harmed. I wish the dead could speak. They cannot so their families toiled in the legal mess you created and you waited until they were desperate for justice and felt they had no recourse but to take a measly offering from this company. Is it any coincidence that Merck’s own witnesses perjured themselves by withholding data in testimony? Not really, its just business as usual. One can only hope that the authorities will hold them accountable and disbar them when they do it again.
History of great drugs? You decide:
Fosomax (serious questions over jawbone degeneration)
Vioxx (increased MI and death) (It was the patient’s fault!)
Singulair (questions raised over suicidal thoughts and behavior oddly they added “suicidality” to the package insert quietly)
Vytorin (withholding data from their trial for 2 years that showed the drug did nothing more than Zocor in the trial’s endpoint)
No, the folks were totally clean. What planet are you from anyway? Have you paid attention at all. I feel you need to do your homework before you speak. The settlement was likely low due to the overwhelming efforts by Merck to keep material away from prosecutors and the mere fact that those with knowledge won’t speak for fear of being exposed as wildly greedy (America’s doctors).
Paul
Bruce,
Unfortunately your mind is so made up that there is no point arguing with it. So many of your statements make no sense and are stated as absolute fact when they have been shown to be taken out of context and exaggerated by plaintiff lawyers.
I have a feeling that even if the Supreme Court were to decide in favor of this company that you would think there was hanky panky in that decision.
So, there is no point in trying to convince you otherwise.
Bruce
Can’t argue with the facts can you.
Jack2
The only fact here is that Merck settled and will pay 56 million.
That *implies* that Merck must have felt that if the case went further they risked being found guilty, or paying a larger fine, or simply that fighting this case further to reduce the fine became cost-ineffective.
It also *implies* that the states didn’t think that further pursuit would result in Merck being found guilty, or paying a larger fine, or that pursuing the case further would not result in an increase in the fine sufficient to make further litigation cost-effective.
I agree with Paul though. 58 million sounds low to me. I assume that if the facts surrounding Merck’s potential guilt were as clear-cut as you present them, Bruce, then things would have gone differently.
Bruce
Anything can happen in front of a jury and by your own logic why would Merck agree to settle if they were innocent and why would they also have all these “we promise to never…” within their CIA? Cat got your tongue, eh?
Dingle
Why would Merck agree to settle if they were innocent? Bruce, you make some great arguments, but you must understand the situation that any Dow blue chip company finds itself. Whether or not Merck was guilty, #1 priority for any large and public company is to make things go away. Industry and banking analysts perceive any lawsuit as a threat, especially that which generates significant negative press, and for that reason any company in any position would pay a reasonable amount to eliminate the risk if the settlement is within analysts’ expectations. You may not agree, and may draw any conclusion you like, but the reality is that settling a lawsuit under these circumstances really doesn’t signal guilt.
There are many companies who settle suits, and many individuals that also settle suits or cop pleas that aren’t guilty. I’m sure that they’d love to fight on to clear their name and establish their innocence, but in the real world there are far too many risks involved, as juries and judges often make irrational decisions.
Bruce
I agree with your premise Dingle to a degree. In this case, the evidence is fairly clear that wrongdoing took place in a very widespread fashion. They got off very, very cheap. They also are very lucky.