Comments on: Peter Rost vs. Pfizer: The Feds Back His Argument

By: Hypocrisy rules

Hypocrisy rules — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:29:56 +0000

Truth only, what about Novartis? Oh, yes it is the only BigPharma co that is still a “virgin” when it comes to big time fines others were handed out so far. How do they do it? Hard to know but they must know and do something that others don’t, while doing the “nasty” stuff as much if not more than others.
Someone said that BP corporate behavior has changed. Maybe so. But in what way? Have they really, really changed or just adopted their ways in such a way that it is now much harder to see them do it and/or much harder to come up with evidence. The corporations can easily “pretend” they changed. They know how to do it and project the “new image” (seen some GREEN ads lately?) but in fact they continue with the same way of doing biz but the methods have changed and can not be exposed as easily as before.
There was a case of major whistle blowing at Novartis few years ago. Not in USA but done all the way to Basel. Once done, things have changed rapidly to the “better” in terms of compliance with the codes of conduct. However those who did the braking of the codes are still around, some got promoted etc. It would be hard to believe that they went completely “honest” for the “alternative” ways of doing business (offlabel, false claims, bribes etc) are so effective in bringing in huge profits that no one in BP today can give it up, cold turky. Fines, if they get caught? As the person said; Just a cost of doing business.
Novartis knows best.

By: Truth Only

Truth Only — Wed, 14 May 2008 01:36:51 +0000

Good job Ed. Hopefully, the burning light will go around and should not spare the crooks at Novartis.

By: Doc

Doc — Wed, 14 May 2008 01:35:09 +0000

I hope Rost eventually wins $50 million.

By: HorusCat

HorusCat — Wed, 14 May 2008 00:06:20 +0000

Judging from the instruction we are given at our sales meetings regarding what we are allowed to say about approved clinical trials (no, can’t discuss the secondary endpoints!), I would say that corporate behavior has changed.

Judging from the fact that my company now monitors medical inquiries to be sure that they are actually initiated by a physician (sometimes calling the physician to check), I would say that corporate behavior has changed.

Judging from the fact that I cannot even give a clinician or patient group information on where their grant request is in the system (let alone what is happening to it), I would say behavior has changed.

By: Doc

Doc — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:41:12 +0000

Justice,
I’ll quote you one of my past directors at BMY when asked about a $175 million dollar fine. “Just the cost of doing business today.” There is some impact, how much it is hard to tell, marketing departments still push the envelope every chance they get.

By: Jane

Jane — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:18:19 +0000

Pharma Expert,

When you consider psychotropic medications alone have a $20b market share per year, 20+ billion is chicken soup.

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/topix/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080513005053&newsLang=en&ndmConfigId=1000639&vnsId=41

By: Justice in Michigan

Justice in Michigan — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:17:41 +0000

Would be interested to hear others on impact on corporate behavior - I certainly hope so.

Re: refund, I think we’d all exchange 20 bil for the people lost as a result of fraudulent promotion, itself based in chicken shit of a different kind.

By: condor

condor — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:09:59 +0000

Having counseled clients through “milestoning-out” of FDA consent decrees, and negotiating the ends to federal contracting debarment orders, I can confirm Pharma Expert’s view — corporate behavior does change.

Need we look any deeper, or wider, than Lilly? Isn’t it at least possible that Lilly’s mini-moments of “Glasnost” (see Ed’s latest, above!) are, in part, driven by wanting to avoid “a Peter Rost moment” on Forbes Magazine’s Cover Page?

I think so. Really, I do.

I also think pharma would really prefer not to have “open-ness” legislated DOWN upon them (again!). I think Lilly figures partnering in the design of the provisions is preferable to having them foist upon it.

So, yes, I think corporate behaviors change as a result of these whistle-blower actions — at least as to the meritorious actions.

By: Pharma Expert

Pharma Expert — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:55:54 +0000

Justice, what you say is very true . . . but these suits appear to impact corporate behavior. And $20+ billion refund to tax payers so far based on FCA isn’t exactly chicken shit.

By: Justice in Michigan

Justice in Michigan — Tue, 13 May 2008 19:52:05 +0000

Excellent points on this thread. Thanks to those who have contributed.

As Dan notes, most of these suits go nowhere, even when there is substaintial, confirmed evidence of fraud. Neurontin went somewhere (don’t worry, I won’t retell the tale), but even then Warner-Lambert share price only continued to climb, and the price Pfizer was willing to pay to acquire them likewise increaed, even knowing the liability they would almost certainly inherit.

Yes, there was also Lipitor and other goodies in the franchise. But it is an example of how even the “big prosecutions” don’t impact much beyond becoming book chapters and examples invoked on Pharmalot. (!)