New Haven To Sue Merck & Schering-Plough
10 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // October 14th, 2008 // 4:40 pm
The city of New Haven, Connecticut, which is the home of Yale University, says more than $400,000 in tax dollars were spent Vytorin and Zetia on for employees, and corporation counsel John Ward wants the money back. Why? Vytorin “doesn’t work,” he tells The New Haven Independent. The Vytorin cholesterol pill combines Zetia and Zocor.
And so he has issued a request for proposal to hire an outside law firm to sue Merck and Schering-Plough, which are the subject of Congressional investigations into their handling of Vytorin clinical trial data that called into question the drug’s effectiveness (back stories here, here and here).
Ward hopes to use the “no win, no pay” approach, which means the law firm that represents the city in a lawsuit would not receive any fee if the city loses the case. He tells the paper he sought to join a class-action lawsuit, but was unable to find one. Meanwhile, the city is seeking a firm with experience suing drugmakers.
“There are no guarantees,” that there’s a firm who wants to take the case, or that the city would win, he tells the paper, “but I’m just giving it a shot.”
“Schering-Plough stands behind our products, and we will defend ourselves vigorously,” a spokeswoman for the drugmaker tells the paper. She noted that Vytorin and Zetia “have consistently demonstrated significant reduction in LDL cholesterol in numerous clinical studies,” and that lowering LDL levels is a “key factor” in lowering cardiovascular risk. Merck did not respond to comment.
“Schering-Plough stands behind our products, and we will defend ourselves vigorously,” said company spokeswoman Rosemarie Yancosek Tuesday. She noted that Vytorin and Zetia “have consistently demonstrated significant reduction in LDL cholesterol in numerous clinical studies,” and that lowering LDL levels is a “key factor” in lowering cardiovascular risk.
Merck did not respond to comment for this article.
The controversy prompted a flood of over 50 class-action lawsuits. Ward caught wind of the controversy and decided to take action, too. On Sept. 26, he put out a Request For Proposals seeking “Legal Services to Recover Excessive Payments of Pharmaceuticals.”
Nathan
This is really incredible to me. Suing a pharma because of ineffectiveness? I can understand suing for harm — but for ineffectiveness? Wow. At first I thought that Ed misinterpreted the directive. But no, he didn’t. Here’s a quote from the above link: “The City of New Haven seeks to engage the services of qualified attorneys and law firms to pursue litigation for the City of New Haven to recover payments in excess of $400,000 made for allegedly defective/ineffective pharmaceuticals Vytorin and Zetia…that it purchased under its health plan for city employees.”
What’s next in this country: Can I sue my McDonalds when my Big Mac fails to meet my expected dining satisfaction? Maybe I can sue Home Depot because the tiles I used for remodeling my bathroom failed to meet my aesthetic expectations. Here’s one, how about I sue my local government since they fail to meet my expectations for road maintenance!
And to top it all off, I’ll incur no losses on any of the above lawsuits because I stipulate that I’ll only pay the lawyer if I win the case…. It’s a good thing that most Americans don’t behave like the town of New Haven.
BPW
Yeah baby! The issue here is the relentless pursuit of profits - as much money as can be generated - while apparently sitting on bad data for your drug and pushing an agressive DTC campaign to drive sales! I think that Yale has a good case. Hold them accountable for what they have done. If a few of these cases were successful, you can bet pharma companies would be a lot more careful. By the way, the company execs laughed all the way to the bank while they were deceiving others.
Christopher
Give me a break. This idiotic lawsuit mentality is an example of what makes much of the United States a laughing stock both within and outside the country. It’s a disgrace and demeaning to the city. I wonder if there was any problem with ‘ineffective drugs’ when Bayer was headquartered there and contributing its thousands or millions to the city’s tax pool. Appalling,and cynical behavior.
And BPW - that’s the same mentality that drives OBGYNs, neurosurgeons and the rest away from practice. “If a few of them were more successful, you can bet pharma companies would be more careful.” What do you mean? Careful about not launching drugs without 100% efficacy? Careful about avoiding lawsuits from opportunists looking for a quick win or, perish the thought, their 15 minutes of fame?
Lisa Van S
AHHHHH,… Excuse me Guys!! Why should we taxpayers pay for a drug that clearly lacks efficacy…
And before you jump down my throat,.. allow me to explain. My mother is a senior citizen, with cardiovascular disease, her Dr. recently took her off Vytorin. I love my Mother dearly,.. But.. as a taxpayer, who loves her mother dearly.. why should I pay for a medication that “clearly” lacks efficay. DUHHHHHHH!!!!!
Christopher
Lisa, perhaps there are no guarantees when a drug is prescribed that it will work. What about differences between patients? What if a patient’s metabolism is compromised and the prescriber didn’t know that? How about if - perish the thought - a patient ignored all other advice and direction and then blamed the ‘faulty’ drug.
Silly example: Patient is prescribed Lipitor then goes on a steak, cheese and Pepsi-fest because of course he is protected by Lipitor. When he begins to see dererioration in his cholesterol levels is it because Lipitor doesn’t work? Of course it is, so let’s sue!
Reverting to lawsuits because it’s an easy no-lose opportunity is lazy, demeaning and damaging to those who observe and wish to emulate, as well as to those of us whose insurance premiums ultimately fund those cases that pay out. Like yours and mine. It’s shameful and lacking in principle. And by the way, in these tough times how on earth does this behavior - like that of the financial industry - do anything but strip out money from an already strained economy? I would hope that such finely-honed legal brains could find something a little more productive to do. But I’m not a lawyer.
Lisa Van S
Christopher,
I understand clearly what you are saying. In regards to my mother, its a no win situation. She appears to be doing well on a generic Zocor. Again,.. for how long! Her disease is so advanced, that we just choose to enjoy every day that she is with us. My Mom may be elderly,.. But she’s still pretty cool, and doesnt allow anything to get her down. She’s quite special!!
Lisa Van S
Christopher,
As far as lawsuits against Industry are concerned,.. I wont do that again!!… Plus,.. Industry knows I monitor everything, now!! They’d hammer me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just A Thought
Consumer fraud & endangerment is why this case stands a chance. It isn’t simply a matter if ineffectiveness, it is a misrepresentation that has caused people and their doctors to believe that something would do them some good. It isn’t tiles or big macs and this is why-
If you re-tile and you don’t like the look you can always re-tile again. If you eat a big mac and it sucks, you don’t have to eat another.
BUT when someone takes a medication that is said to help prevent disease and they are endangered by the drug or by not being on a more effective treatment in it’s place, the consequences may not be reversible, as you well know. I don’t have a clue how any of you can work in this industry and not see the difference.
You see it as a money issue. Suits for damages are not as much about money as you want to believe. They are about righting wrongs. They are about hopefully preventing further wrongs from occurring. Nothing but financial slaps on the hand seem to move you. And they are only slaps on the hand. Wake up. These are human lives at risk. If you can’t reduce the risk then stay out of the game. If you can’t reduce the risk and, in fact, add new risks along with the original condition (as most drugs do), then you look as if you’ll do anything for a buck. You are going to complain about lawyers and endangered consumers being unreasonable or greedy? Spend a few more bucks and make sure a product works before you market it.
Nathan
Just a Thought,
While I understand what you are saying, please note that this is a TOWN GOVERNMENT suing — not individual citizens. How was the town government hurt? From what I can tell, this is all about the money. Local governments are hurting for money these days and a “no-upfront-payment” lawsuit sounds like a lotery ticket for a risk-free potential payout. This is dispicable.
Condor
I simply want to remark that the RFP seems destined to fail, for two reasons. One, it contemplates ANNUAL renewals — with the City deciding whether to keep the lawyer/s yearly.
This suit may not be certified as a class for three years — let alone decided IN ONE.
So, a means for “progress payments” must be contemplated, anew, by the city — if it wants to change horses yearly, mid-stream.
Second, and more fundamentally — see my blog soon, for more on this thought — joining the price-refund putative class actions, already filed, and pending in the federal courts in Newark, New Jersey is really a more economic alternative than “going it alone”.
Great topic, Ed!
~~~~~~~~~ SEGUE ~~~~~~~~~
On the “merits”, then:
I think Nathan and Christopher have it exactly bass-akwards; Lisa has it spot-on — just right. I would only add that patented (i.e., competition-prevented), FDA licensed (i.e., too-complicated — on the science about whether it WORKS, or doesn’t — for most lay-people to be able evaluate [while inundated with distracing DTC TV ads!] critically, without the HELP of a doctor or an independent science panel) DRUGS are decidedly different than Big Macs that come out “a little soggy”.
Even so, in the latter case, we seek a “refund” (of our $1.89!) — while in the former case (Vytorin/Zetia), Nathan would suggest New Haven is wrong to even seek a “refund” for some mystery-drug that may have delayed the patients’ starting a more effective alternative (i.e., shortened the patients’ lives). That’s an untenable position, I think, Nathan (and Christopher).
As to Bayer — surely you jest, Christopher!
You suggest it would be “cynical” to “allow” one pharma company to employ the skilled, engaged workforce in our town, UNLESS we (collectively?) swore never to sue ANY pharma company for ANY injury? Nutty.
Lety me ask your — are you “cynical”, Christopher, when you appeal your assessed real estate taxes — through your assessor’s office, or the appeals board?
Isn’t it the very same thing? — you claim you are shouldering an “unfair” burden, there — paying a tax for more than “your share”. Just as New Haven may have “overpaid” — been unfairly “taxed” for a drug that doesn’t work. In both cases, your counter-party has “monopoly power” (to tax real estate; or sell Vytorin/Zetia). . . .
But I’ll let you two sort all of that out.
Namaste