Allergan Pays $600M To Settle Federal Botox Probe
8 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // September 1st, 2010 // 11:12 am
To settle a probe by the US Department of Justice, Allergan is paying $$375 million and pleading guilty to one misdemeanor count of misbranding in connection with off-label marketing of its Botox med for various unapproved uses - headache, pain, spasticity and juvenile cerebral palsy - between 2000 and 2005.
Another $225 million is being paid to in fines to cover civil claims asserted by the DOJ under the False Claims Act - there were three separate whistleblower lawsuits filed by Allergan employees that prompted the government probe (read them here, here and here). In addition, the drugmaker, which denies liability for the civil claims, is required to enter into a Corporate Integrity Agreement that will be overseen by an outside party and govern its marketing practices for several years. In a statement, Allergan issued the usual declaration that dispensing with all of the legal problems at once is in the best interest of shareholders.
“The FDA had approved therapeutic uses of Botox for only four rare conditions, yet Allergan made it a top corporate priority to maximize sales of far more lucrative off-label uses that were not approved by FDA,” says Sally Yates, US Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, in a statement. “Allergan further demanded tremendous growth in these off-label sales year after year, even when there was little clinical evidence that these uses were effective.”
And here’s an interesting aspect to the deal: To resolve the criminal and civil investigation, Allergan was required to dismiss its First Amendment lawsuit (here it is) in which the drugmaker sought to win the right to distribute information about unapproved uses for Botox in the context of providing scientific and medical info to doctors. Allergan claimed an FDA ban on off-label marketing violates its First Amendment rights to free speech.
So how did Allergan promote Botox? The feds say Allergan exploited its on-label cervical dystonia (CD) indication to grow off-label pain and headache sales by developed a “CD/HA Initiative” as a “rescue strategy” in the event of negative results from its clinical trials. Allergan claimed CD was as “underdiagnosed” and doc could diagnose CD based on headache and pain symptoms, even when the doctor “doesn’t see any cervical dystonia.”
In a statement, the feds go on to say Allergan also called on docs who typically treat patients with off-label conditions. How so? In 2003, “Allergan doubled the size of its reimbursement team to assist docs in obtaining payment for off-label injections, and held workshops to teach docs and office staffs how to bill for off-label uses, conducted detailed audits of doctors’ billing records to demonstrate how they could make money by injecting Botox, and operated a Botox Reimbursement Hotline, which provided a wide array of free on-demand services to doctors for off-label uses.
“Allergan also lobbied government health care programs to expand coverage for off-label uses, directed physician workshops and dinners focused on off-label uses, paid doctors to attend advisory boards promoting off-label uses, and created a purportedly independent online neurotoxin education organization to stimulate increased use of Botox for off-label indications,” according to the feds.
On a related note, you may recall the drugmaker recently sought to recover $460,000 in legal costs from Dee Spears, who unsuccessfully sued Allergan over the death of her 7-year-old daughter, Kristen, after she was administered a series of therapeutic Botox shots. She sued the drugmaker for $60 million, accusing it of concealing info about the dangers of the drug, which was used to relax the girl’s clenched limbs; she suffered from cerebral palsy (back story).
Justice in MI
That makes about fourteen, mostly major, pharma companies that are under current corporate integrity agreements.
Is there any other industry (oil?) in which such a large proportion of its major players are under some version of CIAs?
Condor
You are right, JiM — that is huge, proportionately.
I guess it should be noted, though, that pharma (at least in the USA) is probably the most highly regulated of all industries (oil, mining and even weapons industries don’t come close to the number of overlapping layers of regulations, here — on pharma). Yet, they od find ways to screw up, just the same.
That said (or even so), the record of Big Pharma is pretty deplorable.
Namaste
Condor
I guess Blackwater and its ilk (is that a weapons, or a “mercenaries,” industry player? I dunno. . . .) — and defense contractors, as a rule, are almost all under CIAs of some sort.
W I L D.
Marilyn Mann
One of my doctors, a neurologist who specializes in pain management, was involved in a clinical trial of Botox for back pain around 1999-2000. When the trial did not get the hoped for results, Allergan fired all the investigators and the results were never published.
pharmavet
Nice to see that they’ve ironed out all of the wrinkles.
shytown
Good One Pharmavet!
I wonder how Dee Spears feels about this fine?
Anne PME
Thank you very much for publishing this, and thank you very much to the federal authorities who saw merit in and pursued this case. I suffer from severe Dystonia, the indication that Botox is approved to treat.
While my doctors would have had and would continue to have an easier time getting insurance reimbursement for Botox, because my symptoms were likely precipitated by drug toxicity and/or instability and based on the severity and muscle groups that are most severely affected, it did not make sense to me or to my doctors and pharmacists that a toxin would help stabilize my Dystonia.
I also worried that because of its popularity as a drug to treat wrinkles,Botox was more likely to be tampered with or worse still, counterfeited by the time that I got it.
I was fortunate to have the support and help of my doctors and pharmacists in making the decision not to take Botox and also their help and support in forcing my health insurer to pay for the medications that we have faith and confidence in- medicines that are the right treatment for me. Unfortunately, I don’t think that it would be possible for my providers and I to do this today because there is so much pressure on them to follow guidelines and meet billable hours and other financial goals.
That being said, I also worry that continued scruntiny of off label use will stifle my providers ability to treat me and other patients. I hope that patients like me don’t suffer more because of apparent misdeeds by certain company employees and/or agents.
Bruce Wayne
Seems like they got what they deserved!