GlaxoSmithKline fined $3 billion for bribing doctors and mis-selling their medicines
50 replies, posted
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/03/glaxosmithkline-fined-bribing-doctors-pharmaceuticals[/url]
[quote=The Guardian]The pharmaceutical group GlaxoSmithKline has been fined $3bn (£1.9bn) after admitting bribing doctors and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children. Glaxo is also expected to admit failing to report safety problems with the diabetes drug Avandia in a district court in Boston on Thursday.
The company encouraged sales reps in the US to mis-sell three drugs to doctors and lavished hospitality and kickbacks on those who agreed to write extra prescriptions, including trips to resorts in Bermuda, Jamaica and California.
The company admitted corporate misconduct over the antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin and asthma drug Advair.
Psychiatrists and their partners were flown to five-star hotels, on all-expenses-paid trips where speakers, paid up to $2,500 to attend, gave presentations on the drugs. They could enjoy diving, golf, fishing and other extra activities arranged by the company.
GSK also paid for articles on its drugs to appear in medical journals and "independent" doctors were hired by the company to promote the treatments, according to court documents.
Paxil – which was only approved for adults – was promoted as suitable for children and teenagers by the company despite trials that showed it was ineffective, according to prosecutors.
Children and teenagers are only treated with antidepressants in exceptional circumstances due to an increased risk of suicide.
GSK held eight lavish three-day events in 2000 and 2001 at hotels in Puerto Rico, Hawaii and Palm Springs, California, to promote the drug to doctors for unapproved use.
Those who attended were given $750, free board and lodging and access to activities including snorkelling, golf, deep-sea fishing, rafting, glass-bottomed boat rides, hot-air balloon rides and, on one trip, a tour of the Bacardi rum distillery, all paid for by GSK.
Air fares were also covered for doctors and spouses, in most cases, and speakers at the event were paid $2,500 each.
Before one event, the compere said: "We have a wonderful and unforgettable night planned. Without giving it all away, I can tell you – you'll be experiencing a taste of luxury."
Not everyone was impressed, though. One psychiatrist complained: "The style of the conference would have been suitable for a convention of cosmetics sales reps; this is supposed to be a scientific meeting. To me, the music, lights, videos, emcees are offputting and a distraction, even demeaning."
GSK also published an article in a medical journal that mis-stated the drug's safety for children, despite the journal asking several times to change the wording.
Copies of the misleading article were given to sales representatives to pass on to doctors in the hope that it would secure more business. Tickets to sports matches were exchanged for discussions about Paxil, with one doctor writing: "Dinner and a Yankee game with family. Talked about Paxil studies in children."
Despite knowing that three trials had failed to prove its effectiveness on children, Glaxo published a report entitled "Positioning Paxil in the adolescent depression market – getting a headstart".
The second drug to be mis-sold was Wellbutrin – another antidepressant aimed only at adults.
The prosecution said the company paid $275,000 to Dr Drew Pinsky, who hosted a popular radio show, to promote the drug on his programme, in particular for unapproved uses – GSK claimed it could treat weight gain, sexual dysfunction, ADHD and bulimia.
Pinsky, who had not declared his GSK income to listeners, said Wellbutrin could give women 60 orgasms a night. A study of 25 people using the drug for eight weeks was pushed by a PR firm hired by GSK, generating headlines including "Bigger than Viagra? It sounds too good to be true: a drug to help you stop smoking, stay happy and lose weight" and "Now That is a Wonder Drug".
When a GSK-funded doctor refused to remove safety concerns about the drug from an article he was writing, GSK removed his funding.
The investigation also found that sales representatives set up "Operation Hustle" to promote the drug to doctors, including trips to Jamaica, Bermuda and one talk coinciding with the annual Boston Tall Ships flotilla. Speakers were paid up to $2,500 for a one-hour presentation – up to three times a day – earning far more than they did working in their surgeries.
One speaker, Dr James Pradko, was paid nearly $1.5m by GSK over three years to speak about the drug. He also produced a DVD funded by the company, which was claimed to be independent. It was shown more than 900 times to doctors.
The hope was that doctors would be persuaded to prescribe the drug to patients over its rivals.
The last drug under scrutiny was Advair, GSK's bestselling asthma treatment.
The drug was launched to sales representatives in Las Vegas using images of slot machines, emphasising the bonuses they could make through sales. At the event, the then chief executive, Jean-Pierre Garnier, said: "What is the number one reason why you should love to be a GSK sales rep? Advair's bonus plan. Yeah!"
The company pushed the drug as the ultimate answer for tackling asthma, saying it should be the drug of choice for treating all cases. However, it had been approved only for treating severe cases, as other drugs were more suitable for mild asthma. GSK published material calling mild asthma a "myth" in an attempt to boost sales, according to the prosecution.
About $600,000 a year was given to district sales representatives for entertainment, including regular golf lessons, Nascar racing days, fishing trips, and baseball and basketball tickets.
US attorney Carmin Ortiz said: "The sales force bribed physicians to prescribe GSK products using every imaginable form of high-priced entertainment, from Hawaiian vacations [and] paying doctors millions of dollars to go on speaking tours, to tickets to Madonna concerts."
GSK chief executive Andrew Witty said: "Whilst these [matters] originate in a different era for the company, they cannot and will not be ignored. On behalf of GlaxoSmithKline I want to express our regret and reiterate that we have learnt from the mistakes that were made."
Despite the large fine, $3bn is far less than the profits made from the drugs. Avandia has made $10.4bn in sales, Paxil took $11.6bn, and Wellbutrin sales were $5.9bn during the years covered by the settlement, according to IMS Health, a data group that consults for drug makers.[/quote]
Someone (or several) needs to go to prison for this
I can't help but think taking money out of healthcare somehow would be a great idea...
[QUOTE=smurfy;36620293]
Someone (or several) needs to go to prison for this[/QUOTE]
It would be even nicer to find out who accepted the bribes and revoke their medical licenses permanently.
[QUOTE=theenemy;36620327]I can't help but think taking money out of healthcare somehow would be a great idea...[/QUOTE]
How about removing the profit incentive?
[QUOTE=smurfy;36620293]Someone (or several) needs to go to prison for this[/QUOTE]
i can imagine a slap on the wrist and a minuscule fine
consumerist medicine at it's finest
medicine is in kind of a shit place right now. we've pretty much taken all of the low-hanging fruit and now it takes literally billions of dollars to get a drug from the drawing board to the pharmacy. what GSK and the rest of the pharmaceutical companies are doing is wrong, but it's not hard to see why they're doing it. they need that shit to sell because it's hard to say to the shareholders "well we dumped a few billion dollars into this drug and it turns out it doesn't work, sorry"
Today I learned that mis-sell is a word.
I saw some of that "mild asthma is a myth" material for Advair, and even as a little kid I thought it was fishy. It's kind of weird to see that I was right.
[QUOTE=JamesRaynor;36625198]How about removing the profit incentive?[/QUOTE]
You are terrible. The reason why healthcare is fucked in the US is because there is no profit incentive.
[editline]5th July 2012[/editline]
Due to the use of insurance medical providers have no incentive to compete. Even though they can get a CAT scan for $1000 less across the street people don't give a shit because insurance pays for it all. I took Macroeconomics and I can provide a better solution to the US's health care cost inflation than socialism if you want me to.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36629804]You are terrible. The reason why healthcare is fucked in the US is because there is no profit incentive.
[editline]5th July 2012[/editline]
Due to the use of insurance medical providers have no incentive to compete. Even though they can get a CAT scan for $1000 less across the street people don't give a shit because insurance pays for it all. I took Macroeconomics and I can provide a better solution to the US's health care cost inflation than socialism if you want me to.[/QUOTE]I'd love to hear this. Please, by all means, go. Expound upon your ideas. From your track record, this should be a laugh riot.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;36630020]I'd love to hear this. Please, by all means, go. Expound upon your ideas. From your track record, this should be a laugh riot.[/QUOTE]
(from health care debate thread)
There are two problems with using insurance with small co-pays for health care. First, people have no incentive to save money by finding out where they can get the cheapest CAT scan because insurance covers it, so who cares? Second, when somebody has small-deductible health insurance, they have no incentive not to go to the doctor's office. Studies show Americans are over-tested, 90% of emergency room visits are not medical emergencies, etc, etc. You're probably thinking, "No health insurance!? That's crazy!" but there are alternatives. In order to make healthcare affordable for the average american, we must move toward a consumer-driven system.
1. Make personal owned health insurance more favorable than corporate health insurance. Corporate health insurance isn't paid for by money subjected to income taxes, and is therefore a valuable form of compensation. A 30% subsidy can be given out to make personally owned health insurance more favorable and additionally people who couldn't afford health insurance can now afford health insurance.
2. Encourage the use of Medical Savings Accounts. (MSA's) Money deposited into this account will not be subjected to income tax and will be used for small medical services. Money in this account never goes away and can be invested in mutual funds if not in use.
3. Encourage the use of catastrophic health insurance. Catastrophic health insurance is considerably cheaper than regular health insurance and will cover expenses such as major surgery and broken limbs. You will use your MSA to pay for everything else.
4. Switch medicare from a reimbursement plan to a fixed-benefit plan. Instead of being reimbursed seniors will receive a fixed amount of money in their MSA each month.
Healthcare is problem because the healthcare market is off equilibrium due to the wasteful habits created by the use of insurance. Universal healthcare lowers healthcare expenditure as a % of GDP by creating a system of rationing in which the wasteful habits are discouraged by long waiting lists, death panels, etc. This seems like a good solution only when you fail to consider the possibilities. Rather than having government take over and ration healthcare I am proposing that we get the healthcare market back on equilibrium by creating incentives for people not to be wasteful. These reforms will greatly lower the cost of healthcare while at the same time allowing people the same access to it.
Also, I didn't come up with these reforms, nobel prize winning economists did.
[QUOTE=theenemy;36620327]I can't help but think taking money out of healthcare somehow would be a great idea...[/QUOTE]
How exactly are you going to take money out of health care? You need resources to provide health care to people, the doctors need to paid, the equipment needs to be provided, where are those resources going to come from?
[QUOTE=Noble;36630433]How exactly are you going to take money out of health care? You need resources to provide health care to people, the doctors need to paid, the equipment needs to be provided, where are those resources going to come from?[/QUOTE]
who needs medicine wen u have god (:
didn't see this one coming!!
I've been taking Advair for years though it does seem to work for me (I begin experiencing issues with my asthma/allergies when I stop taking it), I guess I'll have a discussion with my allergist (who didn't initially prescribe it to me) next week.
[quote]The last drug under scrutiny was Advair, GSK's bestselling asthma treatment.
The drug was launched to sales representatives in Las Vegas using images of slot machines, emphasising the bonuses they could make through sales. At the event, the then chief executive, Jean-Pierre Garnier, said: "What is the number one reason why you should love to be a GSK sales rep? Advair's bonus plan. Yeah!"
The company pushed the drug as the ultimate answer for tackling asthma, saying it should be the drug of choice for treating all cases. However, it had been approved only for treating severe cases, as other drugs were more suitable for mild asthma. GSK published material calling mild asthma a "myth" in an attempt to boost sales, according to the prosecution.
[/quote]
Fuck I take this...
I don't think my asthma is severe but I was prescribed this as a kid so I'm not sure.
[QUOTE=JamesRaynor;36625198]How about removing the profit incentive?[/QUOTE]
How about we all just become communists.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36630073](from health care debate thread)
some words[/QUOTE]
Maybe insurance companies have less of a say in the US but here in the UK if you make a claim on anything, be it health, house or car insurance, the company will specify which places to get the relevant service from because they've already done the research into the cheapest and best service available so there is no wasteage going on in the first place.
How are you going to stop abuse of MSA's? It's a tax free route for all your money. The whole system is open to massive abuse even if you do impose limits.
I had a look to see if I could find evidence for the '90% aren't emergencies' thing and the highest I could find was 44%. It's still a high number and waste should be discouraged I just have serious doubts that giving more control over expenditure to individuals would work at all. If you need a CAT scan you're not going to spend a long time looking for the best price because you're in a position to need a CAT scan. You're ill and you need it fixed. Also, lets look at the top of this thread to the article where a pharma company has been fined for persuading people to use a drug that doesn't work. If people can be swayed from the best choice medically they can be swayed from the best choice financially.
Basically, your system would work if people didn't act like people.
And this is ignoring the possibility that it could all just be free at the point of use, providing healthcare to everybody as they need it, in my view a human right.
Fenderson makes me glad not everyone on this planet are economists.
We'd never get anywhere important.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36630073](from health care debate thread)
There are two problems with using insurance with small co-pays for health care. First, people have no incentive to save money by finding out where they can get the cheapest CAT scan because insurance covers it, so who cares? Second, when somebody has small-deductible health insurance, they have no incentive not to go to the doctor's office. Studies show Americans are over-tested, 90% of emergency room visits are not medical emergencies, etc, etc. You're probably thinking, "No health insurance!? That's crazy!" but there are alternatives. In order to make healthcare affordable for the average american, we must move toward a consumer-driven system.
1. Make personal owned health insurance more favorable than corporate health insurance. Corporate health insurance isn't paid for by money subjected to income taxes, and is therefore a valuable form of compensation. A 30% subsidy can be given out to make personally owned health insurance more favorable and additionally people who couldn't afford health insurance can now afford health insurance.
2. Encourage the use of Medical Savings Accounts. (MSA's) Money deposited into this account will not be subjected to income tax and will be used for small medical services. Money in this account never goes away and can be invested in mutual funds if not in use.
3. Encourage the use of catastrophic health insurance. Catastrophic health insurance is considerably cheaper than regular health insurance and will cover expenses such as major surgery and broken limbs. You will use your MSA to pay for everything else.
4. Switch medicare from a reimbursement plan to a fixed-benefit plan. Instead of being reimbursed seniors will receive a fixed amount of money in their MSA each month.
Healthcare is problem because the healthcare market is off equilibrium due to the wasteful habits created by the use of insurance. Universal healthcare lowers healthcare expenditure as a % of GDP by creating a system of rationing in which the wasteful habits are discouraged by long waiting lists, death panels, etc. This seems like a good solution only when you fail to consider the possibilities. Rather than having government take over and ration healthcare I am proposing that we get the healthcare market back on equilibrium by creating incentives for people not to be wasteful. These reforms will greatly lower the cost of healthcare while at the same time allowing people the same access to it.
Also, I didn't come up with these reforms, nobel prize winning economists did.[/QUOTE]
i still fail to understand why insurance is needed at all
insurance is one of the biggest cons of the century. what's wrong with free healthcare for every citizen paid for by your tax?
[QUOTE=joe588;36631286]i still fail to understand why insurance is needed at all
insurance is one of the biggest cons of the century. what's wrong with free healthcare for every citizen paid for by your tax?[/QUOTE]
I believe the logic goes as follows
"I have money, and I want to keep my money. The government needs to tax me, because it needs money, but because I have money, I don't need anything the government will use the money it gets from me to do."
Rich people can already afford healthcare, and so they don't care if poorer people can't get healthcare. They then take personal offence whenever the government tries to increase taxes, because they consider it to only be detrimental to them.
Did that make sense?
[QUOTE=joe588;36631286]i still fail to understand why insurance is needed at all
insurance is one of the biggest cons of the century. what's wrong with free healthcare for every citizen paid for by your tax?[/QUOTE]
It's not free if you pay for it with tax dollars. With insurance everyone pools their money together as protection against the [i]risk[/i] of getting sick or hurt. Companies can analyze who is most at risk for needing the care and charge them more, so that premiums are more fair for healthy people.
With universally pre-paid health care instead of insurance, everyone pays the same rate (this is effectively having the healthy subsidize the unhealthy - they're going to need the care much less), you also have issues with things like people going into emergency rooms for things that are not medical emergencies creating long waiting lines for people who actually do need the care, etc. I doubt someone is going to waste expensive resources (like a doctor's time) on going to the emergency room for a headache when their own money is on the line. There is the risk of moral hazard under this system, because you're spending other people's tax dollars.
Lastly, if you're going to argue that we should have universal health care, you also have to draw a line to explain why we [i]shouldn't[/i] have universal food, housing, and clothing too. These things are all needs, so why shouldn't the government just provide them to everyone through tax revenues? Why is there supposedly a right to universal health care, but not a right to universal food, clothing, etc?
Uh as a citizen of a developed nation you do have the right to basic food, clothing, information, and shelter that is why there are food stamps, shelters, libraries, etc.
[editline]5th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36630073]
There are two problems with using insurance with small co-pays[/QUOTE]
Wow you must have seen that Stossel too huh, so how do any of the points you listed solve the "problem" of small deductibles, especially when a shitload of employers give their workers plans with fucking ridiculous deductibles?
$5000 deductible so people are terrified of going to the hospital what a great idea.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;36633982]Uh as a citizen of a developed nation you do have the right to basic food, clothing, information, and shelter that is why there are food stamps, shelters, libraries, etc.[/QUOTE]
Okay then going by what you're saying, all we need is Medicaid for the poor and not universal health care.
[QUOTE=Noble;36634028]Okay then going by what you're saying, all we need is Medicaid for the poor and not universal health care.[/QUOTE]
But public services are used by everyone not just the poor, while some services act as a safety net not all of them do.
noble how do you contend against the majoritarian argument that all developed countries except the USA have some form of universal health care, and they have a [url=http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/OECDChart1.gif]much more[/url] [url=http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/oecd042111.cfm]efficient allocation[/url] of resources than the USA's system
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36634106]noble how do you contend against the majoritarian argument that all developed countries except the USA have some form of universal health care, and they have a [url=http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/OECDChart1.gif]much more[/url] [url=http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/oecd042111.cfm]efficient allocation[/url] of resources than the USA's system[/QUOTE]Communist lies and nations that haven't been saved by the power of the free market.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36634106]noble how do you contend against the majoritarian argument that all developed countries except the USA have some form of universal health care, and they have a [url=http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/images/OECDChart1.gif]much more[/url] [url=http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/oecd042111.cfm]efficient allocation[/url] of resources than the USA's system[/QUOTE]
Well the US system is not even close to being free market. It's one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country. I agree it's in terrible shape and needs reform, but my idea of reform is to get the government out completely and let the market set prices where they need to be.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;36634066]But public services are used by everyone not just the poor, while some services act as a safety net not all of them do.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but why shouldn't the government provide "free" housing to [i]everyone[/i]? How come I don't have the right to be provided with a house or apartment by the government? It's one of the basic necessities I need to survive.
For the same reason you could have kept expensive private insurance were there a public option or continued to buy the premium stuff foodstamps won't get you.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.