Ghosts in the Criminal Machine - How a Drug Company Can Plead Guilty to Federal Fraud, Yet No One is Held Responsible

We have often discussed how leaders of health care organizations have become increasingly unaccountable for their actions.  A recent, slightly obscure story shows how a corporate admission of guilt to a felony can be used to prevent anyone, including anyone in corporate management, from being held responsible for that fraud.

Basics of the Settlement

The case was that of ISTA Pharmaceuticals.  The basics appeared in brief wire service articles, like this one from Rueters (via Fox News):

Ista Pharmaceuticals pleaded guilty on Friday to charges it used kickbacks and improper marketing to boost sales of a drug meant to treat eye pain and agreed to pay $33.5 million to settle criminal and civil liability, the U.S. Department of Justice said.

The unit of eye care company Bausch & Lomb pleaded guilty to conspiracy to offer kickbacks to induce physicians to prescribe Xibrom, a drug meant to treat pain after cataract surgery, and conspiracy to promote that drug for unapproved uses, including after Lasik and glaucoma surgeries.

Ista agreed as part of a criminal settlement to a $16.63 million fine and an $1.85 million asset forfeiture. It also agreed to a $15 million civil settlement to resolve allegations that its marketing of Xibrom caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs.

Kickbacks Disguised as Honoraria and Consulting Fees

Note that unlike many such legal settlements involving large health care organizations, this one involved admissions of guilt to felonious criminal offenses.  The severity of the charges apparently arose out of the egregious conduct of company executives.  Colorful details were supplied by the Buffalo (NY) News:

ISTA, which is based in California, admitted using kickbacks to doctors and an illegal marketing campaign as part of an elaborate scheme to increase its sales of Xibrom.

The scheme, outlined in detail in newly released court papers, ranged from company-provided instruction sheets for doctors to continuing medical education programs to promote the drug.

In many cases, ISTA employees were told not to leave printed materials behind in doctors’ offices or to keep records of their meetings with doctors in order to avoid detection by others.

The company went so far as to offer speaking engagements and consulting appearances to doctors in hopes that they might use Xibrom for non-authorized treatments.

Doctors can legally prescribe drugs for non-FDA approved treatments, but drugmakers are prohibited from promoting their products for those uses.

'Essentially they entered into consulting arrangements to induce physicians to prescribe their drug,' said Jeffrey I. Steger, a lawyer in the Consumer Protection Branch of the U.S. Department of Justice.

When [US District Judge Richard J] Arcara asked if money was the doctors’ motivation, Steger said yes.

'Thousands of dollars,' he told the judge.

So here we have a company admitting that it bribed doctors to prescribe its drug, and its techniques of administering bribes included paying the doctors honoraria to give talks, and paying the doctors as consultants.  As an aside, note that many defenders of "collaboration" among doctors and industry sign the praises of doctors "consulting" for industry, and often see nothing wrong with industry paying doctors for "educational" speeches.  Yet here is more evidence that such paid talks and consulting assignments may be nothing more than marketing, and at times are merely disguised bribery.

An Apparently Tough Penalty

An unusual feature of this settlement was that (per Reuters):

As part of the settlement, Ista will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid,...

That would appear to be the death knell for the company, as reported by Reuters,

Bausch & Lomb, which is based in Rochester, New York, said it was pleased to settle the matter, which involved conduct between January 2006 and March 2011, and that it knew of the government probe well before it purchased Ista.

That purchase closed in June 2012 and Bausch and Lomb plans to wind down the Ista corporate entity by year end.

So Bausch and Lomb bought a company that turned out to be valueless?  But wait,...  there's a trick. 

As detailed in FiercePharma,

 ISTA will be barred from doing business with Medicare, Medicaid, et al, for 15 years. Luckily for Bausch + Lomb, however, it bought ISTA in June 2012,  late enough in the game to actually escape the ramifications of exclusion. The exclusion won't begin until 6 months after the settlement date, giving Bausch + Lomb time to transfer ISTA's products out of that subsidiary and shift the drugs over to the Bausch + Lomb label.

A Crime Committed by... No One?

So Bausch and Lomb gets ISTA's drugs, and essentially can resolve the company's felony convictions by relatively small fines, and through management sleight of hand, can finesse ISTA's disbarment from federal programs..  This will occur despite admissions that someone within ISTA, presumably within ISTA management, perhaps high up in ISTA management, per FiercePharma,

instructed reps to avoid leaving a paper trail of their off-label discussions with doctors. Prosecutors had enough evidence of this to persuade ISTA to plead guilty to a felony fraud charge. 'These instructions were given in order to avoid having their conduct relating to unapproved new uses being detected by others, the Justice Department said. 'ISTA agreed that this conduct represented an intent to defraud under the law.'

So felony fraud was committed, but no person apparently committed it.  It was as if a ghost committed the crime.

 

Not only was a crime committed, but apparently by nobody, the corporation within which the crime was committed also becomes obscure.  ISTA became responsible, but by being bought out by Bausch and Lomb, the more severe penalty directed against ISTA will be meaningless.  

 

Should Bausch and Lomb be responsible?  Of course, they claim they should not.  As reported by Bloomberg, 

 

 Rochester, New York-based Bausch & Lomb said the actions occurred 'well before' it acquired Ista in 2012. 

'Bausch & Lomb is committed to earning trust in everything that we do and is pleased to have resolved this pre-acquisition issue,' Bob Bailey, a Bausch & Lomb spokesman, said in a statement. 

In fact, The Hill reported that the bad behavior took place from 2005 to 2010: 

But consider that while ISTA recently became part of Bausch and Lomb, since 2007, Bausch and Lomb has been wholly owned by private equity firm Warburg Pincus.  In fact, as we discussed in in 2009, some people suspected that this maneuver would have allowed Baush and Lomb to settle multiple suits alleging that its products were faulty and dangerous out of the public eye.  So while ISTA is now really Bausch and Lomb is now really Warburg Pincus, no one in the management of ISTA, Bausch and Lomb, or Warburg Pincus apparently will be held responsible for criminal fraud and kickbacks to doctors, even though guilty pleas for these felonies have been made.  So somehow we have admissions that crimes were committed, crimes that compromised the integrity of doctors, and exposed patients to needless side effects, yet these crimes were apparently committed by ... nobody, by a ghost, and even the machine that ghost was in - was it ISTA, Bausch and Lomb, or Warburg Pincus? - becomes a mystery.  Where is Sherlock Holmes when we need him most?.

Summary

This case thus becomes a really striking example of the impunity of health care corporate managers.  They can commit crimes, even felonies, yet the company, but no human beings, is held responsible.  But the company being a company, it cannot go to jail.  And through the magic of obfuscatory corporate take-overs, which company is guilty is not even apparent. 

As we have said ad infinitum,

 We will not deter unethical behavior by health care organizations until the people who authorize, direct or implement bad behavior fear some meaningfully negative consequences. Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich.

C R Bard Settles Allegations of Kickbacks to Promote Radiation Treatment for Prostate Cancer

Screening for and aggressive treatment of prostate cancer has become an enormously lucrative business, if not necessarily a life-saving medical strategy.  The minimal media coverage of a recent settlement suggests that at least to some degree, it has been fueled by some questionable practices.

The CR Bard Settlement

As reported by the Atlanta Journal Constitution,

A medical device company on Monday agreed to pay a $48.2 million settlement to resolve claims by a Georgia employee that it paid kickbacks to doctors and customers who bought radiation treatment for prostate cancer.

C.R. Bard Inc., which is headquartered in New Jersey and has offices in Covington, resolved a whistle-blower suit filed by the employee in 2006. The suit alleged that the company paid off doctors and hospitals to induce them to prescribe brachytherapy seeds, which are implanted in the prostate and deliver a dose of radiation to cancer cells.

Another brief report in the Macon (GA) Telegraph gave a tiny bit more detail about what was given to physicians to get them to use Bard's radiation therapy products,

 Customers could order the seeds, used in brachytherapy to deliver a prescribed dose of radiation directly to cancer cells, from multiple companies. But Bard allegedly offered doctors grant money, rebates, free medical equipment and advertising campaigns to entice them to buy their product at inflated prices, according to a news release issued by [whistle-blower Julie] Darity’s legal team....

The Usual Elements of Legal Settlements of Allegations of Health Care Corporate Bad Behavior

The story, briefly told as it was, included many of the usual elements of stories of legal settlements of wrong-doing by large health care corporations.

Slow Justice

The settlement, hence justice, as it were, took a long time, about 7 years since the most recent behavior, and 15 years since its start.  Per the AJC,

 Bard employed its kickback scheme from 1998 to 2006, federal prosecutors said.

 Penalties Not as Big as They Appeared

The penalties were not as big as they seemed.  There was the seemingly large fine, $48.2 million dollars.  However, that should be compared to the company's net sales of over $2.95 billion and net income of $530 million in 2012, according to the company's annual report.  It should also be compared to the total compensation of the company's chairman and CEO in 2012, over $8.7 million, and to that of its president and chief operating officer, over $6.0 million, according to the company's 2012 proxy statement.   Apparently, the fine came out of the company's treasury, so its impact was diffused among all shareholders, employees, customers, and patients, not directed to those who may have authorized, directed or implemented the kickbacks to physicians. 

No Penalties for Individuals, No Acknowledgement of Wrong-Doing

The settlement did not involve any sort of direct penalties to those who authorized, directed, or implemented the kickbacks.

The corporation did not even acknowledge any bad behavior.  As per the AJC,

Bard is pleased to settle the claims, Scott Lowry, a company spokesman, said in a statement.

'This resolution allows the company to put this matter behind it and continue to focus on delivering life-enhancing medical devices and technologies to patients around the world,' he said. 'We remain committed to continuously enhancing and improving our compliance programs in accordance with industry standards.'

Suppression of Whistle-Blowing

It may not be part of all such settlements, but note that in this case there seemed to be an attempt to shut up the whistle-blower.  So, there is reason to think that justice, such as it was, was delayed because the company seemingly tried to punish the whistle-blower, rather than listen to what she had to say.  Per the Macon Telegraph,

 Darity, 56, said she first reported what she suspected as questionable activities to her supervisors.

'I did exactly what was outlined in the company ethics policy,' she said. 'I wanted to think things were being corrected.'
In time, she realized nothing had changed. She filed an internal whistle-blower complaint.

Her job was eliminated in November 2005, soon after an investigation was launched into her whistle-blower complaint, she said.

Darity had worked for Bard, which has an office in Covington, for more than 18 years. When her job was eliminated, she was a manager in the Brachytherapy Contracts Administration division.

Out of a job, Darity filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in January 2006.

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2013/05/14/2478611/medical-company-agrees-to-pay.html#storylink=cpy

Nonetheless, the government seemingly trusted C R Bard to fix its own behavior going forward, per the Wall Street Journal,

 As part of a non-prosecution agreement, C.R. Bard agreed to pay an additional $2.2 million and take remedial steps to enhance compliance. The company had said in a regulatory filing last year that it expected the settlement to include a corporate integrity agreement, which typically require companies to obey restrictions on their sales and marketing practices, but no such agreement was announced Monday. 

Note that here we discussed a case in which an academic medical institution seemingly tried to punish faculty members who questioned that organization's overly enthusiastic approach to prostate cancer.

Summary - the Profitable but Unsubstantiated Aggressive Approach to Prostate Cancer

So its just another day at the office. This was a typical settlement of allegations of unethical behavior by a large health care organization.    A large health care company allegedly bribed doctors to use its products.  It seemingly tried to shut up a whistle-blower.  Seven years later, the company got a financial slap on the wrist, but no one directly involved in the alleged kickbacks, and no one whose compensation may have been enlarged due to such apparently unethical activity paid a price.  Never mind that the alleged kickbacks may have induced doctors to use treatments that provided no overall benefit, but could have harmed patients. 

Before ending with our usual fulmination, I should note that this case appears to be one small piece in the puzzle of our national infatuation with an aggressive approach to prostate cancer, despite a lack of essentially any good evidence that this approach does any good.  Brachytherapy, the treatment pushed allegedly by kickbacks, is one kind of aggressive treatment for prostate cancer.  Yet there is no good evidence from randomized controlled trials that is prolongs life.  In fact, a recent (and the only major) randomized controlled trial of aggressive treatment of prostate cancer on initial diagnosis failed to show any overall survival benefit.(1)  There has been a huge push to screen all men of a certain age for prostate cancer.  Yet now two new trials also failed to show any overall survival benefit from screening.(2,3)   

But the prostate cancer business is very lucrative.  On the Reforming Health blog, a post summarized a lecture given by Dr Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society in which Dr Brawley described the financial scheme underlying the aggressive approach to prostate cancer,

Brawley recounts an experience he had on a site visit to a hospital in 1998 while an Assistant Director at the National Cancer Institute. During the visit a marketing executive explains to Brawley the publicity value and financial rewards of a free prostate screening program offered by the hospital at a local mall. The plan is to screen the first 1,000 men over 50 who come to the mall for testing. I’ve transcribed Brawley’s recollections from the video and they provide a great explanation for the profit-driven practices that continue to occur today, 14 years later:

'If they screen 1,000 men they’re going to have 145 abnormals. They’re going to charge about $3,000 to figure out what is abnormal about these abnormals, that’s how they pay for the free screening. About 10 of the 145 won’t come to this hospital so that’s business for their competitors, but they’ll get 135 times $3,500 on average. Of the 135, 45 are going to die of prostate cancer and the other percentage are going to get radical prostatectomy at about $30-40,000 a case; there’s a percentage that’s going to get seeds at about $30,000 a case; a percentage were going to get radiation therapy that (at the time) was about $60,000. Then [the marketing executive’s] business plan goes further, he knows how many guys are going to have so much incontinence that diapers aren’t going to do it so he had in his business plan how many artificial sphincters urologists were going to implant. And then he was a little apologetic because there was this new thing called Viagra that screwed up his estimates for how many penile implants he was going to sell because guys were upset about impotence related to prostate cancer treatment.'

Brawley says, 'this is 1998, I ask him, if you screen 1,000 people how many lives are you going to save? He took off his glasses and looked at me like I was some kind of fool and said, ‘Don’t you know, nobody’s ever shown that prostate cancer screening saves lives, I can’t give you an estimate on that.’'

Presumably because he was a marketing executive, the manager whom Brawley quoted did not have to feel doubt about all the men subjected to needless procedures, and who would be at risk of serious and unpleasant adverse effects of these procedures, all to make money but not to prolong their lives.  Of course, not only the hospitals make money, but also quite obviously the companies that sell them the drugs and devices needed for all this medical aggression make money, as do the doctors who go along with it all. 

Now we suspect that one small reason the doctors have gone along with it is that they may have gotten inducements from those companies.

Time to fulminate,...

We will not deter unethical behavior by health care organizations until the people who authorize, direct or implement bad behavior fear some meaningfully negative consequences. Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich.

References

1.  Wilt TJ, Brewer MK, Jones KM et al.  Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer.  N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 203-13.  [Link here]
2.  Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL et al.  Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial.  N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1310-9. [Link here]
3.  Schroder FH, Gugosson J, Roobl MJ et al.  Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study.  N Engl J Med 2009: 360: 1320-8.[Link here]

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2013/05/14/2478611/medical-company-agrees-to-pay.html#storylink=cp

The Myth of the Tough Prosecutor as a Distraction from Health Care Corporate Executives' Impunity

The tragic case of the Boston Marathon bombing illustrates how myth making about tough law enforcement obscures the impunity enjoyed by top health care executives.

A "Tough to a Fault" Prosecutor

A recent Reuters article touted the toughness of the prosecutor who will take on the case of the surviving accused Boston terrorist:

As the top federal law enforcer in Massachusetts, U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz has taken heat for being tough to a fault and coming down too hard on some defendants.

But as she builds a possible death penalty case against suspected Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, the unflinching approach that earned her opponents in the past could become a legal asset for the biggest case of her career, said attorneys who have faced off against her.

'The criticism lately has been that they've over-charged some people and been overly harsh,' said Peter Elikann, a Boston defense attorney.'I don't think that's relevant for Tsarnaev because no one is going to accuse any prosecutor of making too big a deal out of this case.'

Similarly, an article in Bloomberg included this:

Ortiz’s former bosses insist that she’s ready for her moment on the big stage.

'She’s tough-minded and exceptionally professional,' [former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott] Harshbarger said. 

One of the cases cited as an example of Ms Ortiz's toughness was her prosecution of electronic information freedom activist Aaron Swart.  As Rueters noted,

One of Ortiz's best-known cases to date was her prosecution of Aaron Swartz on wire fraud and hacking allegations for downloading millions of articles from an academic database.

Swartz, a 26-year-old computer prodigy, hanged himself in his Brooklyn, New York, apartment in January, prompting friends and family to partly blame Ortiz's prosecution for his death.

At the time, Ms Ortiz was criticized for being unreasonably harsh, but then as now toughness was touted as her style.

Not So Tough on Corporate Crime

However, as we pointed out then, while Ms Ortiz was noted for being tough on individuals accused of various offenses, she was notably not so tough on individuals involved in alleged corporate health care wrong doing.

In particular, as we wrote before, Ms Ortiz was involved in three settlements of notably bad behavior by large health care corporations, none of which involved prosecution of, or any penalties for the individuals at the corporations who authorized, directed or implemented the bad behavior.

Forest Pharmaceuticals
In September, 2010, how Ms Ortiz led the pursuit of a settlement with Forest Pharmaceuticals became apparent (look here).   The company was accused of promoting its anti-depressant Celexa for use in adolescents and children.  Such drugs have since been shown to increase the risk of suicide by such young patients, and this drug was only approved for adults.  At the time, Ms Ortiz said, "Forest Pharmaceuticals deliberately chose to pursue corporate profits over its obligations to the F.D.A. and the American public."  Although the offense may have lead to use of the drug by many adolescents and children, and hence may have lead to some of them attempting or committing suicide, the case was settled only with fines.  As is usual in such legal settlements, no individual corporate executive who authorized or lead the off-label and potentially dangerous marketing of the drug was arrested, or accused, and none suffered any negative consequences.
GlaxoSmithKline
In October, 2010, how Ms Ortiz led the pursuit of a settlement with GlaxoSmithKline became apparent (look here.)  The company was accused of selling drugs that were not what they appeared to be, apparently because the wrong drugs were put in labelled containers.  Obviously, taking one drug, like Paxil, GSK's anti-depressant which has a number of known adverse effects, including suicide risk for adolescents and children as noted above, when a patient is supposed to be taking a wholly different drug could lead to patient harm.  At that time, Ms Ortiz said, "We will not tolerate corporate attempts to profit at the expense of the ill and needy in our society -- or those who cut corners that result in potentially dangerous consequences to consumers."   Again, while the settlement involved a guilty plea by a GSK subsidiary, again no individual corporate executive who had authority over the drug manufacturing was arrested or accused, much less suffered any negative consequences.
St Jude Medical
In January, 2011, Ms Ortiz led the pursuit of a settlement with St Jude Medical (look here).  The company was accused of paying kickbacks to doctors to implant its cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) and pacemakers.  Obviously, providing kickbacks to doctors may have lead them to plant devices in patients who did not really need them, yet the devices and the implantation procedures can have adverse effects.  At that time, Ms Ortiz said, "The United States alleges that St Jude solicited physicians for the studies in order to retain their business and/or convert their business from a competitor's product."  Again, as is usual, the settlement did not require any executive who authorized or directed the activities leading to the kickbacks suffered any negative consequences.


Despite this, note that Bloomberg in its recent coverage of the Tsarnaev prosecution even tried to make Ms Ortiz failure to hold any individuals accountable for this health care corporate misbehavior seem like tough prosecution.

The office has been a leader in health-care fraud prosecutions, securing $4 billion in civil and health-care recoveries in 2012. Those included a $3 billion payment from GlaxoSmithKline Plc (GSK), which pleaded guilty to charges that it illegally promoted prescription drugs. 

Again, note that apparently being a "leader" in health care fraud prosecution involved pushing for big fines to be paid by the corporations involved in actions that may have harmed many patients, but no punishment for  the individuals who may have authorized, directed or implemented the bad behavior, but being "tough" on Aaron Swartz involved pushing for a long imprisonment of someone whose alleged crime was not violent, and did not result in anyone being hurt.


Summary

As we have noted again and again and again, leaders of large health care organizations, particularly the largest health care corporations, seem to enjoy virtual impunity.  No matter how bad the behavior of the corporations which they are supposed to be leading, and no matter whether such behavior might have harmed patients, they almost never have to face any negative consequences, especially not fines they must pay themselves, much less prison time.  We have documented many legal settlements of often egregiously bad alleged behavior that did not involve any penalties for top corporate leaders.

One way corporate leaders thus escape accountability seems to be the cultivation of myths that distract the public from what is going on.  One such urban legend seems to be the toughness of government prosecutors.  If prosecutors are believed to be uniformly tough and uncompromising, then the public may be lead to believe either that they are tough and uncompromising on corporate crime   

As we have said repeatedly, true health care reform would require making the leaders of health care organizations accountable, especially for the effects of their actions on patients' and the public's health.

A Condemnation of Suppression of Medical Research... by Ben Goldacre in the New York Times

Amazingly, this topic now seems to be in the mainstream.

The Goldacre Version in the New York Times in 2013

In his op-ed, Ben Goldacre introduced it thus:

the entire evidence base for medicine has been undermined by a casual lack of transparency. Sometimes this is through a failure to report concerns raised by doctors and internal analyses, as was the case with Johnson & Johnson. More commonly, it involves the suppression of clinical trial results, especially when they show a drug is no good.

He noted that this problems was supposed to be fixed by the registration of clinical trials, and by changes in editorial policies at medical journals:

many in the industry now claim it has been fixed. But every intervention has been full of loopholes, none has been competently implemented and, lastly, with no routine public audit, flaws have taken years to emerge.

 The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 is the most widely cited fix. It required that new clinical trials conducted in the United States post summaries of their results at clinicaltrials.gov within a year of completion, or face a fine of $10,000 a day.  But in 2012, the British Medical Journal published the first open audit of the process, which found that four out of five trials covered by the legislation had ignored the reporting requirements. Amazingly, no fine has yet been levied. 

An earlier fake fix dates from 2005, when the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors made an announcement: their members would never again publish any clinical trial unless its existence had been declared on a publicly accessible registry before the trial began. The reasoning was simple: if everyone registered their trials at the beginning, we could easily spot which results were withheld; and since everyone wants to publish in prominent academic journals, these editors had the perfect carrot. Once again, everyone assumed the problem had been fixed. 

But four years later we discovered, in a paper from The Journal of the American Medical Association, that the editors had broken their promise: more than half of all trials published in leading journals still weren’t properly registered, and a quarter weren’t registered at all. 

Goldacre's conclusions were:

Withholding data not only misleads doctors and patients; it’s an insult to the patients who have participated in clinical trials, believing that they were helping to improve medical knowledge. 

Medicine routinely overcomes enormous technical challenges, and there is nothing complicated about the changes needed to prevent Johnson & Johnson, or Roche — or anybody — from withholding information.

Hear, hear!

Our Version, Starting in 2003

Note that 10 years ago, in 2003, in my article on American health care dysfunction that could have been only published in Europe, (Poses RM. A cautionary tale: the dysfunction of American health care. Eur J Intern Med 2003 Mar;14(2):123-130.  Link here)  I noted that an important cause of this dysfunction is that:

the scientific basis of medicine is increasingly under attack.

The integrity of medical research has been violated by the deliberate suppression of its results.

At that time, I suggested one solution would be:

Medical schools and universities must re-affirm their support of scholarly work in the spirit of free enquiry,...

Furthermore, in one of our first posts on Health Care Renewal in December, 2004, in the context of the discovery of internal company documents (in this case, from Eli Lilly) that showed that information about the adverse effects of a drug (in this case, increased aggression associated with fluoxetine, that is, Prozac), we wrote,

The increasingly complex story of suppression of SSRI research seems to be part of a growing epidemic of suppression of medical research.

Let's say it again. Withholding data from clinical research is unethical because:
1. it breaks the promise to research subjects that their voluntary participation has scientific or social value, but undisseminated research has no value; (See Emanuel EJ et al. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 2000; 283: 2701-2711.)
2. it impedes scientific progress;
3. it prevents patients from receiving the best possible medical care.

But until this unethical behavior starts having negative consequences for its perpetrators, the epidemic of research suppression is likely to continue. 

Note the similarity to what Goldacre published in the Times yesterday.  You heard it here first.

Summary

To date we have published 102 posts with the label "suppression of medical research."  Obviously, Ben Goldacre's NY Times op-ed shows that suppression of research still rarely leads to negative consequences for its perpetrators.  Obviously, by making drugs, devices, and other health care interventions appear safer and more effective than they really are, suppression of medical research has lead to huge revenues for health care corporations, and has made many health care executives exceedingly rich, and many of the health care professionals and academic leaders who have enabled or implemented research suppression somewhat rich.  In the face of such perverse incentives, until we end the impunity of those who suppress medical research (and by the way, those who authorize, direct, or implement all sorts of other unethical, criminal and corrupt behavior we discuss on Health Care Renewal) things will not get better.  I can only hope that having this subject appear in a New York Times op-ed may lead to some real progress.

ADDENDUM (2 February, 2013) - see also comments on 1BoringOldMan blog. 

"Slap on the Wrist" for a "Too Big to Fail" Hospital - Judge Rejects WakeMed Settlement

Maybe we are reaching an inflection point in how misbehavior by big health care organizations is handled in the US legal system. 

We have frequently discussed the march of legal settlements made by big health care organizations.  Many of these settlements indicated severely bad behavior, often behavior that seemed overtly dishonest, sometimes criminal, and had the potential to harm patients.  Yet most of these settlements involved only fines, and sometimes written agreements that pledge the organization will do better in the future, often in the form of deferred prosecution or corporate integrity agreements.  Yet the fines were often small compared to the amount the organization stood to make from the bad behavior.  It is not clear that any written agreements were enforced, or caused major penalties if the organization did not fulfill them.  And almost never did any individual within the accused organization suffer any negative consequences for authorizing, directing or implementing the bad behavior, even if such individuals may have personally profited from high compensation partially fueled by the bad behavior.

Now and then, though, there are cases that are different.  Perhaps one has just come along that may signal things are going to change.

The Basics of the Case

The case was first reported by the Raleigh (NC)  News & Observer in December, 2012.  Here are the basics:

WakeMed has agreed to pay $8 million to settle an investigation into its practice of billing Medicare for expensive overnight care when the patients had been treated and discharged the same day.

The settlement came after a lengthy criminal investigation into Medicare billing procedures used by nurses at the private, not-for-profit hospital’s Heart Center Observation Area.

Nurses there, according to federal court documents, routinely ignored physicians’ orders for how a patient should be classified. Their actions resulted in the hospital receiving millions of unwarranted Medicare dollars for outpatients who were classified wrongly as inpatients.

Though some WakeMed managers were aware of the billing practices, according to court documents, investigators found no evidence of anyone personally benefiting from the system.

No one, according to WakeMed officials, lost their job or was disciplined because of the investigation. 

The US Attorney made the usual sort of announcement:

'This case will serve as a reminder that hospitals, just like individual health care providers, will be held accountable for their actions,' [Thomas] Walker, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, said in a statement.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/12/19/2555092/wakemed-admits-to-false-medicare.html#storylink=cpy

So far, this is pretty usual.  There were accusations of inflated billing, a monetary fine that might look big to the average citizen, but that pales next to the revenue of the offending organization (over $943 million in the 2010-2011 fiscal year according to the WakeMed 2011 US form 990),a stern statement by the US Attorney, but again no penalties for any individual, and here, a rather implausible statement that no one benefited from the deceptive practices.

However, there were also some immediately appreciable atypical elements to this case.

Atypical Elements

In addition to the fine to be paid, the case was to be settled using a deferred prosecution agreement:

The hospital faces two criminal charges – making material false statements relating to health care matters and aiding and abetting, but under the settlement reached Wednesday, prosecution will be deferred. If the hospital complies with provisions in the settlement agreement, such as paying $8 million and allowing further monitoring, the charges will be dismissed in two years, according to court documents.

As part of the agreement, which has yet to be approved in court, [Wakemed CEO Bill] Atkinson acknowledged the wrongdoing described by prosecutors. He further acknowledged that WakeMed was responsible for the acts of the health-care organization’s employees and officers.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/12/19/2555092/wakemed-admits-to-false-medicare.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/12/19/2555092/wakemed-admits-to-false-medicare.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/12/19/2555092/wakemed-admits-to-false-medicare.html#storylink=cpy

While we have sometimes seen deferred prosecution agreements used in cases in which for-profit health care corporations were accused of violating the law, they are rarely used in cases involving non-profit hospitals.  (The biggest one I recall was that of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, a complex case we started discussing in 2005.  See relevant posts here.)  Criminal charges against a non-profit hospital are also unusual.  Note also that as stated above the hospital system CEO seemed to admit that the hospital did wrong, raising further doubt about the conclusion above that no individual personally profited.

The plot further thickened when the CEO seemed to contradict his own statement within the deferred prosecution agreement that acknowledged wrong-doing.

In an interview Wednesday, Bill Atkinson, WakeMed’s president and CEO, wavered between accepting the charges – saying repeatedly  'I don’t want to minimize it, and I don’t want you to hear me doing that' – and being adamant that the hospital’s actions were simply a misinterpretation of complicated federal Medicare guidelines.

Even though he endorsed a settlement agreement in which prosecutors contend two crimes occurred, Atkinson said he doesn’t believe the hospital’s actions were criminal.

'I don’t think so, but the federal government thinks they could certainly turn it that way,' he said. That description differs vastly from what prosecutors contend. 'They’re not going to minimize the media effect,' Atkinson said.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/12/19/2555092/wakemed-admits-to-false-medicare.html#storylink=cpy

The plot thickened further when in the same interview Atkinson seemed to deny that any individual did anything wrong:

Heidi McAfee, who retired earlier this year, was director of Patient Access during much of the period when the problematic billing occurred. Efforts to reach McAfee on Wednesday were unsuccessful, but Atkinson praised her years of work with WakeMed.

'Do I think anybody intentionally did anything wrong?' Atkinson said. 'No, I don’t.'

He said WakeMed had not reported McAfee or any of the nurses to the N.C. Board of Nursing for ignoring doctor’s orders. 

So did the hospital acknowledge wrongdoing, or did it not?  If wrongdoing did occur, did any individual do it, or was it done by ghosts or spirits?  From this account, it was unclear.

This Time the Inconsistencies and Ambiguities are not Ignored

Many of the settlements we have discussed seem to have been based on similar illogic.  For example, they often involved accusations of bad behavior, often bad enough to put patients at danger, yet the settlements may included ritualistic statements by defendant organizations that they neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing.  Thus, the settlements left ambiguous and unknown what really happened, and their own appropriateness.  (Note that similar settlements are made all the time by big financial firms, and one intrepid judge did point out how little sense they make, see this post.)

Yet in most cases, the illogic is rapidly swept under the rug, noticed, if at all, by lowly outsiders like your humble bloggers on Health Care Renewal.

This time, though, it was different.

Why Would the Nurses Ignore Doctors' Orders?

An important part of the argument by the US Department of Justice in this case was that nurses "routinely ignored doctors' orders."  If it were true, this would be very unusual and would threaten the integrity of health care at the particular institution, since every hospital operates on the assumption that the doctors make management decisions and order tests, treatments, etc, and then the nurses, as well as technicians and therapists carry out these orders.

However, In this case, a local nurse immediately and publicly disputed the notion that the nurses were independently flouting the doctors' orders.  As reported again by the News & Observer in December, 2012,

When Vicki Hewitt-McNeil read about WakeMed’s $8 million settlement for wrong Medicare billing, the Raleigh nurse didn’t buy the story.

According to the settlement, a nursing director instructed her staff to admit patients as inpatients and ignore doctors’ orders to treat them on the less expensive outpatient basis.

With two decades of nursing experience, Hewitt-McNeil didn’t like that the blame was shifted down the totem pole to nurses, who don’t wield the power of administrators and doctors.

'I honestly cannot believe this was the nursing department that did this,' Hewitt-McNeil said. 'That’s just not possible.'

 Furthermore,

[Ms Hewitt-McNeil]  also worked shifts at WakeMed as a pool nurse, similar to working as a substitute teacher. 'Nurses at WakeMed don’t have the autonomy to do anything,' Hewitt-McNeil said. 'You have to call a doctor for everything.'

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/12/22/2561738/nurse-rejects-wakemeds-claim-that.html#storylink=cpy

Again, the contention that the nurses systematically disobeyed doctors or pretended to be following non-existent orders implied a fundamental break-down of the system and widespread unprofessional, unethical behavior by the nurses.  In addition, the charges did not suggest why the nurses would do something so bad, especially since they were in no position to personally benefit from their actions.

 What Did the Hospital Leadership Actually Admit?

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/12/22/2561738/nurse-rejects-wakemeds-claim-that.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/12/22/2561738/nurse-rejects-wakemeds-claim-that.html#storylink=cpy

It took a few weeks, but someone - it is not clear who it was - noticed that while the Department of Justice asserted that the hospital CEO had admitted wrongdoing, the CEO's public statement seemed to equivocate.  So in mid January, 2013, as reported again by the News & Observer,

Deb Laughery, a spokeswoman for the hospital, issued a clarification on Monday.

'In an abundance of caution, WakeMed confirms that it has agreed to a settlement with the United States as set forth in the Deferred Prosecution Agreement,' the statement said, adding further that statements of fact laid out in the agreement were 'true and accurate.'

In the clarification, WakeMed officials acknowledged that the hospital formally faced federal criminal charges. The hospital also retracted any suggestions that the settlement only involved a small number of cases.

The hospital public relations person apparently could not bring herself to say that the hospital admitted wrongdoing, but by acknowledging that statements of fact in the deferred prosecution agreement were "true and accurate," she seemed to be indirectly admitting again that wrongdoing occurred, and that the hospital was responsible for the actions of its employees.

The Judge Notices the Emperor Has No Clothes

Despite their internal inconsistencies and illogic, most legal settlements of accusations of wrongdoing by big health care organizations are accepted by judges.  In this case, again things were different.  As reported yesterday, on 17 January, 2013 again by the News & Observer,

 WakeMed officials and federal prosecutors spent two years hammering out an $8 million proposal to settle a Medicare fraud investigation.

A federal judge shredded the 116-page agreement in less than 30 minutes on Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle ticked off a list of his grievances about the proposal, forcing federal prosecutors into the unusual position of defending the defendants.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/01/17/2614178/judge-refuses-to-accept-wakemed.html#storylink=cpy

Quelle surprise!  The judge took particular offense that the settlement seemed disproportionately lenient,

 The agreement, Boyle said, appeared to be a 'slap on the hand' for a 'too big to fail' corporate giant. Only the day before, Boyle told the lawyers, he sentenced a woman to a year in prison in a $235,000 insurance fraud case.

Furthermore, 

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/01/17/2614178/judge-refuses-to-accept-wakemed.html#storylink=cpy

Boyle was irked that no criminal charges had been filed in the case. He ended the hearing by telling the prosecutor either to fold his briefcase or take it to a federal grand jury for official indictments.

'There are lots of corporations that steal from the government,' Boyle said. 'Most of them are convicted, fined and banished.'

Also,

'Why are you coming to court if you tell me you don’t need me?' Boyle asked Gilmore, the prosecutor who rose before him Thursday. 'I’m just window dressing in this case.'

'Why not take a guilty plea, defer imposition of the judgment and sentence, and come back in two years later and take a post hoc dismissal?' Boyle asked later.

Boyle lamented the increased number of health care fraud cases across the country.

'Who are the victims in this case?' Boyle asked before answering his own question. 'Every American wage earner and every American citizen.'

Boyle continued: 'It’s very difficult for society and the court to differentiate between the everyday working Joe or Jane who goes to prison and the nonprofit corporate giant who doesn’t go to jail, who gets a slap on the hand and doesn’t miss a beat.'

Exactly.   And finally, just to demonstrate the sense of impunity of the leadership of this particular nonprofit corporate giant

Boyle, who’s been a federal judge for 28 years, also criticized WakeMed for failing to send a top administrator or a board member to answer his questions. It’s rare for a criminal case to be resolved without a defendant at the defense table.

Deb Laughery, a WakeMed spokeswoman, said after the hearing that none attended because the board approved a resolution earlier in the week supporting the proposed settlement.

Summary

For years now the leadership of large health care organizations have grown rich while denying accountability for their actions that made this so.  This denial has been largely abetted by governmental regulators and law enforcers, who while often recognizing that corporate misbehavior has occurred, have seemed unable or unwilling to pursue anything but the most lenient resolutions of such cases.  These resolutions are often fines that might appear big to gullible members of the public, but are actually small in comparison to the money to be made; sometimes deferred prosecution and corporate integrity agreements that rarely are enforced; and almost never any negative consequences for the people who authorized, directed, or implemented the bad behavior.  Thus the leaders of health care organizations have enjoyed impunity, have become the new untouchables, and thus health care organizations become ever better at raking in money and ever worse at providing good health care.

As I have said again and again,  until the people responsible for the bad behavior experience negative consequences from that behavior, they will continue to perform, direct, and condone bad behavior. We will not achieve real health care reform in the US until we effectively deter unethical, self-serving behavior by leaders of health care organizations.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/01/17/2614178/judge-refuses-to-accept-wakemed.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/01/17/2614178/judge-refuses-to-accept-wakemed.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/01/17/2614178/judge-refuses-to-accept-wakemed.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/01/15/2607671/wakemed-clarifies-statements-on.html#storylink=cpy

The Tragic Case of Aaron Swartz: Unequal Justice for Web Activists vs Health Care Corporate Executives

The recent tragic case of the suicide of Aaron Swartz raises many issues, and has inspired an outpouring of news coverage and internet discussion.  Yet one issue it should raise that has not received much notice so far is that of how individuals and top executives are treated differently before the law.

Summary of the Case

Aaron Swartz was a prodigy who developed  helped develop the RSS system for disseminating updates on web-site contents, and who helped develop the Reddit web-site.  He was an advocate for information freedom, and more broadly, according to Matt Stoller, "a political activist interested in health care, financial corruption, and the drug war."  Furthermore, he "recognized that politics is a corrupt money driven system, but also that it could be cracked if you spent the time to understand the moving parts."

Although apparently very well known among internet activists and computer scientists, Mr Swartz did not attract a lot of mainstream media attention, at least until 2011 when he was arrested "on a series of felony counts including wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and recklessly damaging a protected computer," according to the New York Times.  His alleged crime was that he downloaded thousands of scientific scholarly articles from the site JSTOR, and was accused of intending to make them publicly available for free.  Note that the articles were already publicly available, but only online through expensive subscriptions.  At the time, the US Department of Justice took this to be a very serious crime:

'Stealing is stealing, whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars,' the United States attorney for Massachusetts, Carmen M. Ortiz, said last week in a statement about the case. 'It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away.' 

The charges Ms Ortiz filed lead to Mr Swartz's arrest

on a series of felony counts including wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on all counts, the Justice Department said he could face up to 35 years in prison and $1 million in fines. 

Yet Mr Swartz certainly was not accused of either violence or of planning to personally profit from his alleged crimes.  At the time of his arrest, the severity of the allegations baffled many:

 'This makes no sense,' said David Segal, executive director of Demand Progress, an organization Mr. Swartz founded to rally support online for an open Internet. 'It’s like trying to put someone in jail for allegedly checking too many books out of the library.'

JSTOR got the hard drives that contained the articles in question back from Mr Swartz, and planned no further action:

Asked if it was pleased that someone misusing the service could be brought to justice, a spokeswoman for Jstor wrote in an e-mail response: 'We wanted the content back, and we were able to secure it and ensure it wasn’t distributed. We were not interested in further legal action around this incident. We have no comment on the prosecution or how they have chosen to characterize it.'

Since 2011 the case got little notice until Mr Swartz ended his own life this month.  After his death, his family and partner issued a statement, as reported by the Guardian:

In a statement released late Saturday, Swartz's parents, Robert and Susan, siblings Noah and Ben and partner Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman said the Redditt builder's demise was not just a 'personal tragedy' but 'the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach'.

They also attacked the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for not supporting the internet activist in his legal battles and refusing to stand up for 'its own community's most cherished principles'.

And according to the New York Times (via CNBC), Harvard Professor Larry Lessig, Director of the Safra Center for Ethics, where Swartz had been a fellow protested

the idea that he could have seen serious prison time was infuriating. Lawrence Lessig, the Harvard Law professor who founded Creative Commons to advocate greater sharing of creative material online, called the prosecution's case absurd and said that boxing in Mr. Swartz with an aggressive case and little ability to mount a defense ''made it make sense to this brilliant but troubled boy to end it.'

 Hounding Swartz but Failing to Pursue Health Care Corporate Executives

The Daily Beast just ran a story that suggests that Swartz should have known better to have done something that would have attracted the wrath of one of the toughest federal prosecutors, but one who is also a "liberal's dream."  It opened its piece on US Attorney Carmen Ortiz thus:

 Until she was accused of driving the 26-year-old cyber wunderkind and public-access activist Aaron Swartz to suicide, the top federal prosecutor in Massachusetts was a liberal’s dream.

 Not for nothing was United States Attorney Carmen Ortiz championed by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy and appointed by President Obama nearly four years ago.

Then, it suggested how tough Ms Ortiz really is:

She is Hispanic and was raised in a New York housing project, and after her husband died of cancer she raised two daughters on her own. She has taken on political corruption, and she has been so aggressive against white-collar crime that her office collected more in forfeitures and fines than any other jurisdiction in the country.

Her avowed motive in becoming a prosecutor was because 'there’s a greater chance for justice.'

that is a pretty amazing summary.  However, it seems decidedly at odds with Ms Ortiz's record dealing with misdeeds by health care corporations, as discussed on Health Care Renewal.  Ms Ortiz, whose harsh views of Swartz appear above, has been quoted at least three times about three different cases on this blog.  In all instances, her quotes were in the context of legal settlements she made with large health care corporations.

Forest Pharmaceuticals

In September, 2010, how Ms Ortiz led the pursuit of a settlement with Forest Pharmaceuticals became apparent (look here).   The company was accused of promoting its anti-depressant Celexa for use in adolescents and children.  Such drugs have since been shown to increase the risk of suicide by such young patients, and this drug was only approved for adults.  At the time, Ms Ortiz said, "Forest Pharmaceuticals deliberately chose to pursue corporate profits over its obligations to the F.D.A. and the American public."  Although the offense may have lead to use of the drug by many adolescents and children, and hence may have lead to some of them attempting or committing suicide, the case was settled only with fines.  As is usual in such legal settlements, no individual corporate executive who authorized or lead the off-label and potentially dangerous marketing of the drug was arrested, or accused, and none suffered any negative consequences.

GlaxoSmithKline

In October, 2010, how Ms Ortiz led the pursuit of a settlement with GlaxoSmithKline became apparent (look here.)  The company was accused of selling drugs that were not what they appeared to be, apparently because the wrong drugs were put in labelled containers.  Obviously, taking one drug, like Paxil, GSK's anti-depressant which has a number of known adverse effects, including suicide risk for adolescents and children as noted above, when a patient is supposed to be taking a wholly different drug could lead to patient harm.  At that time, Ms Ortiz said, "We will not tolerate corporate attempts to profit at the expense of the ill and needy in our society -- or those who cut corners that result in potentially dangerous consequences to consumers."   Again, while the settlement involved a guilty plea by a GSK subsidiary, again no individual corporate executive who had authority over the drug manufacturing was arrested or accused, much less suffered any negative consequences.

St Jude Medical

In January, 2011, Ms Ortiz led the pursuit of a settlement with St Jude Medical (look here).  The company was accused of paying kickbacks to doctors to implant its cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) and pacemakers.  Obviously, providing kickbacks to doctors may have lead them to plant devices in patients who did not really need them, yet the devices and the implantation procedures can have adverse effects.  At that time, Ms Ortiz said, "The United States alleges that St Jude solicited physicians for the studies in order to retain their business and/or convert their business from a competitor's product."  Again, as is usual, the settlement did not require any executive who authorized or directed the activities leading to the kickbacks suffered any negative consequences.

So in summary, in three major cases involving unethical practices by big health care corporations that could have put patients at risk, US Attorney Carmen Ortiz provided strong words, but did not apparently seek any punishment of any form of any of the corporate leaders who authorized or directed the bad, and potentially dangerous behavior.  Yet in the sorry case of Aaron Swartz, Ms Ortiz charged a gifted computer activist whose alleged crimes certainly did not put any individuals at risk of adverse medical effects or any bad physical outcomes with crimes that if proven would have lead to years in jail and millions in fines for him as an individual.

Equal Justice Under the Law?

So it seems ironic, or worse, that the main narrative of the Swartz case has become: well meaning but reckless hacker versus implacably tough law enforcer.  As noted above, Ms Ortiz's office appeared anything but tough when dealing with misdeeds by big pharmaceutical and device companies.  So the real question is why she went after Mr Swartz so relentlessly, when his alleged crime was non-violent and physically hurt nobody, when she failed to pursue corporate executives who enriched themselves while leading companies whose unethical practices likely harmed a lot of patients.

In that light, the dark imaginings of Matt Stoller do not seem so far-fetched.  On Naked Capitalism he wrote,

 As we think about what happened to Aaron, we need to recognize that it was not just prosecutorial overreach that killed him. That’s too easy, because that implies it’s one bad apple. We know that’s not true. What killed him was corruption. Corruption isn’t just people profiting from betraying the public interest. It’s also people being punished for upholding the public interest. In our institutions of power, when you do the right thing and challenge abusive power, you end up destroying a job prospect, an economic opportunity, a political or social connection, or an opportunity for media. Or if you are truly dangerous and brilliantly subversive, as Aaron was, you are bankrupted and destroyed.

I did not know Aaron Swartz, but am very sorry that we have lost someone so intelligent and imaginative.  I hope one question that his untimely death raises is what has become of the idea of equal justice under the law, and how its apparent demise has enabled the dysfunction of our health care system, and our whole society. 

Pfizer's Pfourteenth Settlement - a Small Reminder of Continuing Impunity

Well, that did not take long.  Less than a month after its last legal settlements were announced, Pfizer had to settle again.

The Details of the Settlement

This case, involving charges filed by the Texas Attorney General, was only reported locally, e.g., here in the Houston Business Journal:

The state of Texas will receive more than $36 million from two civil Medicaid fraud settlements with Pfizer Inc and Endo Pharmaceuticals,  Attorney General Greg Abbott said Friday.

Both companies will pay $18.17 million to the state, plus attorney fees and relator shares. The federal government is also entitled to a share of the total settlement, Abbott’s statement said.

As usual, the settlement was about deceptions:

 State and federal law requires drug companies disclose to the Medicaid program the prices they charge pharmacies, wholesalers and distributors for their products. Texas’ lawsuits claimed the companies misreported the price of various generic drugs and overcharged Medicaid for certain products.

As usual, Pfizer had excuses:
 

In the Pfizer settlement, the state’s investigation originally targeted entities that are now wholly owned subsidiaries of Pfizer.

In making the settlements, neither company is admitting to any wrongdoing.

New York-based Pfizer released a statement saying the safety of its subsidiaries’ products was not an issue of the investigation and Pfizer was not a target or subject of the case.

'Pfizer’s subsidiaries are resolving this investigation to avoid the further time and cost of litigation,' the company said in its statement. 'The majority of the Texas investigation focused on reporting that took place prior to the subsidiaries being acquired by Pfizer. The company remains committed to providing accurate pricing information to the Texas Medicaid program and providing quality pharmaceutical products to the citizens of Texas.'

 Of course, Pfizer acquired the companies (which were listed in the settlement document as ESI Lederle, Lederle Labs, and Pharmacia) in order to make money from them.  Furthermore, in acquiring the subsidiaries, Pfizer assumed responsibility for them and their actions.

As usual, there was no hint in the minimalist coverage of this settlement of any sort of negative consequences for anyone who authorized, directed, or implemented the relevant behavior, which did involve deception upon the government of Texas.

Nobody Held Responsible, Even After 14 Settlements

As is also usual, there was no mention in the media coverage, or the settlement document that Pfizer has made numerous other settlements in the recent past.   By my best count, the total was up to thirteen from the beginning of the 21st century to the present, as most recently tabulated here, and listed in the Appendix below.  (There may easily have been more that I missed.)

At the time of the twelfth and thirteenth settlements, we wondered whether the sheer volume of documentation of Pfizer's actions, and the sheer number of legal actions against it would finally lead to the end of the impunity of Pfizer's leaders.  After all, one would think that if the town drunk showed up in court for his fourteenth drunk driving charge, the book would be figuratively thrown at him.  Instead, at best, Pfizer had a wet noodle thrown at it.  The costs of this settlement, and even the cumulative costs of all the previous ones over time just added up to costs of doing business.  And these costs were not paid by the people who profited the most from the bad behavior, but were diffused among all stock-holders, employees, patients, and payers. 

Of course, leadership and governance of Pfizer is by some very fancy people indeed, and our society has not been good lately at holding such fancy people to any standards whatsoever.

 The sorts of practices discussed in Pfizer's multiple settlements have added to the revenue that have helped a lot of people live in the style to which they have become accustomed.  Pfizer has had some very, very well paid executives.  In 2011, according to the company's 2012 proxy statement, its CEO, Ian Read, got more than $25 million, that is to repeat more than twenty-five million dollars, count them, in total compensation.  All the rest of its named executive officers got more than $5 million in total compensation.  That 2012 report justified this other worldly munificence in part because

 We continued to improve our reputation in society through engagement with our customers, our shareholders, and the investor community.

Really, after now 14 settlements? 

The issue of the impunity of leaders of large organizations has finally made it to the big time.  For example, a New York Times editorial called the latest US government settlement with the large banks whose exploitative mortgage practices helped to usher in the global financial collapse or great recession "another slap on the wrist."  Writ large, continuing impunity is the sort of problem that indicates a degree of societal corruption that can destroy particular civilizations.

I am just a simple country doctor and can only do my small part to keep the barbarians outside the gate, but at least those who care about what has gone wrong with health care ought to be calling for vigorous, impartial law enforcement that holds leaders of health care organizations accountable for wrong-doing, and in general, changes that make leaders of health care organizations broadly accountable for their actions.

There are some luminaries from health care and academia on the current Pfizer board, like  Dennis A. Ausiello, M.D.,
Jackson Professor of Clinical Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Chief of Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital;  Frances D. Fergusson, Ph.D., President Emeritus of Vassar College; Helen H. Hobbs, M.D., Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute since 2002, is a Professor of Internal Medicine and Molecular Genetics and Director of the McDermott Center for Human Growth and Development at the University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center; and Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Ph.D., President of The Rockefeller University since March 2011. Maybe some people at their base institutions ought to be asking them about Pfizer's multiple ethical lapses and what they are doing to make its leadership more accountable. 

APPENDIX - Pfizer's Settlements

In the beginning of the 21st century, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Pfizer made three major settlements,

October 2002: Pfizer and subsidiaries Warner-Lambert and Parke-Davis agreed to pay $49 million to settle allegations that the company fraudulently avoided paying fully rebates owed to the state and federal governments under the national Medicaid Rebate program for the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor.

May 2004: Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million to settle DOJ claims involving the off-label promotion of the epilepsy drug Neurontin by subsidiary Warner-Lambert. The promotions included flying doctors to lavish resorts and paying them hefty speakers' fees to tout the drug. The company said the activity took place years before it bought Warner-Lambert in 2000.

April 2007: Pfizer agreed to pay $34.7 million in fines to settle Department of Justice allegations that it improperly promoted the human growth hormone product Genotropin. The drugmaker's Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. subsidiary pleaded guilty to offering a kickback to a pharmacy-benefits manager to sell more of the drug.

Thereafter, Pfizer paid a $2.3 billion settlement in 2009 of civil and criminal allegations and a Pfizer subsidiary entered a guilty plea to charges it violated federal law regarding its marketing of Bextra (see post here).  Pfizer was involved in two other major cases from then to early 2010, including one in which a jury found the company guilty of violating the RICO (racketeer-influenced corrupt organization) statute (see post here).  The company was listed as one of the pharmaceutical "big four" companies in terms of defrauding the government (see post here).  Pfizer's Pharmacia subsidiary settled allegations that it inflated drugs costs paid by New York in early 2011 (see post here).   In March, 2011, a settlement was announced in a long-running class action case which involved allegations that another Pfizer subsidiary had exposed many people to asbestos (see this story in Bloomberg).  In October, 2011, Pfizer settled allegations that it illegally marketed bladder control drug Detrol (see this post). Finally, in August, 2012, Pfizer settled allegations that its subsidiaries bribed foreign (that is, with respect to the US) government officials, including government-employed doctors (see this post).

In December, 2012, Pfizer settled federal charges that its Wyeth subsidiary deceptively marketed the proton pump inhibitor drug Protonix, using systematic efforts to deceive approved by top management, and settled charges by multiple states' Attorneys' General that it deceptively marketed Zyvox and Lyrica (see this post).  

Amgen Settles, Pleads Guilty to Misbranding Aranesp

Now it's Amgen's turn to settle and plead.  Per the New York Times,

The biotechnology giant Amgen marketed its anemia drug Aranesp for unapproved uses even after the Food and Drug Administration explicitly ruled them out, federal prosecutors said on Tuesday.

 The federal charges were made public as Amgen pleaded guilty to illegally marketing the drug and agreed to pay $762 million in criminal penalties and settlements of whistle-blower lawsuits.

Amgen was 'pursuing profits at the risk of patient safety' Marshall L. Miller, acting United States attorney in Brooklyn, said in a telephone news briefing on Tuesday.

David J. Scott, Amgen’s general counsel, entered the guilty plea at the United States District Court in Brooklyn to a single misdemeanor count of misbranding the drug, Aranesp, meaning selling it for uses not approved by the F.D.A.

Amgen agreed to pay $136 million in criminal fines and forfeit $14 million, with about $612 million going to settle civil litigation. 

The article noted the key charge against Amgen,

 In court on Tuesday, prosecutors charged that Amgen had promoted the use of Aranesp to treat anemia in cancer patients who were not undergoing chemotherapy, even though the drug’s approval was only for patients receiving chemotherapy.

A subsequent study sponsored by Amgen showed that use of Aranesp by those nonchemotherapy cancer patients had actually increased the risk of death, and the off-label use diminished. 

Also,

 The federal charges also say Amgen promoted using larger but less frequent injection of Aranesp than stated in the label as a way of making the drug more attractive to doctors and patients than Procrit, a rival anemia drug from Johnson & Johnson. 

As is typical of such cases, the prosecutors could not figure out how to charge any individuals who might have authorized, directed, or implemented the bad behavior,

 Mr. Miller said that the evidence in the Amgen case was not sufficient to charge individuals. However, he said, Amgen agreed to sign a corporate integrity agreement that requires executives and board members to personally certify compliance with regulations. That would make it easier to prosecute individuals should violations occur again, he said. 

The Charges in Context

In some reports of the settlement, the issue appeared to be money.  For example, Pharmalot reported that after a whistle-blower filed suit against Amgen, "a subsequent investigation by the Justice Department found that these practices induced physicians to use Amgen medications unnecessarily when lower cost alternatives were available."

However, Amgen's practices could have had much worse effects than just removing money from the US Treasury.

Consider the context.  Only a few of the not very numerous articles in the media on this case noted that the key complaint was that Amgen was pushing use of Aranesp for patients with cancer, specifically those not receiving chemotherapy.   (Reuters made this explicit, for example, but not so the Los Angeles Times, or Bloomberg's initial coverage.)

 In fact, there has been concern about the adverse effects of Aranesp for patients with cancer for a while.  In 2007, Khuri noted in a commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine(1) that "concern about a detrimental effect of ESAs [erythropoiesis stimulating agents, a class of drugs of which Aranesp is a prominent member] in patients with cancer arose" after results of a small clinical trial of epoetin beta in patients with oral, pharyngeal or laryngeal cancer receiving radiation therapy showed worse survival in patients receiving that drug.  Subsequently, in 2008, a meta-analysis of multiple randomized clinical trials showed that patients with cancer receiving ESAs, including Aranesp, had an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (drug clots) and death.(2)  In 2009,  another meta-analysis showed that ESAs lead to decreased survival in patients with cancer.(3)

Recall, though, that Aranesp is meant to improve anemia.  It was not meant to cure cancer, or even put the disease into remission.  Its use therefore was mainly adjunctive.  Thus, it appears its benefits for cancer patients (improved anemia, and possibly decrease in such symptoms as fatigue) could not outweigh its harms (including hastening death).

So the issue was not merely that Amgen was promoting a drug in an instance in which its use had not been improved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or that such use of the drug was unnecessarily costly.  The issue was that Amgen was promoting a drug that had no proven benefits for the patients, but could hasten their death.  It appears that Amgen was pursuing profits at the expense of lives.

Summary

So it is particularly disturbing that no individual apparently will be held responsible for the promotion of Aranesp for patients for whom its use might prove fatal.  The assurance that the proposed corporate integrity agreement will prevent further abuse is notably hollow.  I can recall no recent case in which the government authorities have used such an agreement to pursue charges against individuals.  The likely deterrent effect of the monetary settlement will likely be minimal.  $762 million may look just like a cost of doing business when the drug in question was bringing in over $2 billion a year (per the Los Angeles Times). 

So the legal settlements march on and on.  The government continues to extract fines from health care organizations whose actions endanger not only the federal budget, but patients' well being and lives, without even trying to hold individuals responsible.  The impunity of health care corporate executives thus also continues.

As we have said far too many times, we will not deter unethical behavior by health care organizations until the people who authorize, direct or implement bad behavior fear some meaningfully negative consequences. Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich.

References

1.  Khuri FR. Weighing the hazards of erythropoiesis stimulation in patients with cancer.  N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 2445-2447.  Link here.

2.  Bennett CI, Silver SM, Djulbegovic B et al.  Venous thromboembolism and mortality associated with recombinant erythropoietin and darbepoetin administration for the treatment of cancer-associated anemia.  JAMA 2008; 299: 914-924.  Link here.

3.  Bohlius J, Schmidlin K, Brillant C et al.  Recombinant human eryhtropoiesis-stimulating agents and mortality in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.  Lancet 2009; 373: 1532-1542.  Link here.