GlaxoSmithKline fined $3bn for bribing doctors, mis-selling drugs

In my experience, it is not hard at all to get a script except maybe opiate painkillers. Getting a script for Ambien is as easy as telling the doctor I'm having trouble sleeping.
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
That's no solice to the victims of these drugs.

But I'm getting repetitive.
Click to expand...

The company never wrote any prescriptions and it's under different leadership now. Not that they shouldn't be fined, but the fines aren't to give solace to victims the fines are to keep companies in line.
 
The Dark Lord said:
In my experience, it is not hard at all to get a script except maybe opiate painkillers. Getting a script for Ambien is as easy as telling the doctor I'm having trouble sleeping.
Click to expand...

I can go to my GP any time and get a prescription for morphine, but I had the exact same experience as megaresp had in getting some sleeping tablets.

___________

I know in the UK there used to be a terrible problem with the drug companies bribing (by any other name) GPs to prescribe their drugs. It's much reduced these days but with the huge potential upside i.e. profit for the drug companies the incentive is still there for "under the counter" bribing.
 
ThunderChunky said:
The company never wrote any prescriptions and it's under different leadership now. Not that they shouldn't be fined, but the fines aren't to give solace to victims the fines are to keep companies in line.
Click to expand...

But it made it so the doctors could not make an informed clinical decision whether the doctor's accepted any bribes or not. In my book that makes them more liable for any harm that resulted from this than the GPs who in effect misprescribed the drugs. From what I understand the GPs were only prescribing a drug that they thought could help the patient, at worse they were deciding to use a GSK drug rather than another one as a result of the bribing.
 
Puppycow said:
sales are not profits
(...)
minus the cost of research and development, marketing
Click to expand...
Bills of these said costs belong to the costcenter of the legally intended use of the drugs, no?

If the illegal adverstising costs are tax deductible too, then any thug or mafioso on the street should have the right to deduct the cost of revolver, handcuffs and millstones in their tax report. They do cost money, even if their purpose is illegal activity.
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
It's still a pittance to them. They have still made a profit from their crimes. They can easily afford to pay it and carry on their business.
Click to expand...

Actualy the rate of return on pharmacutical investments has been pretty poor over the last decade. Based on current trends and the falling number of new drugs appearing GSKs long term ability to carry on their business is questionable.
 
JJM 777 said:
Bills of these said costs belong to the costcenter of the legally intended use of the drugs, no?
Click to expand...

If you're making that argument, then the counter-argument is that the legally intended use of the drugs isn't relevant to the size of the fine. To give a hypothetical, if GSK would have profited, say, $8Bn in total by sticking to legal acts, profited $10Bn by resorting to bribery, but are fined $3Bn, then they're better off observing the law.

Dave
 
Puppycow said:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303933404577505032006855076.html

Anyone heard of this Dr. Drew?
Click to expand...
Again there are complex issues involved that go well beyond Big Pharma. It's the norm for drug companies to hire 'experts' as part of marketing.

I'm not defending the practice by any means, but I do want to comment on the extent of it and tease out the problem's components.

Hiring celebrities and 'experts' to promote products is certainly not limited to Big Pharma. I wonder how many people here are equally outraged by 'experts' paid directly by Exon to promote global warming denial science? How about the 'experts' hired by Phillip Morris to promote 'second hand smoke is harmless' science? Both of those examples are responsible for far more harm than paying experts to shill for these two prescription drugs.

Big Pharma started decades ago hiring well known researchers in the medical field to present research results at medical conferences as their own but that was done by corporate researchers. The well known experts were paid to give false credibility.

When drug companies pay for Sally Fields to promote an osteoporosis drug, it's acceptable because you know it's a commercial. But if she was paid to lie in a news interview, it wouldn't be. (Dr Drew is essentially a celebrity endorsement not a respected researcher endorsement. Respected researchers are hired to shill to professionals and celebrity 'experts' hired to shill to the public.)

The underlying problem is when the paid-for endorsement is disguised as either a researcher presenting research results, or information/advice that is in essence a camouflaged commercial. Video news releases are not allowed on the airwaves unless the source of the fake news is revealed. But the news media can't resist the free product and they continue to violate the FTC rules on disguised ads. At the same time, there's no law against Dr Drew disguising a commercial as his actual profesional advice.
 
geni said:
Actualy the rate of return on pharmacutical investments has been pretty poor over the last decade. Based on current trends and the falling number of new drugs appearing GSKs long term ability to carry on their business is questionable.
Click to expand...

That's encouraging. Meanwhile US regulators are seeking to break the companies up and remove [ir]responsible executives.


"The United States healthcare industry is the world’s biggest – with $300 billion a year spent on prescription drugs alone, and rising. But recent months have seen health scandal after health scandal, with some of the world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies fined billions of dollars.

These cases are beginning to reveal vast corruption in the drug industry, with revelations of fraud, of cover-ups of fatal side effects and huge kickbacks paid to doctors. Our investigation reveals the story of how healthcare became unhealthy profit."

'Documentary reveals the unhealthy profits of the pharmaceutical industry'

'People & Power - Drug Money':

 
Last edited:
Steven Novella covers this story in Science Base Medicine.
The debate continues, however, about whether or not there can be a healthy relationship between doctors and pharmaceutical companies, or whether we need an absolute wall of separation between the two. One recent article, for example, found that doctors who have no access to pharmaceutical reps were up to four times slower to adopt new medications than physicians with some access to reps. In addition, they were also four times slower to stop using a drug that has a new black box warning, meaning that negative information about safety has come to light. It seems, therefore, that pharmaceutical companies can be a useful conduit of information to physicians, but that also comes with a lot of baggage. It seems to me that we have two choices. Either we develop new ways of quickly spreading the word about new valuable drugs and new warnings about existing drugs (pushing critical information to physicians), and/or we need to carefully monitor and regulate the pharmaceutical company distribution of this information.
Click to expand...

As usual its a bit more complicated than it might seem at first. Pharmaceutical companies do develop useful drugs and their reps do convey usual information to doctors. The flip side is that they hide negative trials, overly promote approved drugs and rely on marketing techniques that you would expect on late night TV.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
Well, I wouldn't call it a "pittance". $3bn actually seems like real money.

A "pittance" would be something like the $25,000 fine that Google received recently.
Click to expand...

Any fine which is lower than the profit you made illegally, is just "the cost of doing business" and it does not send the message to not do it again, it send the message that doing such bad stuff is perfectely fine, because even caught you will still have made lotta profit all counted.

It is actually more a tax on being caught than really an attempt at stopping any illegal stuff.
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
What the hell are you talking about? GSK will be able continue to carry on their business for decades.
Click to expand...

Your alternative--jail time for the CEO, I suppose--is hardly a better option. CEOs have been dropping like flies lately or appearing in front of various committees to defend their activities but the corporations behind them appear to be doing just fine.

If you're really serious you'd argue for the dismantling of the corporation itself and not jail time for an interchangeable executive. The fine assessment comes closest to punishing the corporation itself for its actions while the individuals responsible still have that on their resumes.

Finally, of course, the point at which you make corporate directors personally liable changes the structure and intent of the entity itself. They'll always be able to locate someone in the organisation to fall on his or her sword or be carried off on his or her shield. This is probably the exact opposite of what you think you want.

Fines--and this is a ball-buster to put it frankly--are the only good option.
 
Aepervius said:
Any fine which is lower than the profit you made illegally, is just "the cost of doing business" and it does not send the message to not do it again, it send the message that doing such bad stuff is perfectely fine, because even caught you will still have made lotta profit all counted.

It is actually more a tax on being caught than really an attempt at stopping any illegal stuff.
Click to expand...

That's if you think a large fine (or any punishment) is supposed to be a deterrent first and foremost. It isn't. It's a penalty. Collect the whole set and pretty soon you will be out of business.
 
Darat said:
I know in the UK there used to be a terrible problem with the drug companies bribing (by any other name) GPs to prescribe their drugs. It's much reduced these days but with the huge potential upside i.e. profit for the drug companies the incentive is still there for "under the counter" bribing.
Click to expand...

It would be more noticable though. The prescribing rules say that, except for a few rare exceptions, drugs should be prescribed as generics - never brands. Also the move to electronic prescribing should make it easier to keep an eye prescribing practices
 
stilicho said:
Your alternative--jail time for the CEO, I suppose--is hardly a better option. CEOs have been dropping like flies lately or appearing in front of various committees to defend their activities but the corporations behind them appear to be doing just fine.
Click to expand...
There's a world of difference between testifying before congress in a custom made Armani suit and doing the perp walk for the 11 o' clock news in a standard issue orange jumpsuit. At least that's what Jack Abramoff says.
 
stilicho said:
Your alternative--jail time for the CEO, I suppose--is hardly a better option.
Click to expand...
I was actually suggesting both--holding the reification, the drug company responsible by making them pay, and criminal charges for the individuals responsible.

I can get more jail time for possessing a few ounces of marijuana than a CEO of a drug company can for lying about the dangers of a drug--leading to several thousdand deaths. Funny world we live in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom