Guttman and Buschner Represent Key Whistleblower in Justice Dept.’s $1.04 Billion Civil Settlement with GlaxoSmithKline

Reuben Guttman led team on behalf of a former GlaxoSmithKline Therapeutic Sales Manager who alleged misrepresentation in promotion of company’s asthma/COPD drug Advair; firm’s third major whistleblower recovery in 2012, following Abbott Labs’ $1.6 billion settlement and banks’ $25 billion payment over ‘robo-signing’ mortgage fraud. 

BOSTON and WASHINGTON (July 2, 2012) — Reuben Guttman of Guttman, Buschner and Brooks PLLC has represented one of several key whistleblowers behind a $1.04 billion settlement announced today between drug maker GlaxoSmithKline and the U.S. Department of Justice stemming from alleged marketing abuses of various GSK medications. Lois Graydon, is a nursing professional and former GSK Therapeutic Sales Manager.

The U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston led the investigation into promotional tactics behind a total of nine GSK drugs. An accompanying criminal component of the case is expected to substantially increase the sum of the recovery.

Reuben Guttman and Traci Buschner are counsel to Lois Graydon, a registered nurse. She is one of the “relators” who alleged that GSK made false and misleading statements about Advair’s safety and efficacy, thus enabling false or fraudulent claims to Medicare, Medicaid, and other reimbursement programs.

Advair’s share of the recovery – more than $700 million – amounts to over half of the total civil settlement of $1.04 billion.

“The False Claims Act plays an important role in health industry compliance enforcement; health care is an issue that touches everyone and oversight, diligence and transparency are critical,” said Mr. Guttman, one of the country’s leading whistleblower attorneys.

“It is important that the medical community pays attention to this settlement and others and asks critical questions about the scientific support for the use of prescription drugs,” he added.

“In this election year, the safety of pharmaceuticals and their cost to the health care system should be front and center,” Mr. Guttman said.

He added, “Whistleblowers play an important role in compliance enforcement of our laws. We were proud to have represented one of the whistleblowers on this important case under the False Claims Act.”

 

AEI Presents Study on the Effects of Anti-Industry Bias

Last Thursday, June 21, 2012, the American Enterprise Institute held a panel, entitled “Muzzle pharma, harm patients: The dangers of anti-industry bias.”  Sitting on the panel were George Chressanthis, a professor at Temple University, Nitin Jain, a principal at ZS Associates headquarters, Thomas Stossel, a hematologist and oncologist, and J.D. Kleinke, a health care business expert.  The panel presented a new study which aimed at determining the relationship between physicians’ choices of drugs and their access to sales representatives from pharmaceutical companies.  The study looked at between 58,000 to 72,000 cases for three different drugs, Januvia, Vytorin, and Avandia, in an attempt to cover a broad range of cases which would inspire a change in drug choices.  Januvia was their sample for a first-in-class drug, Vytorin, for a negative clinical trial, and Avandia, for an FDA imposed black-box warning.  All the physician and prescription information for the cases were provided by the pharmaceutical companies and no patient outcomes were evaluated.  The study found that, generally, doctors take longer to change to first-in-class drugs but also take longer to switch away from drugs that had a negative clinical trial or for which the FDA had issued a black box warning.  Ultimately, it concluded that access limits are a part of an institutional framework whose anti-industry bias, manifested in access limits, have harmful consequences for patients.  Doctors need to operate from the largest body of information, they argued, and that to restrict them from information in any way adversely affects patient health.

Though the study presented clearly and incontestably that access to representatives caused a change in how physicians made decisions regarding drugs, without a further study of patient outcomes, there’s no basis from which to decide whether or not these changes were productive or effective.  The panel wanted to say that doctors should not rely solely on sales reps for their information but at the same time wanted to say that these same sales reps made a significant impact on physicians’ decision-making procedure.  The intimated bias was that these changes were positive changes, but without more concrete data on the practical results of these prescription changes, it is impossible from this study alone to judge decisively whether access limits have unintended and adverse consequences for patient health.

“The SEC, SEC, SEC, what are they going to do with all the whistleblowers, whistleblowers, whistleblowers …”

If you recall, the Dodd Frank whistleblower provisions were promulgated partially in response to the SEC‘s failure to heed the warnings of whistleblower Harry Markopolis who warned the agency early on about Bernie Madoff.

What flowed from the Madoff debacle was an expanded whistleblower rewards program. And this is a good thing. Yet what was not addressed was the problem that was at the root of the SEC’s failure to address Markopolis’ warnings — staffing!

The SEC has one (yes “1”) examiner for every $12 billion in assets that it has to oversee.  And the agency is so overworked that there is no guarantee that a whistleblower will ever make personal contact with an SEC investigator.  The Dodd Frank Whistleblower rules actually anticipate this predicament.  Once the whistleblower files with the agency, the rules encourage the whistleblower to check out the SEC’s website to determine if the agency settled a case like the one the whistleblower reported.  It is than up to the whistleblower to file papers explaining to the agency how he or she provided help in securing a resolution.  Shouldn’t the agency already know this?

Making whistleblowers part of the SEC’s compliance program is important.  But the only way the system will really work is if whistleblowers are able to pursue their cases in the absence of SEC action. This is how the False Claims Act works and this year recoveries will be in the billions.  Having recently represented the lead whistleblower in the government’s $1.6 billion recovery against Abbott labs for marketing derelictions with regard to the drug depakote, we have personal knowledge that whistleblowers who hire an experienced attorney to represent them as they navigate the SEC process works.

Romney’s Education Plan

Privatize education and open up the floodgates to education fraud.  That is what Mitt Romney wants to do.  It is bad enough that Education Secretary Arne Duncan has allowed billions to be spent on charter schools and loans for dubious online degrees; now the Republican presidential candidate has made this a cornerstone of his education plan.

The truth is that government lacks the oversight ability to ensure that basic education — let alone academic excellence — is being provided by charter schools and online providers.  At least in the case of online providers, accreditation has been privatized and there are no regulations which regulate the accreditors who provide the green light for the flow of government backed student loans that allow customers to pay their bills.

Before any candidate lays down plans to send taxpayer dollars to the private sector, one thing is clear; there needs to be a clear regulatory and compliance enforcement system to provide standards and sanctions against those that violate them.  These days federal dollars are too scarce to waste and the nation’s future depends on a substantive education system.

Guttman and Buschner Represents Lead Whistleblower in $1.6 Billion Settlement with Abbott Laboratories

Payment may be largest ever in single-drug case in history of False Claims Act; 4 ½ year investigation revealed Depakote was illegally marketed for children and geriatric patients; doctors given kickbacks

WASHINGTON, DC (May 7, 2012) – U.S. Justice Department and several state Attorneys General, has reached a $1.6 billion settlement with Abbott Laboratories over its illegal marketing of antiepileptic medication Depakote to children and geriatric patients.

The settlement was reached between Abbott (NYST: ABT) and the Justice Department, along with attorneys general in numerous states who have been conducting a 4 ½ year investigation into the Chicago-based pharmaceutical manufacturer. Prosecutors accused Abbott of violating federal FDA regulations and federal and state false claims act laws in its marketing of Depakote, a powerful anti-seizure medicine.

Abbott’s payment is one of the largest ever in the history of the False Claims Act, which includes $800 million in civil payments, along with a $700 million criminal penalty, and an additional $100 million to settle state consumer protection claims, for a total of $1.6 billion. Meredith McCoyd, a former top-performing Abbott sales representative based in Atlanta, who was the first to come forward with allegations regarding Depakote. Ms. McCoyd is the lead whistleblower relator, whose complaint initiated the government’s investigation of Abbott. The Justice Department intervened in her case last year.

Ms. McCoyd’s case, originally filed under seal in 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, alleged use of illicit incentive payments by Abbott to physicians to encourage prescription writing of Depakote, as well as misrepresentations of the drug’s safety and efficacy, and off-label marketing. Abbott reportedly generated over $1.4 billion per year in sales of Depakote throughout the 2000s before the drug went off-patent.

The settlement stems from charges that over a period of years Abbott instructed its national sales team to market Depakote for treatments outside the FDA’s approved usage, which includes use for treating epileptic seizures, migraines and bipolar mania in adults. Among other illegal ploys, Abbott was accused of heavily marketing the drug to nursing homes as a method of sedating elderly residents, including those with Alzheimer’s and dementia and, in the process, allowing nursing home facilities to maintain lower staff-to-patient ratios. Abbott was also charged with encouraging doctors to prescribe the drug to young children outside of its FDA approved label for epilepsy and migraines.

Abbott was further accused of misrepresenting the safety and efficacy of Depakote, which can have serious side effects, including somnolence and increased risk of falls in the elderly and polycystic ovary syndrome in teenage girls. The company was charged with providing kickbacks to doctors and making misrepresentations to nursing homes about the reporting requirements for Depakote under the Omnibus Reconciliation Act.

According to Ms. McCoyd’s complaint: “This case is about a company – Abbott Laboratories – that methodically and recklessly endangered this vulnerable population – those with Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia – through the illegal marketing of a drug that Abbott knew was unapproved for the treatment of Alzheimer’s, did not work to treat the disease, and was actually dangerous for use by the elderly. Incredibly, Abbott did not limit its wrongful conduct to preying upon the elderly; it also unlawfully marketed Depakote, to an array of patient populations, including children, placing them at risk for life altering injury or illness.”

“The size of this settlement demonstrates the seriousness of Abbott’s illegal actions. The company placed vulnerable elderly and pediatric patients at extreme risk by marketing Depakote for purposes not approved by the FDA and by paying kickbacks to induce doctors to write prescriptions,” said Reuben Guttman. Mr. Guttman and Traci Buschner, of Guttman, Buschner and Brooks PLLC, served as lead counsel for Ms. McCoyd.

“Abbott’s unlawful practices showed how the company elevated aggressive sales and marketing of Depakote over medical decision-making, violating basic norms of health care and ethics. Abbott essentially preyed on two of the most helpless patient populations in children and Alzheimer’s patients,” Mr. Guttman added.

“Abbott directed its sales force to get Depakote widely used in nursing homes, principally to neutralize older patients as a substitute for proper staffing,” Mr. Guttman said. “We are extremely gratified that the Justice Department and participating state AGs ensured that Abbott would pay a significant penalty for its rampant off-label practices.”

“With health care fraud projected to top $60 billion annually, cases such as this should serve as a catalyst for lawmakers to take a hard look at the pharmaceutical industry,” Mr. Guttman continued. “What happened here with Abbott was a train wreck. Now is the time for Congress to create a pharmaceutical and medical device safety and investigation board, which would conduct investigations with an eye toward providing honest information and analysis to practitioners.”

1 17 18 19 20 21 43