Posted on July
29, 2016 by Yves Smith
By Roy Poses, MD, Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine at
Brown University, and the President of FIRM – the Foundation for Integrity and
Responsibility in Medicine. Cross posted from the Health Care Renewal website
The resolution of two related
cases involving drug/ biotechnology/ device giant Johnson and Johnson opened a small window on the perverse
incentives driving bad managerial behavior in health care.
The Settlement of the
Allegedly Illegal Marketing of the Stratus Device
The basics of the case, which
looks like a typical marcher in the march of legal settlements, were best explained by Ed Silverman in Stat on July 22, 2016,
A Johnson & Johnson
subsidiary has agreed to pay $18 million to resolve charges of causing health
care providers to submit false claims to Medicare and other federal health care
programs, which then paid for a device that was illegally marketed.
In particular,
In 2006, Acclarent won FDA
approval to market its Stratus device to be used only with saline to maintain
sinus openings following surgery. But the feds alleged the company intended to
market Stratus as a drug-delivery device for prescription corticosteroids and
maintained the device was specifically designed and engineered for this use, according
to court documents.
Note that as is usual, the
settlement involved a monetary penalty that would not even be spare change to
Johnson and Johnson, which last year had total revenues of more than $70
billion according to Google Finance. As is additionally
usual, the settlement did not seem to be informed by Johnson and Johnson’s huge
record of previous settlements and other legal actions suggesting its
misbehavior (see a list of these in the appendix below.) As is also
usual, the settlement involved no admissions of guilty or innocence by Johnson
and Johnson itself, but as is further usual, a company public relations person
said it was a long time ago, we have changed, and we will just move on.
As the Wall Street Journal reported,
A spokeswoman for Johnson
& Johnson said the company has since put in place tighter compliance
controls. She noted the agreement, which didn’t include an admission of
liability or wrongdoing, resolves alleged conduct that took place almost
entirely before Johnson & Johnson acquired Acclarent.
Two Johnson and Johnson
Executives Convicted of Distributing Misbranded and Adulterated Devices
But one part of this case was
unusual. Not only did US government authorities pursue a settlement with
Johnson and Johnson, they prosecuted two executives who were involved in
setting up the bad behavior alleged in the settlement. Per Mr Silverman
in Stat,
The settlement with the US
Department of Justice, which was disclosed on Friday, comes just two days after
a pair of former executives at the J&J subsidiary, which is known as
Acclarent, were found guilty of several misdemeanor charges of distributing a
misbranded and adulterated device. A federal court jury in Boston found the
executives marketed the Stratus device for a use that was not approved by the
US Food and Drug Administration.
So while the Johnson and
Johnson spokesperson denied that the company was guilty of anything, it appears
that two people who eventually became Johnson and Johnson executives were found
guilty of having a company that Johnson and Johnson acquired distribute a
misbranded and adulterated device. At best, the spokesperson seemed to be
asserting a distinction in the absence of a meaningful difference.
Especially, since the
allegations that led to the convictions of the executives included actions that
occurred after their company was acquired by Johnson and Johnson, per the Stat
article,
Between 2008 and 2011, the men
allegedly concealed a scheme to illegally distribute and promote a device they
planned to market for delivering steroids to sinuses. The feds charged,
however, they deceived the FDA by falsely claiming the intended use was to
maintain an opening to the sinus, and that the device was supposed to be used
with saline.
Acclarent, where Facteau was
the chief executive and Fabian was the vice president of sales, was eventually
sold to Johnson & Johnson in January 2010 for $785 million. Following the
acquisition, Acclarent management was told to stop marketing the device for
unapproved uses, but they continued to do so anyway, court documents stated.
So why would Mr Facteau and
Fabian do this? An article in Reuters implies an answer:
Prosecutors said Facteau and
Fabian had hoped to increase the company’s revenue to make it an attractive
acquisition target, and concealed the off-label marketing from potential
buyers, including J&J unit Ethicon Inc.
Ethicon bought
California-based Acclarent in early 2010 for about $785 million. Facteau and
Fabian received compensation worth about $30 million and $4 million,
respectively, from the deal, according to the indictment.
So the former Acclarent executives, later Johnson and Johnson subsidiary, made what seems to be a lot of money from directing their company to distribute a misbranded and adulterated product. In fact, they made considerably more money than Johnson and Johnson paid to settle the case.
So the former Acclarent executives, later Johnson and Johnson subsidiary, made what seems to be a lot of money from directing their company to distribute a misbranded and adulterated product. In fact, they made considerably more money than Johnson and Johnson paid to settle the case.
Conclusions
So this case appears to be a
step forward, in that not all the people who apparently authorized, directed,
or implemented the bad behavior could escape any negative consequences.
Keep in mind, however, that no one above the two convicted executives, no one
at Johnson and Johnson who decided to acquire Acclarent, and let it continue
its previous activities, seemed to suffer any negative consequences. How
much money those executives might have received in response to the revenues
that the new subsidiary brought in is unknown.
In conclusion, this case shows
the perverse incentives at work that drive bad behavior by
health care oragnizational leaders. One can obviously become very rich by
directing this bad behavior. Up to now, the likelihood that one would
eventually pay any penalty for doing so was tiny. Now it is slightly
higher. Whether those up the ladder, who might have authorized the
behavior, turned a blind eye to it, or avoided enquiring about anything that
could be bad behavior, as long as the money came in, will suffer any negative
consequences from these actions or inactions in the future is still unclear.
We will not make any progress
reducing current health care dysfunction if we cannot have an honest
conversation about what causes it and who profits from it. True health
care reform requires ending the anechoic effect, exposing the web of conflicts of interest that entangle health care,
publicizing who benefits most from the current dysfunction, and how and
why. But it is painfully obvious that the people who have gotten so rich
from the current status quo will use every tool at their disposal, paying for
them with the money they have extracted from patients and taxpayers, to defend
their position. It will take grit, persistence, and courage to persevere
in the cause of better health for patients and the public.
Appendix – Johnson and Johnson
Legal Record since 2010
2010
– Convictions in two different
states for misleading marketing of Risperdal
– A guilty plea for
misbranding Topamax
2011
– Guilty pleas to bribery in
Europe by Johnson and Johnson’s DePuy subsidiary
– A guilty plea for marketing
Risperdal for unapproved uses (see this link for all of the above)
– A guilty plea to misbranding
Natrecor by J+J subsidiary Scios (see post here)
2012
– Testimony in a trial
of allegations of unethical marketing of the drug Risperdal (risperidone) by
the Janssen subsidiary revealed a systemic, deceptive stealth marketing
campaign that fostered suppression of research whose results were unfavorable
to the company, ghostwriting, the use of key opinion leaders as marketers in
the guise of academics and professionals, and intimidation of whistleblowers.
After these revelations, the company abruptly settled the case (see post here).
– Johnson & Johnson
was fined $1.1 billion by a judge in Arkansas for deceiving patients and
physicians again about Risperdal (look here).
– Johnson & Johnson
announced it would pay $181 million to resolve claims of deceptive advertising
again about Risperdal (see this post).
2013
– Johnson & Johnson
settled case by shareholders alleging that management made misleading
statements and withheld material information about manufacturing problems (see
this post)
– Johnson & Johnson
Janssen subsidiary pleaded guilty to a charge of misbranding Risperdal, and
settled for a total of $2.2 billion allegations that it promoted the drug for
elderly demented patients and adolescents without an indication, and despite
evidence of its harms (see this post).
– Johnson & Johnson
DePuy subsidiary agreed to settle with multiple plaintiffs for $2.5 billion
allegations that it sold defective mental-on-metal artificial hip, and hid
evidence of its harms .
– Johnson & Johnsonn
Janssen subsidiary was found by two juries to have concealed harms of its drug
Topamax (see this post for this and above case).
– Johnson & Johnson
Ethicon subsidiary’s Advanced Surgical Products and two of its executives
agreed to settle charges by US FDA that is sold mislabeled products used to
sterilize equipment such as endoscopes (see this post).
– Johnson & Johnson fined
by European Commission for anticompetitive practices, that is, collusion with
Novartis to delay marketing generic version of Fentanyl (see this post).
2014
– Johnson & Johnson DePuy
subsidiary settled Oregan state charges that it marketed the ASR XL
metal-on-metal hip joint prosthesis without disclosing its high failure rate
(see this post).
2015
– Johnson & Johnson
found by jury to have concealed harms of Risperdal.
– Johnson & Johnson
Ethicon subsidiary found by jury to have concealed harms of its vaginal mesh
device.
– Johnson & Johnson
McNeil subsidiary pleaded guilty to marketing adulterated Tylenol. (see this post for three items above.)
No comments:
Post a Comment