Feds found Pfizer too big to nail
Imagine being charged with a crime, but an imaginary friend takes the
rap for you. That is essentially what happened when Pfizer, the world’s
largest pharmaceutical company, was caught illegally marketing Bextra, a
painkiller that was taken off the market in 2005 because of safety
concerns. When the criminal case was announced last fall, federal
officials touted their prosecution as a model for tough, effective
enforcement. “It sends a clear message” to the pharmaceutical industry,
said Kevin Perkins, assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal
Investigative Division.
But beyond the fanfare, a CNN Special Investigation found another story,
one that officials downplayed when they declared victory. It’s a story
about the power major pharmaceutical companies have even when they break
the laws intended to protect patients.
Big plans for Bextra
The story begins in 2001, when Bextra was about to hit the market. The
drug was part of a revolutionary class of painkillers known as Cox-2
inhibitors that were supposed to be safer than generic drugs, but at 20
times the price of ibuprofen.
Pfizer and its marketing partner, Pharmacia, planned to sell Bextra as a
treatment for acute pain, the kind you have after surgery.
But in November 2001, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Bextra
was not safe for patients at high risk of heart attacks and strokes.
The FDA approved Bextra only for arthritis and menstrual cramps. It
rejected the drug in higher doses for acute, surgical pain.
Promoting drugs for unapproved uses can put patients at risk by
circumventing the FDA’s judgment over which products are safe and
effective. For that reason, “off-label” promotion is against the law.
If we prosecute Pfizer … a lot of the people who work
for the company who haven’t engaged in criminal activity would get hurt.
–Mike Loucks, federal prosecutor But with billions of dollars of profits
at stake, marketing and sales managers across the country nonetheless
targeted anesthesiologists, foot surgeons, orthopedic surgeons and oral
surgeons. “Anyone that use[d] a scalpel for a living,” one district
manager advised in a document prosecutors would later cite.
A manager in Florida e-mailed his sales reps a scripted sales pitch that
claimed — falsely — that the FDA had given Bextra “a clean bill of
health” all the way up to a 40 mg dose, which is twice what the FDA
actually said was safe.
Doctors as pitchmen
Internal company documents show that Pfizer and Pharmacia (which Pfizer
later bought) used a multimillion-dollar medical education budget to pay
hundreds of doctors as speakers and consultants to tout Bextra.
Pfizer said in court that “the company’s intent was pure”: to foster a
legal exchange of scientific information among doctors.
But an internal marketing plan called for training physicians “to serve
as public relations spokespeople.”
According to Lewis Morris, chief counsel to the inspector general at the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “They pushed the envelope
so far past any reasonable interpretation of the law that it’s simply
outrageous.”
Pfizer’s chief compliance officer, Doug Lanker, said that “in a large
sales force, successful sales techniques spread quickly,” but that top
Pfizer executives were not aware of the “significant mis-promotion issue
with Bextra” until federal prosecutors began to show them the evidence.
By April 2005, when Bextra was taken off the market, more than half of
its $1.7 billion in profits had come from prescriptions written for uses
the FDA had rejected.
Too big to nail
But when it came to prosecuting Pfizer for its fraudulent marketing, the
pharmaceutical giant had a trump card: Just as the giant banks on Wall
Street were deemed too big to fail, Pfizer was considered too big to
nail.
Why? Because any company convicted of a major health care fraud is
automatically excluded from Medicare and Medicaid. Convicting Pfizer on
Bextra would prevent the company from billing federal health programs
for any of its products. It would be a corporate death sentence.
Prosecutors said that excluding Pfizer would most likely lead to
Pfizer’s collapse, with collateral consequences: disrupting the flow of
Pfizer products to Medicare and Medicaid recipients, causing the loss of
jobs including those of Pfizer employees who were not involved in the
fraud, and causing significant losses for Pfizer shareholders.
“We have to ask whether by excluding the company [from Medicare and
Medicaid], are we harming our patients,” said Lewis Morris of the
Department of Health and Human Services.
So Pfizer and the feds cut a deal. Instead of charging Pfizer with a
crime, prosecutors would charge a Pfizer subsidiary, Pharmacia & Upjohn
Co. Inc.
The CNN Special Investigation found that the subsidiary is nothing more
than a shell company whose only function is to plead guilty.
According to court documents, Pfizer Inc. owns (a) Pharmacia Corp.,
which owns (b) Pharmacia & Upjohn LLC, which owns (c) Pharmacia & Upjohn
Co. LLC, which in turn owns (d) Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc. It is the
great-great-grandson of the parent company.
Public records show that the subsidiary was incorporated in Delaware on
March 27, 2007, the same day Pfizer lawyers and federal prosecutors
agreed that the company would plead guilty in a kickback case against a
company Pfizer had acquired a few years earlier.
As a result, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc., the subsidiary, was excluded
from Medicare without ever having sold so much as a single pill. And
Pfizer was free to sell its products to federally funded health
programs.
An imaginary friend
I can tell you, unequivocally, that Pfizer perceived
the Bextra matter as an incredibly serious one.
Two years later, with Bextra, the shell company once again pleaded
guilty. It was, in effect, Pfizer’s imaginary friend stepping up to take
the rap.
“It is true that if a company is created to take a criminal plea, but
it’s just a shell, the impact of an exclusion is minimal or
nonexistent,” Morris said.
Prosecutors say there was no viable alternative.
“If we prosecute Pfizer, they get excluded,” said Mike Loucks, the
federal prosecutor who oversaw the investigation. “A lot of the people
who work for the company who haven’t engaged in criminal activity would
get hurt.”
Did the punishment fit the crime? Pfizer says yes.
It paid nearly $1.2 billion in a criminal fine for Bextra, the largest
fine the federal government has ever collected.
It paid a billion dollars more to settle a batch of civil suits —
although it denied wrongdoing — on allegations that it illegally
promoted 12 other drugs.
In all, Pfizer lost the equivalent of three months’ profit.
It maintained its ability to do business with the federal government.
Pfizer says it takes responsibility for the illegal promotion of Bextra.
“I can tell you, unequivocally, that Pfizer perceived the Bextra matter
as an incredibly serious one,” said Doug Lankler, Pfizer’s chief
compliance officer.
To prevent it from happening again, Pfizer has set up what it calls
“leading-edge” systems to spot signs of illegal promotion by closely
monitoring sales reps and tracking prescription sales.
It’s not entirely voluntary. Pfizer had to sign a corporate integrity
agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services. For the next
five years, it requires Pfizer to disclose future payments to doctors
and top executives to sign off personally that the company is obeying
the law.
Pfizer says the company has learned its lesson.
But after years of overseeing similar cases against other major drug
companies, even Loucks, isn’t sure $2 billion in penalties is a
deterrent when the profits from illegal promotion can be so large.
“I worry that the money is so great,” he said, that dealing with the
Department of Justice may be “just of a cost of doing business.”
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/02/pfizer.bextra/index.html?hpt=T2
©
2010 Cable News Network.
Turner
Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved. To subscribe or
visit go to: http://www.cnn.com
|