off-label marketing
ddobbs | September 2, 2009You can't make this stuff up. As PharmaGossip (among others, including the Times) reportst, a drug company pays $2.3 billion in fines to settle charges of unprecedented seriousness about practices that directly put patients at risk, and that came out of a four-year federal investigation. And some yahoo right-winger asserts this fine -- years in the works, unprecedented in scope, settling allegations rising from an investigation that started during the Bush Administration -- is really part of Obama's effort to "federalize" medicine and cut costs.
Here's the video of the DOJ's press conference…
ddobbs | January 27, 2009
Close on the heels of Lilly's $1.42 billion penalty for off-label marketing comes the news that Pfizer paid out $2.3 billion to settle similar allegations.
From FiercePharma
News of the Pfizer-Wyeth merger this morning drowned out some not so good news for the company. Just after announcing its $68 billion buyout of Wyeth, Pfizer published its 2008 fourth quarter earnings report. In it, Pfizer reveals a $2.3 billion charge to end investigations into allegations of off-label promotions of the company's COX-2 meds, including Bextra. That settlement caused a 90 percent reduction in Pfizer's…
ddobbs | January 19, 2009I stirred some ire last week when I asserted that the Times (for -- disclosure dept -- whom I sometimes write) and similar mainstream papers offer a public good through their unique combination of a) access to information and 2) clout with the public and government. Several readers took me to task (see the comments section of the post linked above), arguing that these papers have failed their public mission by dropping the ball several times lately, most notably during the run-up to the Iraq War. "Let the dinosaur die," is the argument. In a similar vein, some science bloggers (see this post…