Attention AZ management: "Fine" doesn't mean OK

[Anonymous]

"AstraZeneca joins the list of drugmakers that have settled with U.S. states over allegations of mismarketing their products. The company agreed to pay $68.5 million to wrap up claims from 37 states and the District of Columbia, which had accused the company of promoting its antipsychotic drug Seroquel for off-label uses such as insomnia and Alzheimer's disease. It's the biggest state settlement with a pharma company on record, Reuters reports."

The deal comes after AZ resolved off-label marketing charges levied by the U.S. Justice Department, agreeing to pay $520 million to settle the case; seven states are still suing.

AstraZeneca has settled another batch of Seroquel liability suits. The drugmaker agreed to pay $150 million to resolve about 6,000 cases claiming AZ knew Seroquel could cause diabetes but didn't adequately warn patients about that risk, sources tell Bloomberg. The deal brings the Seroquel settlement total to almost $350 million.

On average, the latest settlement allocates about $25,000 to each plaintiff, Bloomberg's sources said, more than twice the $11,000 average payout in a $198 million settlement of 17,500 claims last year. That deal, announced last summer, dispensed with some two-thirds of the 26,000 Seroquel claims outstanding in U.S. courts, the company said at the time. Now, with the latest deal, some 4,000 claims are yet to be resolved.

That doesn't mean AZ has admitted to wrongdoing, however. "We deny the allegations," the drugmaker said in a statement. "AstraZeneca believes that it is important to bring these matters to a close and move forward with our business of providing medicines to patients."
Fierce Pharma


$1,000,000,000.00 and continuous Corporate Integrity Agreements. But "we deny the allegations."

 

[GuerillaInTheMidst]

Dont you guys get it ? It's all about calculated risk, and risk vs reward.

Pharma companies and their marketing depts look at ways to push the envelope (in promotion) and along the way calculate how much it might cost them if a competitor or regulatory body pulls them up on it vs how much revenue they will make from it.

So for eg. if they calculate that some creative marketing (wink wink nod nod) should earn them a windfall of $100 million, and if they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar the maximum penalty that can be imposed is $1 million. Well, you do the sums.......

This is happening in countries all over the world, in all major pharma co's, its not unique to AZ (dont flatter yourselves!).
Think about how many times in the last 5 years you've been given a sales aid and been asked to talk about a specific aspect, then 3 months later that aid gets mysteriously pulled and you 'cant' talk about that stuff anymore. Then it comes back 9 months later in a slightly altered form.
Crestor reps is this ringing any bells for you ?

It's all smoke and mirrors people.

 

[Anonymous]

and they don't care about your credibility or personal integrity. if you don't go along with the wink wink bs, you will be ranked lower than others. it happened to me. at least i got a severance, unlike some who are still there and will be let go for some reason that will disqualify them from money as they take the keys away. i left with a severance and my integrity intact.

 

[Anonymous]

Dont you guys get it ? It's all about calculated risk, and risk vs reward.

Pharma companies and their marketing depts look at ways to push the envelope (in promotion) and along the way calculate how much it might cost them if a competitor or regulatory body pulls them up on it vs how much revenue they will make from it.

So for eg. if they calculate that some creative marketing (wink wink nod nod) should earn them a windfall of $100 million, and if they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar the maximum penalty that can be imposed is $1 million. Well, you do the sums.......

This is happening in countries all over the world, in all major pharma co's, its not unique to AZ (dont flatter yourselves!).
Think about how many times in the last 5 years you've been given a sales aid and been asked to talk about a specific aspect, then 3 months later that aid gets mysteriously pulled and you 'cant' talk about that stuff anymore. Then it comes back 9 months later in a slightly altered form.
Crestor reps is this ringing any bells for you ?

It's all smoke and mirrors people.

True, for those who think the end justifies the means. I think it got out of control and bit AZ, Dave Brennan in the ass. If it was so lucrative why has the stock been languishing at $47 for over ten years, which means it has been losing value? Calculated risks that harm people is wrong, that is why there is regulation. Maybe the risk of illegal promotion should be loss of patent protection. That would probably work wouldn't it?

 

[Anonymous]

True, for those who think the end justifies the means. I think it got out of control and bit AZ, Dave Brennan in the ass. If it was so lucrative why has the stock been languishing at $47 for over ten years, which means it has been losing value? Calculated risks that harm people is wrong, that is why there is regulation. Maybe the risk of illegal promotion should be loss of patent protection. That would probably work wouldn't it?

You're missing an important change in the way companies in the United States are run! Remember stock options? So 90's. Now it's stock grants to the executives. They have no further incentive to increase the share price. If the stock falls, they'll issue more, deplete the company treasury, whatever. And sell immediately when granted, pocket the cash, and start on next year, while scarfing down million dollar salaries for their time.

The important change, though, isn't stock options. It's shareholder power. The people who own the company no longer have any say as to who the managers of the companies are. When's the last time a member of a company board was voted out by the shareholders? Never happens. And the board approves the executive compensation committee, that decides how much to pay the executives and the board. It's as bad in corporate America as it will be if Obama gets a liberal majority on the Supreme Court. All of the checks and balances eliminated.

 

[Anonymous]

If you were in CNS since launch you either had your head up your ass or you weren't paying attention. Here are the facts Jack. First we came out for manifestations of psychotic disorders. Generally speaking, we had an indication to treat schizophrenia. As Michael Hickey said, nobody thought Seroquel would do more than $300 million.

But sheezam and surprise, the doctors started using it as a sedative and an anxiolytic because it works pretty well in that department. Then we targeted the elderly, just like Eli Lilly. I remember because one of my responsibilities was to call on state geriatric facilities. We did great there, nobody sundowned because they were so sedated they couldn't move, the staff loved Seroquel. Then we took Hamner's worthless study of 13 or so patients, I can't remember but I do believe it was less than 20, and went after the VA's, targeting patients with PTSD. I know, I helped target the VISN's in my region. Then on to targeting children, we had a wonder drug with no side effects! Morally, there was no reason to use any other drug because of the EPS and weight loss. Then we targeted bipolar disorder before we received an indication for it. No targeting?

At the time, all I cared about was making bonus and selling more of this wonder drug. I actually believed it had few side effects but was starting to get feedback and have some doubts about its efficacy and side effects. It wasn't until several years ago that I told my manager that I would no longer call on child psychiatrists and went so far as to caution all of them about weight gain. Many had already slowed down considerably in their use of Seroquel, for good reason.

Oversimplification? Well, how much can you put in four or five paragraphs? It's a fact that we promoted off label, illegally, and with intent. AZ has been on Corporate Integrity Agreements the entire time I have worked for them. Oh, and it's Reinstein, not Reinsdorf. He was in the early 2000s, up until about 2004 which makes me doubt you ever worked for CNS and makes it obvious you know nothing about its history. The huge fines have been paid and there will be more paid out, it is ongoing. So it ain't ancient history ass breather, read Fierce Pharma. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. The history is as plain as your ignorant face, and AZ's big revenue stream is about to be cut off by generic Seroquel.

You don't6 need to know what about anything to post on here. Since when have any of you woried about te truth.

You confess on here and seem to be angry with the company about your own behavior.

 

[Anonymous]

You're missing an important change in the way companies in the United States are run! Remember stock options? So 90's. Now it's stock grants to the executives. They have no further incentive to increase the share price. If the stock falls, they'll issue more, deplete the company treasury, whatever. And sell immediately when granted, pocket the cash, and start on next year, while scarfing down million dollar salaries for their time.

The important change, though, isn't stock options. It's shareholder power. The people who own the company no longer have any say as to who the managers of the companies are. When's the last time a member of a company board was voted out by the shareholders? Never happens. And the board approves the executive compensation committee, that decides how much to pay the executives and the board. It's as bad in corporate America as it will be if Obama gets a liberal majority on the Supreme Court. All of the checks and balances eliminated.

I thought the liberal courts were the ones who initiated the checks and balances. Who passed "Citizens United?" This allows more corporate money into politics. Is democracy now a "free market?" Aren't the Republicans the ones who want to eliminate all regulations so competition can make the markets more efficient? And who was our President during the last two terms who presided over the banking meltdown? Obama may be continuing to screw things up but many administrations have had a hand in this, both Democratic and Republican.

 

[Anonymous]

You don't6 need to know what about anything to post on here. Since when have any of you woried about te truth.

You confess on here and seem to be angry with the company about your own behavior.

Earlier in Seroquel's product life we would see Gero Psychs for example and management would say, think about it, these patients often have psychotic like delusions and hallucinations which are like Schizophrenia, and Seroquel is indicated for that. So it should be an appropriate treatment for that patient as it could treat that condition. Stuff like that.

I never liked minimizing weight gain or metabolic concerns though in the race to increase sales, especially if given that direction. And yeah, if that moved a person with an already increased BMI or elevated glucose closer to being diabetic that does bother me.

 

[Anonymous]

it should only have been promoted for what it was indicated for with the studies used for the approval. not elderly people as described in the previous post. az is a sick company.

 

[Anonymous]

That's an oversimplification and not true. Fines are the result of wrong doing. Period.

Wrong. Fines (levies) were paid without admitting guilt for the sake of moving health care reform along.

History is being rewritten by a government and legal system that got jesus.

 

[Anonymous]

Wrong. Fines (levies) were paid without admitting guilt for the sake of moving health care reform along.

History is being rewritten by a government and legal system that got jesus.

Right Mr. AZ Legal Department. AZ did not do anything wrong, that's why they settled for over a billion. We believe you.

 

[Anonymous]

I thought the liberal courts were the ones who initiated the checks and balances. Who passed "Citizens United?" This allows more corporate money into politics. Is democracy now a "free market?" Aren't the Republicans the ones who want to eliminate all regulations so competition can make the markets more efficient? And who was our President during the last two terms who presided over the banking meltdown? Obama may be continuing to screw things up but many administrations have had a hand in this, both Democratic and Republican.

FYI: Checks and balances means one party or interest doesn't control everything, the courts didn't initiate it, the Founders did and the courts are part of it. It's called "Separation of Power."

You read like a typical partisan liberal -- it's all about blaming someone else, every issue. I could slip on a banana peel and you'd make it into a political issue that's Bush's fault.

 

[Anonymous]

I thought the liberal courts were the ones who initiated the checks and balances. Who passed "Citizens United?" This allows more corporate money into politics. Is democracy now a "free market?" Aren't the Republicans the ones who want to eliminate all regulations so competition can make the markets more efficient? And who was our President during the last two terms who presided over the banking meltdown? Obama may be continuing to screw things up but many administrations have had a hand in this, both Democratic and Republican.

The really sad part for the USA is the quoted writer is a product of the US' education system. He probably is a college or university graduate from somewhere, and doesn't know this basic fact about our government. I think if a legal immigrant wants to become a citizen, this is on the test as just BASIC. And of course, he's a liberal. Who works in pharmaceuticals. Probably looks OK in a suit though!

 

[Anonymous]

The sad fact is you think you are part of the wealthy class and have no need of government. You should live in China, that is what you seem to prefer. Free markets.

 

[Anonymous]

What is the AZ 1-800 number to anonymously report internal compliance issues, etc.

 

[Anonymous]

The sad fact is you think you are part of the wealthy class and have no need of government. You should live in China, that is what you seem to prefer. Free markets.

This makes no sense at all.

 

[Anonymous]

1-800-BALL-SACK

 

[Anonymous]

FYI: Checks and balances means one party or interest doesn't control everything, the courts didn't initiate it, the Founders did and the courts are part of it. It's called "Separation of Power."

You read like a typical partisan liberal -- it's all about blaming someone else, every issue. I could slip on a banana peel and you'd make it into a political issue that's Bush's fault.

You is a dumb ass, making things up again.

 

[Anonymous]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers

 

[Anonymous]

FYI: Checks and balances means one party or interest doesn't control everything, the courts didn't initiate it, the Founders did and the courts are part of it. It's called "Separation of Power."

You read like a typical partisan liberal -- it's all about blaming someone else, every issue. I could slip on a banana peel and you'd make it into a political issue that's Bush's fault.

Separation of powers doesn't have anything to do with parties, but a balance between the executive, the legislative and the judicial bodies. This balance has shifted some but lately the executive has been the strongest with judicial activism from both liberal and conservative sides. "Citizens United' was considered conservative activism as it allowed more corporate money into politics. If you think that's a good thing then that's your right, but the founders would have disagreed. Look it up. Jefferson in particular was concerned with the power of corporation in the early 19th century. The fledgling US government was reeling from a war caused in part by the corporate interest of the East India company. The East India Company was given a monopoly on the importation of tea in 1773. That was a big catalyst in starting the Revolutionary War.

Again, you are an idiot. You are blaming me for being a typical partisan liberal whatever that means. You are a typical knuckle dragger who definitely needs to go to school to understand what you are talking about. And why did you bring up Bush, I didn't.

What AZ did in promoting Seroquel illegally was not exactly slip on a banana peel. They did it deliberately, and with intent. That's why they paid over $1,000,000,000.00 in fines with more to come. They did not settle because they were innocent but to stop bigger payments through the courts.