Judge rules that Whistleblower lawsuit goes forward

[Anonymous]

In a 90 page decision the Judge ruled that the whistleblower lawsuit filed in New York goes ahead. Novartis and their large team of lawyers lose again to try to prevent the lawsuit from proceeding. Buckle up things will be brought up on Long Island all over again. Good luck selling your new product to these doctors again. You had a break from seeing them for a while.

 

[Anonymous]

In a 90 page decision the Judge ruled that the whistleblower lawsuit filed in New York goes ahead. Novartis and their large team of lawyers lose again to try to prevent the lawsuit from proceeding. Buckle up things will be brought up on Long Island all over again. Good luck selling your new product to these doctors again. You had a break from seeing them for a while.

but Julie masow said Novartis is committed to "high standards of ethical business conduct," ( Especially in Japan & Long Island ) and that speaker programs "can help......"
so it must be true if the corporate spokeswoman says so & they will continue to defend ..the indefensible ..just like they did in the discrimination case

 

[Anonymous]

This makes 2 active whistleblower lawsuits in New York at the same time. I wonder what the speaker budgets will be for the new products. Fast forward 8 years from now and there will be lawsuits for the new products because Novartis will not change its ways because it is the cort of doing business just like salary.

 

[Anonymous]

The whistleblower(s) will get easy Lotto money! Payout may not be BIG (say millions), but free money is free money. AND, if they are still employed by the Swiss-Nazis, they are in a protected class. Only way to get rid of the whistleblower(s) is via restructuring, which can be scrutinized. Firing would be tough, and any smart manager, wouldn't want to touch them with a 100 foot pole, let alone ride with them.

 

[Anonymous]

Speaker fees are done with the new Sunshine law anyway. What doc will want thier name in a public database with the fact of the payments ending up on thier online reviews?

 

[Anonymous]

Novartis will continue business as usual because it has always been profitable. Remember to use their line that we have always done everything ethically if they ever want to go after you for any transgression. Look at their annual report you would be shocked at how much they spend on lawsuits and litigation. Enough for a couple of business units.

 

[Anonymous]

Novartis will continue business as usual because it has always been profitable. Remember to use their line that we have always done everything ethically if they ever want to go after you for any transgression. Look at their annual report you would be shocked at how much they spend on lawsuits and litigation. Enough for a couple of business units.

This is the only method management knows. It's a broken system that promotes & rewards those with the largest amount of whores in their area coupled with a lucky formulary roll of the dice here & there. In fact the dumber you are the more likely you will be to drink the kool aid & blindly follow marching orders especially if you win some hollow award or cheesy trip occasionally. Look at MS KOL's , mostly on the dole.

 

[Anonymous]

Great news! Now the govt can move into the discovery phase & start to deposition the reps their managers , their managers managers as well as the doctors & go on record to explain how clusters of docs spoke a dozen times in their own practices, how they funded an xmas party as a speaker program, gave lectures at hooters, on a fishing boat, rack up a 10K dinner for 3 people, how some docs allegedly spoke in offices too small to support 2 bodies or programs supposedly at competitors offices during lunch & you can go on & on & on about these various sham programs. They may have denied up until this point but facing perjury they'll sing like canaries. Keep in mind many in upper management knew of these bogus programs & never questioned or put a stop to it

 

[Docs under the bus]

Speaker fees are done with the new Sunshine law anyway. What doc will want thier name in a public database with the fact of the payments ending up on thier online reviews?

Despite management arrogance & hubris deciding to draw this out & waste millions in legal costs the one effect they neglect(ed) to take into account are the doctors won't soon forget that rather than bring this matter to an expedient close NVS dragged them through the mud as well & competitive reps will be wise to make the point. When you are caught with your hand in the cookie jar fess up & move on. What a fools errand to let lawyers with their own agenda & profit motives dictate policy that enriches them regardless like a messy divorce. The NVS legal dept should be next on the chopping block. Their record of failure is astounding!

 

[Anonymous]

The whistleblower(s) will get easy Lotto money! Payout may not be BIG (say millions), but free money is free money. AND, if they are still employed by the Swiss-Nazis, they are in a protected class. Only way to get rid of the whistleblower(s) is via restructuring, which can be scrutinized. Firing would be tough, and any smart manager, wouldn't want to touch them with a 100 foot pole, let alone ride with them.

Why do you say payout may not be big?

 

[Sham Programs?]

10:53 am ET
Oct 1, 2014
Litigation
‘Sham’ Programs? Novartis Must Face a Kickback Lawsuit Filed by the Feds
By Ed Silverman WSJ

A federal judge has ruled that Novartis must face a lawsuit in which the U.S. Department of Justice charged the drug maker with paying millions of dollars in kickbacks to physicians – including numerous lavish dinners and social events – in order to persuade them to prescribe its medicines.

The lawsuit, which was filed last year, alleges that Novartis caused Medicare and Medicaid to unnecessarily pay millions of dollars in reimbursements between 2002 and 2011 based on false insurance claims submitted for various drugs, including the Lotrel blood pressure treatment. Novartis, which denies the allegations, had filed a motion to have the lawsuit dismissed.

In the lawsuit, the feds maintain that Novartis boosted prescriptions by orchestrating “sham” speaker events, some of which were held at expensive restaurants, sports bars and fishing venues, where little or no direct connection to its drugs were discussed, according to court documents. And the drug maker allegedly paid various doctors to make the same presentation to the same group of doctors over a short period of time.

As an example, the lawsuit cites a July 2005 dinner at Smith & Wollensky in Washington, D.C., for $2,016 for three people, or $672 per person. There was also a May 2006 dinner at Nobu in New York, where a doctor was paid to speak, but only the physician, two of his friends – one of whom brought a girlfriend who was not a health care professional – and a Novartis sales reps had attended.

The lawsuit explains “in detail why the speaker events were shams and how they served as a vehicle for kickbacks,” U.S. District Court Judge Paul Gardephe wrote in a 90-page ruling. “Novartis has cited no case demonstrating that the government entities’ pleading of particular false claims is deficient.”

The decision means that Novartis business practices will be placed under a microscope. The lawsuit notes the drug maker three years ago paid $422.5 million in penalties and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor to resolve criminal allegations for improperly promoting several medicines.

As part of the settlement, Novartis signed a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement, which required establishing an internal compliance program and reporting violations, among other things. The lawsuit, however, suggests the drug maker may have violated the agreement.

The case is far from over, but there is a theoretical possibility that Novartis may face exclusion, which means the drug maker could be excluded from having contracts with federal health care programs. Of course, this can cause collateral damage if patients are unable to obtain certain medicines, making such a move highly unlikely.

Nonetheless, the feds may feel they have more leverage if any settlement talks take place while the case proceeds. It is also worth noting that the allegations undermine an argument offered by the pharmaceutical industry that recent settlements reflect older practices that have been ended.

A Novartis spokeswoman writes that the drug maker “disputes the allegations and will continue to vigorously defend itself in this litigation… Novartis is committed to high standards of ethical business conduct and has a comprehensive compliance program in place to help ensure we consistently act in a responsible manner.”

The government lawsuit stemmed from a whistleblower lawsuit filed three years ago by a former Novartis sales rep named Oswald Bilotta. The judge also ruled that Bilotta can pursue his own claims.

His attorney, Eric Young, wrote us to say that he is “pleased” with the ruling. “We think the decision is a great example of why the Sunshine Physician Payments Act is necessary.” He was referring to the Open Payments database launched yesterday that displays payments made by drug and device makers to physicians

 

[Anonymous]

The last whustleblower settlements paid by Novartis were in excess of $400 million each. Whistleblowers typically get 10 to 20% of the payouts so $40 to $80 million to the whistleblower is not chump change.

 

[Anonymous]

10:53 am ET
Oct 1, 2014
Litigation
‘Sham’ Programs? Novartis Must Face a Kickback Lawsuit Filed by the Feds
By Ed Silverman WSJ

A federal judge has ruled that Novartis must face a lawsuit in which the U.S. Department of Justice charged the drug maker with paying millions of dollars in kickbacks to physicians – including numerous lavish dinners and social events – in order to persuade them to prescribe its medicines.

The lawsuit, which was filed last year, alleges that Novartis caused Medicare and Medicaid to unnecessarily pay millions of dollars in reimbursements between 2002 and 2011 based on false insurance claims submitted for various drugs, including the Lotrel blood pressure treatment. Novartis, which denies the allegations, had filed a motion to have the lawsuit dismissed.

In the lawsuit, the feds maintain that Novartis boosted prescriptions by orchestrating “sham” speaker events, some of which were held at expensive restaurants, sports bars and fishing venues, where little or no direct connection to its drugs were discussed, according to court documents. And the drug maker allegedly paid various doctors to make the same presentation to the same group of doctors over a short period of time.

As an example, the lawsuit cites a July 2005 dinner at Smith & Wollensky in Washington, D.C., for $2,016 for three people, or $672 per person. There was also a May 2006 dinner at Nobu in New York, where a doctor was paid to speak, but only the physician, two of his friends – one of whom brought a girlfriend who was not a health care professional – and a Novartis sales reps had attended.

The lawsuit explains “in detail why the speaker events were shams and how they served as a vehicle for kickbacks,” U.S. District Court Judge Paul Gardephe wrote in a 90-page ruling. “Novartis has cited no case demonstrating that the government entities’ pleading of particular false claims is deficient.”

The decision means that Novartis business practices will be placed under a microscope. The lawsuit notes the drug maker three years ago paid $422.5 million in penalties and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor to resolve criminal allegations for improperly promoting several medicines.

As part of the settlement, Novartis signed a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement, which required establishing an internal compliance program and reporting violations, among other things. The lawsuit, however, suggests the drug maker may have violated the agreement.

The case is far from over, but there is a theoretical possibility that Novartis may face exclusion, which means the drug maker could be excluded from having contracts with federal health care programs. Of course, this can cause collateral damage if patients are unable to obtain certain medicines, making such a move highly unlikely.

Nonetheless, the feds may feel they have more leverage if any settlement talks take place while the case proceeds. It is also worth noting that the allegations undermine an argument offered by the pharmaceutical industry that recent settlements reflect older practices that have been ended.

A Novartis spokeswoman writes that the drug maker “disputes the allegations and will continue to vigorously defend itself in this litigation… Novartis is committed to high standards of ethical business conduct and has a comprehensive compliance program in place to help ensure we consistently act in a responsible manner.”

The government lawsuit stemmed from a whistleblower lawsuit filed three years ago by a former Novartis sales rep named Oswald Bilotta. The judge also ruled that Bilotta can pursue his own claims.

His attorney, Eric Young, wrote us to say that he is “pleased” with the ruling. “We think the decision is a great example of why the Sunshine Physician Payments Act is necessary.” He was referring to the Open Payments database launched yesterday that displays payments made by drug and device makers to physicians

Liberal leaches rejoice!!!

 

[Anonymous]

Liberal leaches rejoice!!!

Corporate leaches rejoice!!!

"Novartis files lawsuit against Zydus"
September 10, 2014
Ahmedabad-based Cadila Healthcare Ltd (Zydus Cadila) is facing lawsuits in various US courts, including one filed by global pharma major Novartis Pharmaceuticals, for infringement of patents. Novartis has filed two suits against Cadila Healthcare’s US subsidiaries Zydus Noveltech and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA),

 

[Anonymous]

The last whustleblower settlements paid by Novartis were in excess of $400 million each. Whistleblowers typically get 10 to 20% of the payouts so $40 to $80 million to the whistleblower is not chump change.

Not true. It started out there and ended up about $70M

 

[Anonymous]

Not true. It started out there and ended up about $70M

The last settlement was for $422.5 million. Verify it if you want

 

[Anonymous]

A lot of the questionable programs occurred before the CIA agreement, how is Novartis now in trouble for those all over again. Also if the whistleblower did bogus programs and can be proven will they reduce the amount of money given or throw the case out. I can't believe that a whistleblower who participated in bogus programs would not damage the governments case.

 

[Anonymous]

Corporate leaches rejoice!!!

"Novartis files lawsuit against Zydus"
September 10, 2014
Ahmedabad-based Cadila Healthcare Ltd (Zydus Cadila) is facing lawsuits in various US courts, including one filed by global pharma major Novartis Pharmaceuticals, for infringement of patents. Novartis has filed two suits against Cadila Healthcare’s US subsidiaries Zydus Noveltech and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA),

Novartis has saved, extended lives and improved quality of life for millions... What have you done lately, you liberal leech?

 

[Anonymous]

Novartis has saved, extended lives and improved quality of life for millions... What have you done lately, you liberal leech?

Now they get to deal with......

 

[Anonymous]

A lot of the questionable programs occurred before the CIA agreement, how is Novartis now in trouble for those all over again. Also if the whistleblower did bogus programs and can be proven will they reduce the amount of money given or throw the case out. I can't believe that a whistleblower who participated in bogus programs would not damage the governments case.

The settlement that resulted in the CIA agreement did not include all of the drugs that this lawsuit is referencing. That enables thus lawsuit to cover the years before the CIA. Now after the CIA is in place there were violations that included the drugs that were included in the CIA so those claims go forward. The CIA from that point forward covers all of the drugs listed in the lawsuit. In many cases the whistleblower also participated in the activity but it could be a direct result of the corporation's actions such as holding against a Rep if they didn't have enough programs or spending all of the money allocated for programs etc.