hopalong mitch
Pharma Blog » 2011 » May » 09
Will Lilly Scandals Rub Off On Mitch Daniels?
3 Comments
By Ed Silverman // May 9th, 2011 // 8:07 am
As Indiana governor and former Eli Lilly exec Mitch Daniels gears up for a run at the Republican presidential nomination, his campaign staff is working hard to deny he had anything to do with the marketing scandals that enveloped the drugmaker during his tenure, according to iWatch, the blog from the Center for Public Integrity.
In 2005, for instance, Lilly pleaded guilty and paid $36 million for illegally marketing its Evista osteoporosis med (read this). And two years ago, the drugmaker pleaded guilty and paid $1.4 billion for off-label promotion of its Zyprexa antipsychotic. The penalty include a criminal fine of $515 million which, at the time, was the largest criminal fine for an individual corporation ever imposed in a US criminal prosecution of any kind (read here).
However, Daniels was risking steadily through Lilly corporate ranks at the time these infractions occurred, notes iWatch. He was vice president of corporate affairs, president of North American pharmaceutical operations and, in 1997, became senior vice president of corporate strategy and policy.
Daniels’ press secretary Jane Jakowski denies the gov was involved - directly or indirectly - with the marketing for either drug. “He had zero to do with marketing plans that were created for Zyprexa and Evista.” Concerning a high-profile battle over a patent for the Prozac antidepressant in which trial data was allegedly hidden, she adds Lilly “was the object of a multimillion-dollar smear campaign by a self-interested organization that was trying to drive vulnerable patients away from medical treatment for depression.”
Nonetheless, his senior roles at the drugmakers suggests, to some, that he may have some explaining to do as he portrays himself to voters as someone with the skills and leadership to run the country and make the best decisions possible. “I would have hoped that he would have known about some of these issues, and if he didn’t, why didn’t he? That needs to be evaluated” Stephen Sheller, an attorney who sued the drugmaker over Zyprexa marketing and was involved in the settlement.
“Bill Clinton had the bimbo factor. Mitch Daniels is going to need a strategy to counteract the assumption that will be made that he was somehow complicit in the misdeeds of Eli Lilly,” Ira Loss, senior health care analyst at Washington Analysis, an investment research firm, tells iWatch. “It’s possible that he wouldn’t have known a thing,” but “Mitch Daniels can’t walk into the presidential race and not expect questions about this issue.”
However, Sid Wolfe, who directs Public Citizen’s Health Research Group and is a frequent industry critics, notes that most decisions are not made by any one exec, so his involvement in the controversies remains unclear. “These things transcend individuals. It’s more difficult to say this is the work of person A, B, or C,” he tells iWatch. “It’s industrywide corporate culture.”
The implication? Daniels may have some explaining to do in order to convince voters he stands apart from organizations that knowingly do the wrong thi
Pharma Blog » 2011 » May » 09
Will Lilly Scandals Rub Off On Mitch Daniels?
3 Comments
By Ed Silverman // May 9th, 2011 // 8:07 am
As Indiana governor and former Eli Lilly exec Mitch Daniels gears up for a run at the Republican presidential nomination, his campaign staff is working hard to deny he had anything to do with the marketing scandals that enveloped the drugmaker during his tenure, according to iWatch, the blog from the Center for Public Integrity.
In 2005, for instance, Lilly pleaded guilty and paid $36 million for illegally marketing its Evista osteoporosis med (read this). And two years ago, the drugmaker pleaded guilty and paid $1.4 billion for off-label promotion of its Zyprexa antipsychotic. The penalty include a criminal fine of $515 million which, at the time, was the largest criminal fine for an individual corporation ever imposed in a US criminal prosecution of any kind (read here).
However, Daniels was risking steadily through Lilly corporate ranks at the time these infractions occurred, notes iWatch. He was vice president of corporate affairs, president of North American pharmaceutical operations and, in 1997, became senior vice president of corporate strategy and policy.
Daniels’ press secretary Jane Jakowski denies the gov was involved - directly or indirectly - with the marketing for either drug. “He had zero to do with marketing plans that were created for Zyprexa and Evista.” Concerning a high-profile battle over a patent for the Prozac antidepressant in which trial data was allegedly hidden, she adds Lilly “was the object of a multimillion-dollar smear campaign by a self-interested organization that was trying to drive vulnerable patients away from medical treatment for depression.”
Nonetheless, his senior roles at the drugmakers suggests, to some, that he may have some explaining to do as he portrays himself to voters as someone with the skills and leadership to run the country and make the best decisions possible. “I would have hoped that he would have known about some of these issues, and if he didn’t, why didn’t he? That needs to be evaluated” Stephen Sheller, an attorney who sued the drugmaker over Zyprexa marketing and was involved in the settlement.
“Bill Clinton had the bimbo factor. Mitch Daniels is going to need a strategy to counteract the assumption that will be made that he was somehow complicit in the misdeeds of Eli Lilly,” Ira Loss, senior health care analyst at Washington Analysis, an investment research firm, tells iWatch. “It’s possible that he wouldn’t have known a thing,” but “Mitch Daniels can’t walk into the presidential race and not expect questions about this issue.”
However, Sid Wolfe, who directs Public Citizen’s Health Research Group and is a frequent industry critics, notes that most decisions are not made by any one exec, so his involvement in the controversies remains unclear. “These things transcend individuals. It’s more difficult to say this is the work of person A, B, or C,” he tells iWatch. “It’s industrywide corporate culture.”
The implication? Daniels may have some explaining to do in order to convince voters he stands apart from organizations that knowingly do the wrong thi