SACRAMENTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Yes on Prop. 61/Californians for Lower Drug Prices campaign today began airing provocative 15-second ads on social media sites featuring “wanted” posters of six top drug company executives whose corporations have been found guilty of illegal conduct that often seriously jeopardized the health and lives of elderly nursing home patients and troubled youths – and who are funding the No on 61 campaign.
The ads identify the huge pay-outs the six drug companies have made to settle allegations of criminal and civil violations filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, the compensation paid to the executives and the enormous amounts of money each company has spent on the campaign to defeat Prop. 61.
The ads are airing on Facebook, TMZ, The Daily Beast and Politico among other social media sites. Here are links to the ads: CEO Alex Gorsky, Johnson & Johnson; CEO Kenneth Frazer, Merck; CEO Ian Read, Pfizer; CEO Richard Gonzalez, Abbvie; CEO Brenton Saunders, Allergan; and CEO Robert Bradway, Amgen.
“These ads should make the choice clear to voters,” said Garry South, lead strategist for the Yes on Prop. 61 campaign. “Are you going to trust Sen. Bernie Sanders, the California Nurses Assn., AARP and Consumer Watchdog, who strongly back Prop. 61? Or are you going to trust the criminal drug companies – convicted of all sorts of illegal behavior – who are now spending $126 million of their ill-gotten gains to lie about Prop. 61?”
“Court records alone show these drug companies have the morals and ethics of junkyard dogs,” said South. “They’ve pleaded guilty to trying to cover up the terrible collateral damage their drugs have caused patients. They’ve lied to steal money from Medicare and Medical. They’ve paid illegal kickbacks to health-care providers to encourage them to prescribe their drugs over less expensive alternatives. Bottom-line: you can’t trust these companies any further than you can spit. And you know they’ll say anything in their ads to protect their price-gouging business practices. This is a classic case of voters beware.”
The criminal record of the six companies:
-
In 2013, Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries, including Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, agreed to pay more than $2.2
billion to resolve criminal and civil allegations about its
illegal promotion and marketing of several of its drugs, most notably
the anti-psychotic drug Risperdal. “The conduct at issue in this case jeopardized
the health and safety of patients,” Attorney General Eric
Holder said at the time.
Janssen illegally promoted the use of Risperdal to treat elderly patients with dementia, many of them housed in nursing homes, and children with mental health issues. Janssen’s promotions disregarded the fact that the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approved the drug to treat schizophrenia, not other conditions like depression, anxiety, autism and deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Janssen also ignored warnings Risperdal increased the risk of strokes and diabetes in the elderly and the risk of elevated levels of prolactin in young men, causing them to grow enlarged breasts (a condition called gynecomastia). More than 130 gynecomastia-related lawsuits were filed against Johnson & Johnson. Alex Gorsky, a top executive at Janssen responsible for marketing Risperdal, was named as a key witness in the first Risperdal trial. Gorsky, now CEO of Johnson & Johnson, did not take the stand because the case was settled quickly.
The settlement with U.S. Department of Justice also resolved allegations Johnson & Johnson and Janssen paid kickbacks to Omnicare Inc., the nation’s largest pharmacy specializing in dispensing drugs to nursing homes. The kickbacks were paid to encourage hundreds of Omnicare’s consultant pharmacists to prescribe Risperdal. (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice and Forbes)
-
In 2007, Merck set up a $4.85 billion
fund to potentially settle 27,000 lawsuits filed by people who
claimed they or their family members suffered
injury or died from heart attacks or strokes after taking the
company’s drug Vioxx – mostly to relieve the pain of arthritis. The
settlement fund, one of the largest ever in civil litigation, was
established after two years of civil trials in states ranging from New
Jersey to California involving nearly 20 separate lawsuits. In
2004, Merck recalled Vioxx after disclosures that it withheld
information about the drug’s risks from doctors and patients for over
five years, reportedly resulting in tens of thousands of cases of
serious heart disease.
In 2016, Merck agreed to pay $830 million to shareholders who suffered losses investing in Merck’s stock. The shareholders, many of them large pension funds, alleged Merck misrepresented the risks of owning its stock by keeping the Vioxx scandal under wraps.
In 2011, Merck agreed to pay a $322 million criminal fine in connection with its guilty pleas related to its illegal promotion and marketing of Vioxx. Also in 2011, Merck entered into a separate $628 million civil settlement concerning false statements the drug company made about Vioxx’s cardiovascular safety. (Sources: New York Times, Wall Street Journal and U.S. Dept. of Justice).
-
In 2013, Pfizer – and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. -
agreed to pay $2.3 billion for fraudulently
marketing some of their drugs and causing government health care
programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, to be over-billed by
hundreds of millions of dollars. The settlement required Pfizer
to repay nearly $1 billion to the programs that were overbilled.
The Department of Justice at the time called the settlement a “landmark” in protecting “the public from those who seek to earn a profit through fraud.” The settlement also resolved allegations that Pfizer paid kickbacks to health care providers to prescribe its drugs, including Bextra, for uses and dosages not approved by the FDA.
The $1.195 billion criminal fine against Pfizer in this case was the “largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter,” according to the Department of Justice press release. (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice)
-
In 2012, Abbott Labs (the predecessor to Abbvie) agreed
to pay $1.5 billion to resolve criminal and civil allegations about
its illegal promotion of its drug, Depakote, which was FDA-approved to
treat bipolar mania, epileptic seizures and prevent migraines. Not
content to limit its drug to those uses, Abbott began making false
and misleading statements about Depakote’s safety, efficacy and
cost-effectiveness in treating schizophrenia among elderly nursing
home patients, various mental health issues among children and
adolescents and the symptoms of alcohol and drug withdrawal,
obsessive-compulsive disorder, autism and attention deficit disorder.
The settlement also resolved government allegations that Abbott’s caused false claims to be submitted to Medicare, Medicaid and the Department of Veterans Affairs for payment for its drugs. In this matter alone, Abbott agreed to repay with penalties $800 million to federal and state health programs. (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice)
-
In 2010, Allergan agreed to pay $600 million in criminal and
civil fines to settle allegations that it illegally promoted its drug
Botox for uses not approved as safe and effective by the FDA including
for spasticity and juvenile cerebral palsy. According to the
Department of Justice prosecutors, “the FDA had approved therapeutic
uses of Botox for only four rare conditions, yet Allergan
made it a top corporate priority to maximize sales of far more
lucrative off-label uses that were not approved by FDA.”
The federal complaint alleged that Allergan held workshops to teach doctors and their staffs how to improperly bill government agencies for off-label uses of Botox; lobbied government officials to expand coverage for off-label uses; and created programs to educate medical professionals about the value of off-label uses of Botox. (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice)
-
In 2012 Amgen pleaded guilty to illegally promoting a drug for
uses and in dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve
because they were not supported by medical studies. As a result of its
plea, Amgen agreed to pay $762 million in fines. The U.S. Department
of Justice lawsuit centered around the drug Aranesp, a drug approved
by the FDA for treating anemia in cancer patients being treated with
chemotherapy.
A government prosecutor said of Amgen’s conduct: “Instead of working to extend and enhance human lives, Amgen illegally pursued corporate profits while jeopardizing the safety of vulnerable consumers.”
The Department of Justice case also accused Amgen of causing government health programs to be improperly billed and of paying kickbacks to doctors to prescribe Aranesp for uses not approved by the FDA. (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice).
www.Yeson61.com
Paid
for by Yes on Prop 61, Californians for Lower Drug Prices, With Major
Funding by AIDS Healthcare Foundation and California Nurses Association
PAC. FPPC ID#1376791