Tag Archives: FDA

Astellas Pharma US Inc. to Pay $7.3 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations Relating to Marketing of Drug Mycamine

Posted on by
Pharmaceutical company Astellas Pharma US Inc. will pay $7.3 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act in connection with its marketing and promotion of the drug Mycamine for pediatric use, the Justice Department announced today.  Astellas Pharma US Inc., located in Northbrook, Ill., manufactures and sells pharmaceutical drugs, including Mycamine.

“The FDA’s drug approval process requires companies to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of their products,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division Stuart F. Delery.  “The Justice Department will hold accountable pharmaceutical companies that skirt these rules and seek to bill federal health care programs for uses of drugs that are not reimbursable.”

The settlement resolves allegations that, between 2005 and 2010, Astellas knowingly marketed and promoted the sale of Mycamine for pediatric use, which was not a medically accepted indication and, therefore, not covered by federal health care programs.  During this time period, the FDA approved Mycamine to treat adult patients suffering from serious and invasive infections caused by the fungus Candida, including infections in the esophagus, the blood and the abdomen, and to prevent Candida infections in adults undergoing stem cell transplants.  From 2005 through June 2013, however, Mycamine was not approved to treat pediatric patients for any use.

As a result of today’s $7.3 million settlement, the federal government will receive $4.2 million, and state Medicaid programs will receive $3.1 million.

“The settlement in this case further demonstrates our commitment to hold responsible any pharmaceutical company that disregards the FDA drug approval process and promotes drugs for uses before they have been deemed safe and effective,” said U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Zane David Memeger.  “It’s a message that should resonate with all drug companies: there are consequences for violating the False Claims Act and putting profit ahead of government safeguards.”

The allegations resolved by the settlement arose from a lawsuit filed by Frank Smith, a former Astellas sales representative, under the False Claims Act’s whistleblower provisions, which permit private parties to sue for false claims on behalf of the government and to share in any recovery.  Smith will receive $708,852.

This settlement illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and marks another achievement for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced in May 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.  The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation.  One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act.  Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered a total of more than $19.1 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $13.6 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.

This case was a cooperative effort among the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Civil Division of the Department of Justice and the Offices of the Inspectors General of the Department of Health and Human Services and Office of Personnel Management.  The lawsuit is captioned United States ex rel. Smith v. Astellas Pharma, US Inc. et al., No. 10-999 (E.D. Pa.).

 

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability.

Johnson & Johnson to Pay More Than $2.2 Billion to Resolve Criminal and Civil Investigations (last matter GeyerGorey’s Patricia Davis worked prior to her retiring from USDOJ and joining our firm)

Posted on by

WASHINGTON – Global health care giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and its subsidiaries will pay more than $2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor, including promotion for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and payment of kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider.  The global resolution is one of the largest health care fraud settlements in U.S. history, including criminal fines and forfeiture totaling $485 million and civil settlements with the federal government and states totaling $1.72 billion.

“The conduct at issue in this case jeopardized the health and safety of patients and damaged the public trust,” said Attorney General Eric Holder.  “This multibillion-dollar resolution demonstrates the Justice Department’s firm commitment to preventing and combating all forms of health care fraud.  And it proves our determination to hold accountable any corporation that breaks the law and enriches its bottom line at the expense of the American people.”

The resolution includes criminal fines and forfeiture for violations of the law and civil settlements based on the False Claims Act arising out of multiple investigations of the company and its subsidiaries.

“When companies put profit over patients’ health and misuse taxpayer dollars, we demand accountability,” said Associate Attorney General Tony West.  “In addition to significant monetary sanctions, we will ensure that non-monetary measures are in place to facilitate change in corporate behavior and help ensure the playing field is level for all market participants.”

In addition to imposing substantial monetary sanctions, the resolution will subject J&J to stringent requirements under a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG).  This agreement is designed to increase accountability and transparency and prevent future fraud and abuse.

“As patients and consumers, we have a right to rely upon the claims drug companies make about their products,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division Stuart F. Delery.  “And, as taxpayers, we have a right to ensure that federal health care dollars are spent appropriately.  That is why this Administration has continued to pursue aggressively – with all of our available law enforcement tools — those companies that corrupt our health care system.”

J&J Subsidiary Janssen Pleads Guilty to Misbranding Antipsychotic Drug

In a criminal information filed today in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the government charged that, from March 3, 2002, through Dec. 31, 2003, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., a J&J subsidiary, introduced the antipsychotic drug Risperdal into interstate commerce for an unapproved use, rendering the product misbranded.  For most of this time period, Risperdal was approved only to treat schizophrenia.  The information alleges that Janssen’s sales representatives promoted Risperdal to physicians and other prescribers who treated elderly dementia patients by urging the prescribers to use Risperdal to treat symptoms such as anxiety, agitation, depression, hostility and confusion.  The information alleges that the company created written sales aids for use by Janssen’s ElderCare sales force that emphasized symptoms and minimized any mention of the FDA-approved use, treatment of schizophrenia.  The company also provided incentives for off-label promotion and intended use by basing sales representatives’ bonuses on total sales of Risperdal in their sales areas, not just sales for FDA-approved uses.

In a plea agreement resolving these charges, Janssen admitted that it promoted Risperdal to health care providers for treatment of psychotic symptoms and associated behavioral disturbances exhibited by elderly, non-schizophrenic dementia patients.  Under the terms of the plea agreement, Janssen will pay a total of $400 million, including a criminal fine of $334 million and forfeiture of $66 million.  Janssen’s guilty plea will not be final until accepted by the U.S. District Court.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) protects the health and safety of the public by ensuring, among other things, that drugs intended for use in humans are safe and effective for their intended uses and that the labeling of such drugs bear true, complete and accurate information.  Under the FDCA, a pharmaceutical company must specify the intended uses of a drug in its new drug application to the FDA.  Before approval, the FDA must determine that the drug is safe and effective for those specified uses.  Once the drug is approved, if the company intends a different use and then introduces the drug into interstate commerce for that new, unapproved use, the drug becomes misbranded.  The unapproved use is also known as an “off-label” use because it is not included in the drug’s FDA-approved labeling.

“When pharmaceutical companies interfere with the FDA’s mission of ensuring that drugs are safe and effective for the American public, they undermine the doctor-patient relationship and put the health and safety of patients at risk,” said Director of the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations John Roth.  “Today’s settlement demonstrates the government’s continued focus on pharmaceutical companies that put profits ahead of the public’s health.  The FDA will continue to devote resources to criminal investigations targeting pharmaceutical companies that disregard the drug approval process and recklessly promote drugs for uses that have not been proven to be safe and effective.”

J&J and Janssen Settle Civil Allegations of Targeting Vulnerable Patients  with the Drugs Risperdal and Invega for Off-Label Uses

In a related civil complaint filed today in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States alleges that Janssen marketed Risperdal to control the behaviors and conduct of the nation’s most vulnerable patients: elderly nursing home residents, children and individuals with mental disabilities.  The government alleges that J&J and Janssen caused false claims to be submitted to federal health care programs by promoting Risperdal for off-label uses that federal health care programs did not cover, making false and misleading statements about the safety and efficacy of Risperdal and paying kickbacks to physicians to prescribe Risperdal.

“J&J’s promotion of Risperdal for unapproved uses threatened the most vulnerable populations of our society – children, the elderly and those with developmental disabilities,” said U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Zane Memeger.  “This historic settlement sends the message that drug manufacturers who place profits over patient care will face severe criminal and civil penalties.”

In its complaint, the government alleges that the FDA repeatedly advised Janssen that marketing Risperdal as safe and effective for the elderly would be “misleading.”  The FDA cautioned Janssen that behavioral disturbances in elderly dementia patients were not necessarily manifestations of psychotic disorders and might even be “appropriate responses to the deplorable conditions under which some demented patients are housed, thus raising an ethical question regarding the use of an antipsychotic medication for inappropriate behavioral control.”

The complaint further alleges that J&J and Janssen were aware that Risperdal posed serious health risks for the elderly, including an increased risk of strokes, but that the companies downplayed these risks.  For example, when a J&J study of Risperdal showed a significant risk of strokes and other adverse events in elderly dementia patients, the complaint alleges that Janssen combined the study data with other studies to make it appear that there was a lower overall risk of adverse events.  A year after J&J had received the results of a second study confirming the increased safety risk for elderly patients taking Risperdal, but had not published the data, one physician who worked on the study cautioned Janssen that “[a]t this point, so long after [the study] has been completed … we must be concerned that this gives the strong appearance that Janssen is purposely withholding the findings.”

The complaint also alleges that Janssen knew that patients taking Risperdal had an increased risk of developing diabetes, but nonetheless promoted Risperdal as “uncompromised by safety concerns (does not cause diabetes).”  When Janssen received the initial results of studies indicating that Risperdal posed the same diabetes risk as other antipsychotics, the complaint alleges that the company retained outside consultants to re-analyze the study results and ultimately published articles stating that Risperdal was actually associated with a lower risk of developing diabetes.

The complaint alleges that, despite the FDA warnings and increased health risks, from 1999 through 2005, Janssen aggressively marketed Risperdal to control behavioral disturbances in dementia patients through an “ElderCare sales force” designed to target nursing homes and doctors who treated the elderly.  In business plans, Janssen’s goal was to “[m]aximize and grow RISPERDAL’s market leadership in geriatrics and long term care.”  The company touted Risperdal as having “proven efficacy” and “an excellent safety and tolerability profile” in geriatric patients.

In addition to promoting Risperdal for elderly dementia patients, from 1999 through 2005, Janssen allegedly promoted the antipsychotic drug for use in children and individuals with mental disabilities.  The complaint alleges that J&J and Janssen knew that Risperdal posed certain health risks to children, including the risk of elevated levels of prolactin, a hormone that can stimulate breast development and milk production.  Nonetheless, one of Janssen’s Key Base Business Goals was to grow and protect the drug’s market share with child/adolescent patients.  Janssen instructed its sales representatives to call on child psychiatrists, as well as mental health facilities that primarily treated children, and to market Risperdal as safe and effective for symptoms of various childhood disorders, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder and autism.  Until late 2006, Risperdal was not approved for use in children for any purpose, and the FDA repeatedly warned the company against promoting it for use in children.

The government’s complaint also contains allegations that Janssen paid speaker fees to doctors to influence them to write prescriptions for Risperdal.  Sales representatives allegedly told these doctors that if they wanted to receive payments for speaking, they needed to increase their Risperdal prescriptions.

In addition to allegations relating to Risperdal, today’s settlement also resolves allegations relating to Invega, a newer antipsychotic drug also sold by Janssen.  Although Invega was approved only for the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, the government alleges that, from 2006 through 2009, J&J and Janssen marketed the drug for off-label indications and made false and misleading statements about its safety and efficacy.

As part of the global resolution, J&J and Janssen have agreed to pay a total of $1.391 billion to resolve the false claims allegedly resulting from their off-label marketing and kickbacks for Risperdal and Invega.  This total includes $1.273 billion to be paid as part of the resolution announced today, as well as $118 million that J&J and Janssen paid to the state of Texas in March 2012 to resolve similar allegations relating to Risperdal.  Because Medicaid is a joint federal-state program, J&J’s conduct caused losses to both the federal and state governments.  The additional payment made by J&J as part of today’s settlement will be shared between the federal and state governments, with the federal government recovering $749 million, and the states recovering $524 million.  The federal government and Texas each received $59 million from the Texas settlement.

Kickbacks to Nursing Home Pharmacies

The civil settlement also resolves allegations that, in furtherance of their efforts to target elderly dementia patients in nursing homes, J&J and Janssen paid kickbacks to Omnicare Inc., the nation’s largest pharmacy specializing in dispensing drugs to nursing home patients.  In a complaint filed in the District of Massachusetts in January 2010, the United States alleged that J&J paid millions of dollars in kickbacks to Omnicare under the guise of market share rebate payments, data-purchase agreements, “grants” and “educational funding.”  These kickbacks were intended to induce Omnicare and its hundreds of consultant pharmacists to engage in “active intervention programs” to promote the use of Risperdal and other J&J drugs in nursing homes.  Omnicare’s consultant pharmacists regularly reviewed nursing home patients’ medical charts and made recommendations to physicians on what drugs should be prescribed for those patients.  Although consultant pharmacists purported to provide “independent” recommendations based on their clinical judgment, J&J viewed the pharmacists as an “extension of [J&J’s] sales force.”

J&J and Janssen have agreed to pay $149 million to resolve the government’s contention that these kickbacks caused Omnicare to submit false claims to federal health care programs.  The federal share of this settlement is $132 million, and the five participating states’ total share is $17 million.  In 2009, Omnicare paid $98 million to resolve its civil liability for claims that it accepted kickbacks from J&J and Janssen, along with certain other conduct.

“Consultant pharmacists can play an important role in protecting nursing home residents from the use of antipsychotic drugs as chemical restraints,” said U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts Carmen Ortiz.  “This settlement is a reminder that the recommendations of consultant pharmacists should be based on their independent clinical judgment and should not be the product of money paid by drug companies.”

Off-Label Promotion of the Heart Failure Drug Natrecor

The civil settlement announced today also resolves allegations that J&J and another of its subsidiaries, Scios Inc., caused false and fraudulent claims to be submitted to federal health care programs for the heart failure drug Natrecor.  In August 2001, the FDA approved Natrecor to treat patients with acutely decompensated congestive heart failure who have shortness of breath at rest or with minimal activity.  This approval was based on a study involving hospitalized patients experiencing severe heart failure who received infusions of Natrecor over an average 36-hour period.

In a civil complaint filed in 2009 in the Northern District of California, the government alleged that, shortly after Natrecor was approved, Scios launched an aggressive campaign to market the drug for scheduled, serial outpatient infusions for patients with less severe heart failure – a use not included in the FDA-approved label and not covered by federal health care programs.  These infusions generally involved visits to an outpatient clinic or doctor’s office for four- to six-hour infusions one or two times per week for several weeks or months.

The government’s complaint alleged that Scios had no sound scientific evidence supporting the medical necessity of these outpatient infusions and misleadingly used a small pilot study to encourage the serial outpatient use of the drug.  Among other things, Scios sponsored an extensive speaker program through which doctors were paid to tout the purported benefits of serial outpatient use of Natrecor.  Scios also urged doctors and hospitals to set up outpatient clinics specifically to administer the serial outpatient infusions, in some cases providing funds to defray the costs of setting up the clinics, and supplied providers with extensive resources and support for billing Medicare for the outpatient infusions.

As part of today’s resolution, J&J and Scios have agreed to pay the federal government $184 million to resolve their civil liability for the alleged false claims to federal health care programs resulting from their off-label marketing of Natrecor.  In October 2011, Scios pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor FDCA violation and paid a criminal fine of $85 million for introducing Natrecor into interstate commerce for an off-label use.

“This case is an example of a drug company encouraging doctors to use a drug in a way that was unsupported by valid scientific evidence,” said First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California Brian Stretch.  “We are committed to ensuring that federal health care programs do not pay for such inappropriate uses, and that pharmaceutical companies market their drugs only for uses that have been proven safe and effective.”

Non-Monetary Provisions of the Global Resolution and Corporate Integrity Agreement

In addition to the criminal and civil resolutions, J&J has executed a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG).  The CIA includes provisions requiring J&J to implement major changes to the way its pharmaceutical affiliates do business.  Among other things, the CIA requires J&J to change its executive compensation program to permit the company to recoup annual bonuses and other long-term incentives from covered executives if they, or their subordinates, engage in significant misconduct.  J&J may recoup monies from executives who are current employees and from those who have left the company.  The CIA also requires J&J’s pharmaceutical businesses to implement and maintain transparency regarding their research practices, publication policies and payments to physicians.  On an annual basis, management employees, including senior executives and certain members of J&J’s independent board of directors, must certify compliance with provisions of the CIA.  J&J must submit detailed annual reports to HHS-OIG about its compliance program and its business operations.

“OIG will work aggressively with our law enforcement partners to hold companies accountable for marketing and promotion that violate laws intended to protect the public,” said Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Daniel R. Levinson.  “Our compliance agreement with Johnson & Johnson increases individual accountability for board members, sales representatives, company executives and management.  The agreement also contains strong monitoring and reporting provisions to help ensure that the public is protected from future unlawful and potentially harmful off-label marketing.”

Coordinated Investigative Effort Spans Federal and State Law Enforcement

This resolution marks the culmination of an extensive, coordinated investigation by federal and state law enforcement partners that is the hallmark of the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which fosters government collaborations to fight fraud.  Announced in May 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the HEAT initiative has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation.

The criminal cases against Janssen and Scios were handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Northern District of California and the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch.  The civil settlements were handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern District of California and the District of Massachusetts and the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch.  Assistance was provided by the HHS Office of Counsel to the Inspector General, Office of the General Counsel-CMS Division, the FDA’s Office of Chief Counsel and the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units.

This matter was investigated by HHS-OIG, the Department of Defense’s Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations, the Office of Personnel Management’s Office of Inspector General, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Labor, TRICARE Program Integrity, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service’s Office of the Inspector General and the FBI.

One of the most powerful tools in the fight against Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud is the False Claims Act.  Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered a total of more than $16.7 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $11.9 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.

The department enforces the FDCA by prosecuting those who illegally distribute unapproved, misbranded and adulterated drugs and medical devices in violation of the Act.  Since 2009, fines, penalties and forfeitures that have been imposed in connection with such FDCA violations have totaled more than $6 billion.

The civil settlements described above resolve multiple lawsuits filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which allow private citizens to bring civil actions on behalf of the government and to share in any recovery.  From the federal government’s share of the civil settlements announced today, the whistleblowers in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will receive $112 million, the whistleblowers in the District of Massachusetts will receive $27.7 million and the whistleblower in the Northern District of California will receive $28 million.  Except to the extent that J&J subsidiaries have pleaded guilty or agreed to plead guilty to the criminal charges discussed above, the claims settled by the civil settlements are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability. Court documents related to today’s settlement can be viewed online at www.justice.gov/opa/jj-pc-docs.html.

Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Agrees to Pay $490.9 Million for Marketing the Prescription Drug Rapamune for Unapproved Uses

Posted on by
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., a pharmaceutical company acquired by Pfizer, Inc. in 2009, has agreed to pay $490.9 million to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the unlawful marketing of the prescription drug Rapamune for uses not approved as safe and effective by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Justice Department announced today.  Rapamune is an “immunosuppressive” drug that prevents the body’s immune system from rejecting a transplanted organ.

 “FDA’s drug approval process ensures companies market their products for uses proven safe and effective,” said Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division.  “We will hold accountable those who put patients’ health at risk in pursuit of financial gain.”

The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) requires a company such as Wyeth to specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to the FDA.  Once approved, a drug may not be introduced into interstate commerce for unapproved or “off-label” uses until the company receives FDA approval for the new intended uses.  In 1999, Wyeth received approval from the FDA for Rapamune use in renal (kidney) transplant patients.  However, the information alleges, Wyeth trained its national Rapamune sales force to promote the use of the drug in non-renal transplant patients.  Wyeth provided the sales force with training materials regarding non-renal transplant use and trained them on how to use these materials in presentations to transplant physicians.  Then, Wyeth encouraged sales force members, through financial incentives, to target all transplant patient populations to increase Rapamune sales.

“The FDA approves drugs for certain uses after lengthy clinical trials,” said Sanford Coats, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma.  “Compliance with these approved uses is important to protect patient safety, and drug companies must only market and promote their drugs for FDA-approved uses.  The FDA approved Rapamune for limited use in renal transplants and required the label to include a warning against certain uses.  Yet, Wyeth trained its sales force to promote Rapamune for off-label uses not approved by the FDA, including ex-renal uses, and even paid bonuses to incentivize those sales.  This was a systemic, corporate effort to seek profit over safety.  Companies that ignore compliance with FDA regulations will face criminal prosecution and stiff penalties.”

Wyeth has pleaded guilty to a criminal information charging it with a misbranding violation under the FDCA.  The resolution includes a criminal fine and forfeiture totaling $233.5 million.  Under a plea agreement, which has been accepted by the U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City, Wyeth has agreed to pay a criminal fine of $157.58 million and forfeit assets of $76 million.

The resolution also includes civil settlements with the federal government and the states totaling $257.4 million.  Wyeth has agreed to settle its potential civil liability in connection with its off-label marketing of Rapamune.  The government alleged that Wyeth violated the False Claims Act, from 1998 through 2009, by promoting Rapamune for unapproved uses, some of which were not medically accepted indications and, therefore, were not covered by Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care programs.  These unapproved uses included non-renal transplants, conversion use (switching a patient from another immunosuppressant to Rapamune) and using Rapamune in combination with other immunosuppressive agents not listed on the label.  The government alleged that this conduct resulted in the submission of false claims to government health care programs.  Of the amounts to resolve the civil claims, Wyeth will pay $230,112,596 to the federal government and $27,287,404 to the states.

“Wyeth’s conduct put profits ahead of the health and safety of a highly vulnerable patient population dependent on life-sustaining therapy,” said Antoinette V. Henry, Special Agent in Charge, Metro-Washington Field Office, FDA Office of Criminal Investigations.  “FDA OCI is committed to working with the Department of Justice and our law enforcement counterparts to protect public health.”

Pfizer is currently subject to a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General that it entered in connection with another matter in 2009, shortly before acquiring Wyeth.  The CIA covers former Wyeth employees who now perform sales and marketing functions at Pfizer.  Under the CIA, Pfizer is subject to exclusion from federal health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, for a material breach of the CIA, and the company is subject to monetary penalties for less significant breaches.

“We are committed to enforcing the laws protecting public health, taxpayers and government health programs, and to promoting effective compliance programs,” said Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services.  “Our integrity agreement with Pfizer, which acquired Wyeth, includes required risk assessments, a confidential disclosure program, and auditing and monitoring to help prospectively identify improper marketing.”

The civil settlement resolves two lawsuits pending in federal court in the Western District of Oklahoma under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which allow private citizens to bring civil actions on behalf of the government and share in any recovery.  The first action was filed by a former Rapamune sales representative, Marlene Sandler, and a pharmacist, Scott Paris.  The second action was filed by a former Rapamune sales representative, Mark Campbell.  The whistleblowers’ share of the civil settlement has not been resolved.

“The success obtained in this case is an excellent example of how we address the threats to our nation’s health care system; the importance of the public reporting of fraud, waste, or abuse; and the significant results that can be obtained through multiple agencies cooperating in investigations,” said James E. Finch, Special Agent in Charge of the Oklahoma City Division of the FBI.

The criminal case was handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Oklahoma (USAO) and the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Consumer Protection Branch.  The civil settlement was handled by USAO and the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch.  The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Counsel to the Inspector General; the HHS Office of General Counsel, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services; the FDA’s Office of Chief Counsel; and the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units.  These matters were investigated by the FBI; the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigation; HHS’ Office of Inspector General, Office of Investigations and Office of Audit Services; the Defense Criminal Investigative Service; the Office of Personnel Management’s Office of Inspector General and Office of Audit Services; the Department of Veterans’ Affairs’ Office of Inspector General; and TRICARE Program Integrity.

Except for conduct admitted in connection with the criminal plea, the claims settled by the civil agreement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of civil liability.  The civil lawsuits are captioned United States ex rel. Sandler et al v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 05-6609 (E.D. Pa.) and United States ex rel. Campbell v. Wyeth, Inc., Case No. 07-00051 (W.D. Okla.).

Par Pharmaceutical Companies Inc. Pleads Guilty, Admits Misbranding Of Megace® Es

Posted on by

Agrees to Pay $45M to Resolve Criminal and Civil Investigations

NEWARK, N.J. – New Jersey-based Par Pharmaceutical Companies Inc. (“Par”) pleaded guilty in federal court today and agreed to pay $45 million to resolve its criminal and civil liability in the company’s promotion of its prescription drug Megace® ES for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and not covered by federal health care programs, the Justice Department announced.

Chief Executive Officer Paul V. Campanelli pleaded guilty on behalf of Par before U.S. Magistrate Judge Madeline Cox Arleo earlier today in Newark federal court. Judge Arleo imposed sentence today, fining Par $18 million and ordering $4.5 million in criminal forfeiture. Par also agreed to pay $22.5 million to resolve its civil liability.

“The FDA requires drug makers to go through a stringent approval process before new drugs – or new uses for existing drugs – are made available to doctors and their patients,” U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman said. “Today, Par admitted that it chose to ignore that process in pursuit of more sales and greater profits. It is paying the price for its choice.”

“Today’s resolution emphasizes the importance of the U.S. government’s coordinated efforts to combat health care fraud. We expect companies to make honest, lawful claims about the drugs they sell. We will be vigorous in our enforcement efforts when they break the law, to ensure that they are held accountable,” said Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division.

“Individual accountability of Par’s board and executives is required under the comprehensive five-year integrity agreement OIG has with the company,” said Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  “For example, company executives may have to forfeit annual bonuses if they or their subordinates engage in significant misconduct, and sales representatives may not be paid incentive compensation for the drug involved in the case, or successor branded versions of that drug.”

“The public has been well served by this investigation and the FDA commends the efforts of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey, the Department of Justice and the other law enforcement agencies that worked with us to vigorously pursue this matter,” said Mark Dragonetti, Special Agent In Charge of the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigation’s New York Field Office. “Today’s settlement demonstrates the FDA’s continued commitment to target companies that disregard the safeguards of the drug approval process and promote drugs for uses before they have been proven to be safe and effective.”

Par pleaded guilty to an Information charging it with a criminal misdemeanor for misbranding Megace® ES in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”). Megace® ES, a megestrol acetate drug product, was approved by the FDA to treat anorexia, cachexia, or other significant weight loss suffered by patients with AIDS (the “AIDS Indication”). The Megace® ES distributed nationwide by Par was criminally misbranded because its FDA-approved labeling lacked adequate directions for use in the treatment of non-AIDS-related geriatric wasting, a use that was intended by Par but never approved by the FDA. The FDCA requires companies such as Par to specify the intended uses of a product in an application to the FDA. Once approved, a drug may not be distributed in interstate commerce for unapproved or “off-label” uses until the company receives FDA approval for the new intended uses. In addition to the criminal fine and forfeiture, the plea agreement mandates that Par implement several compliance measures and annually provide the U.S. Attorney’s Office with a sworn certification from its chief executive officer that the company has not unlawfully marketed any of its pharmaceutical products.

The civil settlement agreement requires Par to pay $22.5 million to the federal government and various states to resolve claims arising from its off-label marketing. The civil settlement resolves allegations that Par, by promoting the sale and use of Megace® ES for uses that were not FDA-approved and not covered by Federal health care programs, caused false claims to be submitted to these programs. The United States further alleged that Par deliberately and improperly targeted sales to elderly nursing home residents with weight loss, whether or not such patients suffered from AIDS, and launched a long-term care sales force to market to this population. During this marketing campaign, Par was allegedly aware of adverse side effects associated with the use of megestrol acetate in elderly patients, including an increased risk of deep vein thrombosis, toxic reactions in elderly patients with impaired renal function, and mortality. The United States alleged that Par made unsubstantiated and misleading representations about the superiority of Megace® ES over generic megestrol acetate for elderly patients to encourage providers to switch patients from generic megestrol acetate to Megace® ES, despite having conducted no well-controlled studies to support a claim of greater efficacy for Megace® ES. Except as admitted in the plea agreement, the claims settled by the civil settlement agreement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability as to those claims.

In addition to the criminal and civil resolutions, Par also agreed to enter into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS-OIG”) that requires enhanced accountability, increased transparency, and wide-ranging monitoring activities conducted by both internal and independent external reviewers.

The plea agreement and CIA include provisions that require Par to implement changes to the way it does business.  The plea agreement and CIA prohibit Par from providing compensation to sales representatives or their managers based on the volume of sale of Megace ES, and in the CIA, based on the volume of Megace ES and any branded successor megestrol acetate drug.  Under the CIA, Par is also required to change its executive compensation program to permit the company to recoup annual bonuses from covered executives if they, or their subordinates, engage in significant misconduct.

The settlement resolves three lawsuits filed under the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private parties to file suit on behalf of the United States and obtain a portion of the government’s recovery. The civil lawsuits were filed in the District of New Jersey and are captioned U.S. ex rel. McKeen and Combs v. Par Pharmaceutical, et al., U.S. ex rel. Thompson v. Par Pharmaceutical, et al., and U.S. ex rel. Elliott & Lundstrom v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Par Pharmaceutical, et al. As part of today’s resolution, relators McKeen and Combs will receive $4.4 million.

This resolution is part of the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and another step for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced by Attorney General Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services in May 2009. The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation. One of the most powerful tools in that effort is the False Claims Act, which the Justice Department has used to recover more than $10.2 billion since January 2009 in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs. The Justice Department’s total recoveries in False Claims Act cases since January 2009 are over $14.1 billion.

History of Megace® ES and Par’s Failed Attempts to Obtain FDA Approval 
of a Geriatric Wasting Indication for Megace® ES

According to the Information, a drug named Megace® OS – a predecessor to Megace® ES – was approved by the FDA in 1993 for the AIDS Indication. Between 2002 and 2005, Par’s market research showed that practitioners prescribed Megace® OS 1 for uses that were inconsistent with the approved labeling, including geriatric weight loss, and that the overwhelming majority of Megace® OS prescriptions were written for such off-label uses.

In 2002, Par first approached the FDA and discussed the company’s plan to seek approval of a new formulation of Megace® OS as a treatment option for geriatric patients with malnutrition. Par did not thereafter seek approval for that patient population. Instead, in June 2004, Par relied on the Megace® OS safety and effectiveness data in seeking approval for Megace® ES for the AIDS indication, i.e., the same indication as Megace® OS. Less than two months after the FDA approved Megace® ES for the AIDS indication, Par requested a meeting with the FDA to discuss Par’s intent to seek approval of Megace® ES for certain non-AIDS geriatric patients. Par never sought approval for that patient population, nor did Par ever conduct drug trials in the geriatric population.

Par’s “Conversion” Strategy, False Superiority Claims, and Promotion of 
Megace® ES for Geriatric Wasting

Despite knowing that Megace® ES had a limited market for its approved use, Par set aggressive sales goals for the product launch. After failing to attain these goals, Par adopted and implemented a marketing strategy designed to promote Megace® ES to geriatric wasting patients – the same population Par had twice discussed with the FDA. Par devised sales call panels which required Par sales representatives to market Megace® ES in nursing homes, as well as to practitioners who treated geriatric patients. These call panels identified physicians with the highest number of Megace® OS prescriptions as the top targets to “convert” from the old Megace® OS to Par’s Megace® ES product. Some Par sales managers required that their subordinates visit 10 to15 nursing homes a week to promote Megace® ES, and told them there would be possible employment consequences, including termination, if they did not promote Megace® ES in nursing homes.

While targeting an audience of health care practitioners that treated the elderly or geriatric population, Par promoted Megace® ES by making false and/or misleading claims that Megace® ES was superior to Megace® OS, including:

  1. Despite having no clinical support for the claim, Par sales representatives promoted Megace® ES as more effective than Megace® OS;
  2. Despite having no clinical support for the claim, Par sales representatives claimed that Megace® ES worked faster and was more effective than other products, and used the phrase “speed and ease” to promote Megace® ES;
  3. Par sales representatives were taught to try and “flip” a nursing home by asking the homes to convert all Megace® OS patients in the nursing home to Megace® ES, despite knowing that the nursing homes contained very few, if any, AIDS patients and the requested patients would therefore be using the product for off-label purposes;
  4. Par trained and directed its sales force to minimize or eliminate mentioning altogether the FDA-approved indication for Megace® ES during promotional sales calls, so as to draw as little attention as possible to the fact that Megace® ES was not approved for geriatric wasting; and
  5. Par managers trained, directed, and encouraged their sales representatives to ask health care practitioners for patient information protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), so that the representatives could request that certain patients who were using Megace® OS be switched to Megace® ES.

U.S. Attorney Fishman said the corporate guilty plea, the civil settlement, and the corporate integrity agreement are the culmination of a multi-year investigation conducted jointly by special agents from HHS-OIG, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Tom O’Donnell, special agents from FDA-OIG, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Mark Dragonetti, and criminal investigators and paralegals with the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

U.S. Attorney Fishman thanked the Defense Criminal Investigative Service; the Office of Personnel Management-Office of Inspector General; the Department of Veterans’ Affairs Office of Inspector General; and TRICARE Program Integrity for assisting in the investigation. He also thanked the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units (NAMFCU), with assistance from the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Ohio Attorney General’s Office for their help in coordinating the settlements with the various states.

The government is represented in the prosecution of the criminal case by Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Mack of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Health Care and Government Fraud Unit and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Shannon M. Singleton from the FDA’s Office of Chief Counsel.  Paralegals Jeffrey Skonieczny and Doug Minotti with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Trial Attorney David Frank of the Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch assisted on the criminal side of the case. The government is represented in the civil settlement by Assistant U.S. Attorney David Dauenheimer and Trial Attorney Eva Gunasekera from the Department of Justice’s Commercial Litigation Branch. The corporate integrity agreement was negotiated by Christina McGarvey and Gregory Lindquist from the Department of Health and Human Service’s Office of Inspector General.

U.S. Attorney Fishman reorganized the health care fraud practice at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of New Jersey, including creating a stand-alone Health Care and Government Fraud Unit, which handles both criminal and civil investigations and prosecutions of health care fraud offenses. Since 2010, the Office has recovered more than $500 million in health care fraud and government fraud settlements, judgments, fines, restitution, and forfeiture under the False Claims Act, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and other statutes.

District Court Enters Permanent Injunction Against Ohio-Based Drug Manufacturer and Company’s Senior Executives

Posted on by
U.S. District Court Judge Lesley Wells entered a consent decree of permanent injunction against Ben Venue Laboratories Inc., a Bedford, Ohio-based drug manufacturer, the Justice Department announced today.  The permanent injunction was also entered against George P. Doyle, president and chief executive officer, Kimberly A. Kellermann, vice president of operations, and Douglas A. Rich, vice president of quality operations, for Ben Venue. The department, at the request of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), asked the court to enter the consent decree.

Ben Venue manufactures numerous generic sterile injectable drug products, including cancer medications.   As set forth in the complaint filed by the United States on January 22, FDA conducted an inspection of defendants’ facility from Nov. 7 to Dec. 2, 2011, and documented 10 deviations from current good manufacturing practices.   According to the complaint, the FDA found, among other things, that the company failed to create and follow appropriate procedures to prevent contamination of drugs which were purported to be sterile.   The FDA also found that the company failed to properly clean and maintain its equipment to ensure the safety and quality of the drugs it manufactured.   In addition, the FDA determined that the company failed to conduct adequate investigations of drugs that did not meet their specifications.

 

Compliance with current good manufacturing practices requirements assures that drugs meet the safety requirements of the law and have the identity and strength and meet the quality and purity characteristics that they purport to or are represented to possess.   FDA regulations, which establish minimum current good manufacturing practices applicable to human drugs, require manufacturers to control all aspects of the processes and procedures by which drugs are manufactured in order to prevent the production of unsafe and ineffective products.

 

According to the complaint, t he deviations observed by FDA during the November – December 2011 inspection were similar to deviations observed by FDA during its many previous inspections of Ben Venue’s facility.   During FDA’s May 2011 inspection, FDA documented 48   deviations from current good manufacturing practices including an inadequate quality control unit, inadequate and untimely investigations, inadequately designed aseptic processing areas, poor employee aseptic practices, failure to prevent microbial contamination of drug products purporting to be sterile and failure to determine the root cause for microbial contaminants.

 

As described in the complaint, FDA’s long inspection and regulatory history of Ben Venue, including 35 inspections since 1997, and approximately 40 recalls since February 2002 associated with drugs manufactured at the Ben Venue facility (including 10 recalls in 2011 and 10 recalls in 2012), reflects a continuing pattern of significant deviations from current good manufacturing practices with its drugs.  Some recalls involved drugs contaminated with glass and other particulates.   Additional recalls were based on the company’s inability to assure the drug’s sterility.   Of the roughly 40 recalls, nine were classified by FDA as “Class I,” meaning that FDA determined that there was “a reasonable probability that the use of . . . a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.”

 

The consent decree entered resolves the complaint by requiring Ben Venue to take a wide range of actions to correct its violations and ensure that they do not happen again.  The injunction establishes a series of steps which must occur before Ben Venue can fully resume operations, including the retention of an expert to inspect the company’s facility, the development and then implementation of a remediation plan, and an inspection by FDA to confirm that the company’s manufacturing processes are fully compliant with the law.

 

“This consent decree restricts Ben Venue from manufacturing and distributing certain drugs until the company fully complies with the law,” said Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division.  “As this case demonstrates, the Department of Justice and FDA will work together to protect the health and safety of Americans by making sure that those who produce and distribute prescription drugs follow the law.”

“This resolution comes following nearly three dozen inspections which revealed inadequate quality control, including contaminated drugs, and led to approximately 40 recalls on products from this facility alone,” said Steven M. Dettelbach, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio. “The Justice Department and the Food and Drug Administration will continue to place its highest priority on protecting consumers.”

 

Under the decree, Ben Venue may continue to manufacture and distribute a subset of their drugs (listed on Attachment A to the decree), which FDA has determined are currently in shortage (domestically or abroad) or are vulnerable to shortage.   However, prior to distribution of each batch of these drugs, the company’s expert must conduct a batch-by-batch review and certify that no deviations occurred during the manufacture of the drug that would adversely affect the safety or quality of the batch.

 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Delery thanked the FDA for referring this matter to the Department of Justice.  Jeffrey Steger, Assistant Director of the Consumer Protection Branch of the Justice Department and Michele Svonkin, Counsel at FDA’s Office of the Chief Counsel, brought this case on behalf of the United States.

Indictment: Kidney Dialysis Patients Received Misbranded Drugs

Posted on by

TOPEKA, KAN. – A Tennessee pharmacist is charged with substituting a cheaper drug imported from China for the iron sucrose that the Federal Drug Administration has approved for kidney dialysis patients, U.S. Attorney Barry Grissom said today.

Robert Harshbarger, Jr., 53, Kingsport, Tenn., doing business as American Inhalation Medication Specialists, Inc., is charged with one count of selling misbranded drugs, one count of mail fraud and five counts of health care fraud.

The indictment alleges that as a result of fraud by Harshbarger kidney dialysis patients treated by Kansas Dialysis Services, L.C., received iron sucrose that had not been certified by the FDA to meet quality and safety standards.

“Although there are no reports of patient harm associated with the drugs that are alleged to be misbranded in this indictment, patient health was put at risk,” said U.S. Attorney Barry Grissom. “The FDA cannot assure the safety and effectiveness of products that are not FDA approved and come from unknown sources and foreign locations, or that may not have been manufactured under proper conditions. These unknowns put patients’ health at risk because of uncertainty concerning the product’s content, purity and source.”

Grissom said there is no reason for current or former patients of Kansas Dialysis to be concerned at this time. The events outlined in the indictment ended in 2009. Any significant iron deficiencies would have been addressed during the course of a patient’s dialysis treatments. Nevertheless, any questions should be addressed to a physician, Grissom said.

The indictment alleges that Harhbarger’s company, American Inhalation Medication Specialists, Inc., of Kingsport, Tenn., received more than $875,000 from Kansas Dialysis and more than $845,000 from health care benefit programs including Medicare and Medicaid for misbranded iron sucrose sold from 2004 to 2009. Harshbarger misrepresented the iron sucrose drug as Venofer, which is the only iron sucrose drug approved by the FDA for both pre-dialysis and post-dialysis patients.

Harshbarger purchased iron sucrose from Chinese companies including Qingdao Shenbang Chemical Company in Qingdao, China, and Shanghai Rory Fine Chemicals Co., Ltd., in Shanghai, China. The iron sucrose from China was cheaper than purchasing Venofer.

If convicted, Harshbarger faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison and a fine up to $250,000 on the mail fraud count; a maximum penalty of 10 years and a fine up to $250,000 on each of the health care fraud counts; and a maximum penalty of three years and a fine up to $250,000 on the charge of selling a misbranded drug. The Food and Drug Administration and the Dept. of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, investigated. Assistant U.S. Attorney Tanya Treadway is prosecuting.

OTHER INDICTMENTS

Two men who were executives of the Brooke Companies, a now defunct insurance franchising business in Kansas, have been indicted on federal financial fraud charges.

Robert D. Orr, 59, Denver, Colo., and Leland G. Orr, 50, Phillipsburg, Kan., are charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the Securities and Exchange Commission and three counts of making false statements in filings to the SEC. In addition, Robert Orr is charged with two more counts of making false statements in SEC filings and one count of bankruptcy fraud.

The Orrs were executives of Brooke Corporation, a holding company headquartered in Overland Park and Phillipsburg, Kan., that was engaged primarily in insurance franchising, insurance agency financing and banking. Brook Corporation owned a majority interest in Brooke Capital, Aleritas and Brooke’s Savings Bank. Brooke Capital sold insurance agency franchises and provided bookkeeping and other support services for franchises. Aleritas sold the majority of loans it made to franchisees and typically remained responsible for loan servicing. The companies were known collectively as the Brooke Companies.

The indictment alleges that in 2007 and 2008 the Brooke Companies experienced increasingly dire liquidity conditions and rapidly declining franchise financial health. In attempting to conceal financial problems, Brooke Companies’ management misrepresented the number of viable franchises, the health of Aleritas’ loan portfolio and other material financial information to the SEC, investors and lenders. They conspired to present a false aggregate picture of the Brooke Companies’ financial condition and thereby to obtain money, dividend payments and cash transfers for themselves.

If convicted, they face a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison and a fine up to $5 million on each count of making a false statement in SEC filings; and a maximum of five years and a fine up to $250,000 on each of the other counts. The FBI investigated. Assistant U.S. Attorney Mike Warner is prosecuting.

Bryan K. Carter, 32, Topeka, Kan., is charged with unlawful possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. The crime is alleged to have occurred Dec. 13, 2011, in Shawnee County, Kan.

If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty 10 years and a fine up to $250,000. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigated. Assistant U.S. Attorney Duston Slinkard is prosecuting.

Omar Romero Salgado, 18, currently in custody in the Shawnee County Jail, is charged with one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, one count of possession with intent to distribute Clonazepam, one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking and one count of possession of a stolen firearm. The crimes are alleged to have occurred Oct. 30, 2012, in Shawnee County, Kan.

If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 20 years and a fine up to $1 million on the methamphetamine charge; a maximum penalty of five years and a fine up to $250,000 on the Clonazepam charge; a penalty of not less than five years and a fine up to $250,000 on the charge of possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking; and a maximum penalty of 10 years and a fine up to $250,000 on the charge of possession of a stolen firearm. The FBI investigated. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jared Maag is prosecuting.

Xavier Patrick McCullough, 24, currently in custody in the Shawnee County Jail, and Ryan Cole Palmer, 25, currently in custody in the Shawnee County Jail, are charged with one count of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking.

If convicted, they face a maximum penalty of 20 years and a fine up to $1 million on the methamphetamine charge; not less than five years and a fine up to $250,000 on the firearm charge; and a maximum penalty of five years and a fine up to $250,000 on the marijuana charge. The Topeka Police Department and the FBI investigated. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jared Maag is prosecuting.

In all cases, defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty. The indictments merely contain allegations of criminal conduct.