A Two Link Mini Roundup
As some may have noticed, things come in waves around here. I’ve been very busy in recent weeks and I have not been able to post with the frequency I would like. I’m still paying attention and SB&F is not losing steam. I offer you two links that are very much worth following up on.
Pfizer: Too Big to Nail?: A giant among pharmaceutical companies, Pfizer has skirted the law in a big way on the basis of its size alone — and their friends in the FDA are happy to help. When they were found guilty of marketing a drug off label without regard for patient safety, they should have been convicted. but…
Promoting drugs for unapproved uses can put patients at risk by circumventing the FDA’s judgment over which products are safe and effective. For that reason, “off-label” promotion is against the law….
But when it came to prosecuting Pfizer for its fraudulent marketing, the pharmaceutical giant had a trump card: Just as the giant banks on Wall Street were deemed too big to fail, Pfizer was considered too big to nail.
Why? Because any company convicted of a major health care fraud is automatically excluded from Medicare and Medicaid. Convicting Pfizer on Bextra would prevent the company from billing federal health programs for any of its products. It would be a corporate death sentence…
So Pfizer and the feds cut a deal. Instead of charging Pfizer with a crime, prosecutors would charge a Pfizer subsidiary, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc.
The CNN Special Investigation found that the subsidiary is nothing more than a shell company whose only function is to plead guilty.
I don’t know how we’re supposed to think pharmaceutical companies are held to any measure of legal accountability when the FDA, whose function is to protect not just public interest but patient safety, puts the viability of its friends in industry first. On the basis of the “too big to nail” argument, it seems unlikely that our beloved drug makers will ever actually be treated as criminals no matter how criminal their actions. They’ll just pay their dues to the club in the form of relatively small cash settlements and carry on with business as usual.
Oregon Governor Vetoes Prescription Privileges for Psychologists: I recently posted about psychologists’ attempt to gain prescription privileges. Recently, Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski vetoed the proposal in his state on the grounds that the shorter special session did not allow the time needed to thoroughly look into what was being voted upon. Given the impact such a change would inevitably have, it’s refreshing to see a politician take the slow and deliberate approach no matter how it ultimately ends up. Taking a decidedly different path than many states and our federal government, he decided against major changes decided in a short time with vague wording and too many loose ends. From Psych Central:
“I have a serious concern as to whether the special session in February provided opportunity for citizens and interested stakeholders to be adequately involved in the development of those proposed major policy changes,” Gov. Kulongoski of Oregon wrote in his veto letters.
Medical groups and even some psychologists — including Dr. John Grohol of Psych Central — opposed the bill. Gov. Kulongoski said such a change “requires more safeguards, further study and greater public input.”
And from the Oregon Politico:
Rem Nivens, spokesman for Governor Kulongoski, clarified that the Governor is supportive of the legislation which passed in February proposing a short, month long session in between regular sessions.
He added, however, that major policy changes, like the ones vetoed on Thursday, should wait to be brought up during a longer regular session. This will allow for the proper input from citizens and key players in the policy.
“The public give-and-take is critical to crafting and amending legislation by allowing all interested parties to be involved in the development of public policy,” Kulongoski stated. “I believe we must always be open and transparent when we are proposing changes to long established Oregon policy, especially in a short legislative session.”
Entry filed under: Uncategorized. Tags: Bextra, Corruption, Danger, Drug, FDA, Government, Kulongoski, Mental Health, Mental Illness, Oregon, Painkiller, Pfizer, Pharma, Pharmaceuticals, Prescription Privileges, Psychologists, Psychology, Risks, Safety, Veto.