#human pharmacia inc | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

donniebrooke · 3 years

Text

Department of Justice

Office of Public Affairs

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History

Pfizer to Pay $2.3 Billion for Fraudulent Marketing

WASHINGTON – American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. (hereinafter together "Pfizer") have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, the Justice Department announced today.

Pharmacia & Upjohn Company has agreed to plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead. Bextra is an anti-inflammatory drug that Pfizer pulled from the market in 2005. Under the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a company must specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to FDA. Once approved, the drug may not be marketed or promoted for so-called "off-label" uses – i.e., any use not specified in an application and approved by FDA. Pfizer promoted the sale of Bextra for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns. The company will pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter. Pharmacia & Upjohn will also forfeit $105 million, for a total criminal resolution of $1.3 billion.

In addition, Pfizer has agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve allegations under the civil False Claims Act that the company illegally promoted four drugs – Bextra; Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug – and caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs for uses that were not medically accepted indications and therefore not covered by those programs. The civil settlement also resolves allegations that Pfizer paid kickbacks to health care providers to induce them to prescribe these, as well as other, drugs. The federal share of the civil settlement is $668,514,830 and the state Medicaid share of the civil settlement is $331,485,170. This is the largest civil fraud settlement in history against a pharmaceutical company.

As part of the settlement, Pfizer also has agreed to enter into an expansive corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. That agreement provides for procedures and reviews to be put in place to avoid and promptly detect conduct similar to that which gave rise to this matter.

Whistleblower lawsuits filed under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act that are pending in the District of Massachusetts, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Eastern District of Kentucky triggered this investigation. As a part of today’s resolution, six whistleblowers will receive payments totaling more than $102 million from the federal share of the civil recovery.

The U.S. Attorney’s offices for the District of Massachusetts, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the Eastern District of Kentucky, and the Civil Division of the Department of Justice handled these cases. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts led the criminal investigation of Bextra. The investigation was conducted by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the FBI, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), the Office of Criminal Investigations for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Veterans’ Administration’s (VA) Office of Criminal Investigations, the Office of the Inspector General for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of the Inspector General for the United States Postal Service (USPS), the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units and the offices of various state Attorneys General.

"Today’s landmark settlement is an example of the Department of Justice’s ongoing and intensive efforts to protect the American public and recover funds for the federal treasury and the public from those who seek to earn a profit through fraud. It shows one of the many ways in which federal government, in partnership with its state and local allies, can help the American people at a time when budgets are tight and health care costs are increasing," said Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli. "This settlement is a testament to the type of broad, coordinated effort among federal agencies and with our state and local partners that is at the core of the Department of Justice’s approach to law enforcement."

"This historic settlement will return nearly $1 billion to Medicare, Medicaid, and other government insurance programs, securing their future for the Americans who depend on these programs,"said Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services"The Department of Health and Human Services will continue to seek opportunities to work with its government partners to prosecute fraud wherever we can find it. But we will also look for new ways to prevent fraud before it happens. Health care is too important to let a single dollar go to waste."

"Illegal conduct and fraud by pharmaceutical companies puts the public health at risk, corrupts medical decisions by health care providers, and costs the government billions of dollars," said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. "This civil settlement and plea agreement by Pfizer represent yet another example of what penalties will be faced when a pharmaceutical company puts profits ahead of patient welfare."

"The size and seriousness of this resolution, including the huge criminal fine of $1.3 billion, reflect the seriousness and scope of Pfizer’s crimes," said Mike Loucks, acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. "Pfizer violated the law over an extensive time period. Furthermore, at the very same time Pfizer was in our office negotiating and resolving the allegations of criminal conduct by its then newly acquired subsidiary, Warner-Lambert, Pfizer was itself in its other operations violating those very same laws. Today’s enormous fine demonstrates that such blatant and continued disregard of the law will not be tolerated."

"Although these types of investigations are often long and complicated and require many resources to achieve positive results, the FBI will not be deterred from continuing to ensure that pharmaceutical companies conduct business in a lawful manner," said Kevin Perkins, FBI Assistant Director, Criminal Investigative Division.

"This resolution protects the FDA in its vital mission of ensuring that drugs are safe and effective. When manufacturers undermine the FDA’s rules, they interfere with a doctor’s judgment and can put patient health at risk," commented Michael L. Levy, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. "The public trusts companies to market their drugs for uses that FDA has approved, and trusts that doctors are using independent judgment. Federal health dollars should only be spent on treatment decisions untainted by misinformation from manufacturers concerned with the bottom line."

"This settlement demonstrates the ongoing efforts to pursue violations of the False Claims Act and recover taxpayer dollars for the Medicare and Medicaid programs," noted Jim Zerhusen, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

"This historic settlement emphasizes the government’s commitment to corporate and individual accountability and to transparency throughout the pharmaceutical industry," said Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. "The corporate integrity agreement requires senior Pfizer executives and board members to complete annual compliance certifications and opens Pfizer to more public scrutiny by requiring it to make detailed disclosures on its Web site. We expect this agreement to increase integrity in the marketing of pharmaceuticals."

"The off-label promotion of pharmaceutical drugs by Pfizer significantly impacted the integrity of TRICARE, the Department of Defense’s healthcare system," said Sharon Woods, Director, Defense Criminal Investigative Service. "This illegal activity increases patients’ costs, threatens their safety and negatively affects the delivery of healthcare services to the over nine million military members, retirees and their families who rely on this system. Today’s charges and settlement demonstrate the ongoing commitment of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and its law enforcement partners to investigate and prosecute those that abuse the government’s healthcare programs at the expense of the taxpayers and patients."

"Federal employees deserve health care providers and suppliers, including drug manufacturers, that meet the highest standards of ethical and professional behavior," said Patrick E. McFarland, Inspector General of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. "Today’s settlement reminds the pharmaceutical industry that it must observe those standards and reflects the commitment of federal law enforcement organizations to pursue improper and illegal conduct that places health care consumers at risk."

"Health care fraud has a significant financial impact on the Postal Service. This case alone impacted more than 10,000 postal employees on workers’ compensation who were treated with these drugs," said Joseph Finn, Special Agent in Charge for the Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General. "Last year the Postal Service paid more than $1 billion in workers’ compensation benefits to postal employees injured on the job."

Donnie Brooke

Grovetown, Ga.

USA Republic 🇺🇲

706-339-1763

[email protected]

Q - Trust The Plan Question The Narrative 😉

https://youtu.be/FUJMoBonhHM

1 note · View note

kritikarehani · 5 years

Text

Metastatic HER2-Positive Breast Cancer

Metastatic HER2-Positive Breast Cancer overview

Metastatic HER2-Positive Breast Cancer is one type of breast cancer in which test for breast cancer cells shows a positive sign for a protein receptor known as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. The usual function of this protein is to regulate a healthy breast cell how it grows, divides, and repairs itself.

However, when there is a mutation in the gene that controls the HER2 protein, also called as erythroblastosis oncogene B (ERBB2) gene, the body produces too many HER2 receptors, which leads to uncontrollable breast cell growth and division. Some of the most common symptoms of Metastatic HER2-Positive Breast Cancer are breast swelling, change in the shape of breast, skin irritation or dimpling, pain in the breast, redness or thickness of the breast skin.

A HER2-positive breast cancer diagnosis is confirmed by tests, such as the IHC test, the FISH test, the SPOT-Light HER2 CISH, and the Inform HER2 Dual ISH tests. These tests utilize antibodies or DNA to stain the cancer cells.

Metastatic HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Epidemiology

Breast cancer total incident population in the 7MM was found to be 626,867 in 2017, which is anticipated to rise during the study period [2017–2028]. A higher Breast cancer incidence was observed in the United States. Among the EU-5 countries, Germany ranked the first, followed by Italy, and France, while Spain witnessed the least number of breast cancer cases in 2017.

Metastatic HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Market Scenario

The market comprises a variety of options for the Metastatic HER-2 Positive Breast Cancer treatment. It is mainly categorized into pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies. A medical oncologist generally prescribes systemic therapies. Common ways to give systemic therapies include an intravenous (IV) tube or can be given orally.

The systemic therapies used for metastatic breast cancer include Targeted Therapy and Hormonal therapy (Endocrine therapy).

On the other hand, hormonal therapy market also includes Aromatase Inhibitors that reduce the production of estrogen by inhibiting the aromatase enzyme activity in peripheral tissues and within the tumour microenvironment. The market landscape of aromatase inhibitors mainly depends on three agents, Exemestane (Pharmacia & Upjohn Company), Anastrozole (AstraZeneca), and Letrozole (Novartis Pharmaceuticals).

Key players that are producing drugs for Metastatic HER-2 Positive Breast Cancer such as MacroGenics, Puma Biotechnology, Seattle Genetics, Jiangsu HengRui Medicine, Prestige Biopharma Pte Ltd, EirGenix, Inc., and others are involved in developing therapies.

#metastatic breast cancer #breast cancer #her2 positive breast cancer #hr2 negative breast cancer #tumour #healthcare #breast cancer treatment #breast cancer market share #breast cancer market size

0 notes

lindamcsherry · 6 years

Text

Baltimore City Water Contamination Lawsuit Filed Against Monsanto Over PCB Chemicals

Monsanto faces a lawsuit brought by the City of Baltimore, which alleges that the company contaminated local water sources with toxic chemicals, and then hid the health risks from the government.

The complaint (PDF) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on February 19, naming Monsanto Company, Solutia, Inc. and Pharmacia Corporation as defendants. Both Solutia and Pharmacia were parts of Monsanto that were broken off to become separate companies about 20 years ago.

According to the water contamination lawsuit, Monsanto caused widespread environmental damage through the manufacturing and dumping of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which were banned in the late 1970s due to their toxicity and contamination risks. PCBs have been linked to birth defects, cancer, nervous system damage and other adverse health effects.

The lawsuit claims that PCBs contaminated the city’s Inner Harbor, as well as the Patapsco River and Lake Roland. They are found in sediment, wild life, stormwater runoff, and have resulted in Maryland and Baltimore waters being listed as “impaired” due to contamination.

The impaired status affects an estimated 921 square miles of Maryland estuary waters, 223 miles of the state’s rivers and streams, and 3,150 acres of the state’s lakes and reservoirs, according to the lawsuit.

At issue is the company’s use of PCBs years ago in its previous incarnation, before the company was restructured in 2002. Before that, Monsanto produced and sold more than 99% of all PCBs ever sold in the U.S., according to some estimates, making it possible for plaintiffs to pin the liability from any health effects or environmental damage from those chemicals onto the company.

“Monsanto Company was the sole manufacturer of PCBs in the United States from 1935 to 1977, and trademarked the name ‘Aroclor’ for certain PCB compounds,” the city’s lawsuit states. “Although Monsanto knew for decades that PCBs were toxic and knew that their ordinary and intended uses would result in widespread contamination of natural resources and living organisms, Monsanto concealed these facts and continued producing PCBs until Congress enacted the Toxic Substances Control Act, which banned the manufacture and most uses of PCBs as of January 1, 1979.”

Baltimore is the latest community to file such a lawsuit against Monsanto, which also faces claims across the western United States from communities who also say its practices resulted in PCB contamination of waterways, affecting health and wildlife.

PCBs were used in paint, caulking, transformers, capacitors, coolants, hydraulic fluids, inks, lubricants and other industrial and commercial uses. However, they are known to easily migrate out of their intended uses to contaminate air, water, and soil. Human and wildlife exposure can occur through ingestion, inhalation and even skin contact.

In 2016, a St. Louis jury ordered Monsanto to pay $46.5 million to three plaintiffs who claimed they contracted non-Hodgkins lymphoma from PCB exposure.

In what became known as the Walker case, plaintiffs indicated that exposure through the food chain led to their cases of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, noting that the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer had warned of a link between PCBs and cancer.

Plaintiffs argued that the company contaminated the entire food chain with PCBs, which could, theoretically, give anyone who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma the ability to bring a case, if they can convince a jury of specific causation, which they were able to do before the St. Louis jury.

The post Baltimore City Water Contamination Lawsuit Filed Against Monsanto Over PCB Chemicals appeared first on AboutLawsuits.com.

0 notes

titheguerrero · 7 years

Text

One Barely Noticed Settlement by Pfizer Suggests the Futility of Polite Protests about Health Policy

A few days ago we noticed just one more marcher in the parade of legal settlements. But it was once again a huge health care corporation, and it had aspects that demanded attention. Pfizer Makes $94 Million Settlement of Allegations of Fraud to Delay Generic Competition A tiny item in Becker's Hospital News on November 28, 2017, stated:

Pfizer will pay $94 million to resolve allegations that it used fraudulent patents to delay generic competition for its anti-inflammatory drug Celebrex. The lawsuit, brought by 32 direct purchasers of Celebrex in April and certified a class action lawsuit in August, claimed Pfizer attempted to revive its invalidated patent by making material misrepresentations to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. As a result, the U.S. PTO granted Pfizer a new patent based on this reportedly inaccurate information. Further, the plaintiffs — including American Sales Co., Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Cesar Castillo and more — allege Pfizer filed a lawsuit against five generic manufacturers for infringing upon the fraudulently obtained patent to maintain monopoly over the drug.

That was about it. I could find no more extensive coverage of this settlement in any source publicly available without a subscription. So this settlement, like many previous ones which suggested less than perfection on the part of the leadership of our dysfunctional health care system, was anechoic. Also, as is typical of settlements made by big health care corporations of unethical behavior, this settlement appeared small compared to the magnitude of the revenues likely generated by alleged bad behavior; and this settlement did not impose any negative consequences on any individual who might have authorized, enabled, directed, or implemented the bad behavior, and may have benefited from that behavior (for example, by getting a bigger bonus because of the revenue brought it). Thus, it fit right in with the march of legal settlements that we have been documenting for years. It was a slap on the corporate wrists that was unlikely to deter future bad behavior, and amounted to a grant of impunity to the corporate managers who were involved in and personally profited from the bad behavior. Furthermore, the settlement seemingly was not informed by previous bad behavior by the corporation or its managers. Pfizer, in fact, has a long and very sorry record of such behavior as documented by legal settlements, convictions and guilty pleas, and other governmental actions. In the last few years we have noted.... Pfizer Fined $106M in UK for Using Monopoly on Production of Generic Phenytoin to Overcharge National Health Service As reported by the Wall Street Journal on December 7, 2016,

The U.K.’s top antitrust regulator slapped Pfizer Inc. PFE 0.25% with a record $107 million fine, alleging it overcharged the national health-care system for an epilepsy treatment. The Competition and Markets Authority said Pfizer and drug-distribution company Flynn Pharma Ltd. broke competition law by charging unfair prices in the U.K. for the drug, phenytoin sodium, used by about 48,000 patients in the country. The CMA said the £84.2 million Pfizer fine was the highest it had ever imposed....

The article suggested that Pfizer took advantage of a loophole in UK law. Drug companies must negotiate prices of branded drugs with the British NHS, but Unbranded, or generic, drugs may be freely priced, but competition between suppliers typically drives the cost down.

The regulator said Pfizer and Flynn Pharma “deliberately debranded” the drug in 2012 to raise the price and were able to do so because there were no competing suppliers. The CMA said the price of a 100-milligram pack of phenytoin sodium shot up—to £67.50 from £2.83—after Pfizer sold the rights to sell the drug to Flynn Pharma in September 2012. It said the price decreased to £54 in May 2014. Before the agreement, Pfizer had sold phenytoin sodium capsules directly to U.K. wholesalers and pharmacies under the brand name Epanutin. The price increase was partly because Pfizer, which continued to manufacture phenytoin sodium, sold the drug to Flynn Pharma at up to 17 times the price than it charged wholesalers and pharmacies previously, the regulator said. Flynn Pharma raised the price further still.

So this was the resolution of yet more anti-competitive behavior by Pfizer which allowed it to overcharge taxpayers. Like the settlement above, it allowed the Pfizer management involved impunity. Pfizer Made $486 Million Settlement of Allegations It Bilked Shareholders by Concealing Research Showing the Harms of Celebrex As reported by Reuters in August, 2016,

Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) on Tuesday said it has reached a $486 million settlement of litigation accusing it of causing big losses for shareholders by concealing safety risks associated with its Celebrex and Bextra pain-relieving drugs.

As usual, there were no penalties for any individuals who may have been involved with the bilking. Note that while this particular lawsuit was about financial losses to shareholders, concealing the harms of this drug obviously had the potential of allowing harms to patients. Of course, this was just the most the second most recent settlement involving Celebrex. Pfizer's Track Record Prior to mid-2016 Our over 100 posts on Pfizer can be found here. Since 2000, Pfizer's troubles started, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, with the following... - In 2002, Pfizer and subsidiaries Warner-Lambert and Parke-Davis agreed to pay $49 million to settle allegations that the company fraudulently avoided paying fully rebates owed to the state and federal governments under the national Medicaid Rebate program for the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor. - In 2004, Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million to settle DOJ claims involving the off-label promotion of the epilepsy drug Neurontin by subsidiary Warner-Lambert. The promotions included flying doctors to lavish resorts and paying them hefty speakers' fees to tout the drug. The company said the activity took place years before it bought Warner-Lambert in 2000. - In 2007, Pfizer agreed to pay $34.7 million in fines to settle Department of Justice allegations that it improperly promoted the human growth hormone product Genotropin. The drugmaker's Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. subsidiary pleaded guilty to offering a kickback to a pharmacy-benefits manager to sell more of the drug. Thereafter, - In 2009, Pfizer paid a $2.3 billion settlement of civil and criminal allegations and a Pfizer subsidiary entered a guilty plea to charges it violated federal law regarding its marketing of Bextra (see post here). - Pfizer was involved in two other major cases from then to early 2010, including one in which a jury found the company guilty of violating the RICO (racketeer-influenced corrupt organization) statute (see post here). In that year the company was listed as one of the pharmaceutical "big four" companies in terms of defrauding the government (see post here). - In early 2011, Pfizer's Pharmacia subsidiary settled allegations that it inflated drugs costs paid by New York (see post here). - In March, 2011, a settlement was announced in a long-running class action case which involved allegations that another Pfizer subsidiary had exposed many people to asbestos (see this story in Bloomberg). - In October, 2011, Pfizer settled allegations that it illegally marketed bladder control drug Detrol (see this post). - In August, 2012, Pfizer settled allegations that its subsidiaries bribed foreign (that is, with respect to the US) government officials, including government-employed doctors (see this post). - In December, 2012, Pfizer settled federal charges that its Wyeth subsidiary deceptively marketed the proton pump inhibitor drug Protonix, using systematic efforts to deceive approved by top management, and settled charges by multiple states' Attorneys' General that it deceptively marketed Zyvox and Lyrica (see this post). - In January, 2013, Pfizer settled Texas charges that it had misreported information to and over-billed Medicaid (see this post). - In July, 2013, Pfizer settled charges of illegal marketing of Rapamune (see this post.) - In April, 2014, Pfizer settled allegations of anti-trust law violations for delaying generic versions of Neurontin( see this post). - In June, 2014, Pfizer settled another lawsuit alleging illegal marketing of Neurontin (see this post). - In 2015, a settlement by Pfizer of a shareholders' lawsuit stemming from charges of illegal marketing was announced (see this post). - In October, 2015, a UK judge found that the company had threatened health care professionals for using a generic competitor (see this post). - In February, 2016, Pfizer settled a lawsuit for $785 million for overcharging the US government for Protonix (look here). That is a stupifyingly bad ethical record stretching over about 17 years. Yet each new settlement seems to disregard all the others before. And since 2000, no top Pfizer executive has ever suffered any negative consequences for any of this behavior. All CEOs who have retired did so as rich men. Summary Pfizer provides an amazing example of a huge health care corporation that just marches along, settling or otherwise resolving case after case of over-charging, anti-competitive behavior, deception, sometimes fraud, bribery, and various other unethical and potentially illegal behaviors, without ever too greatly inconveniencing the managers and top executives who have been profiting from this behavior. We have again and again railed against how the US government (and actually governments of other developed countries) have use light-touch regulation on big health care corporations that allows impunity for their top leaders. For example, we wrote in 2015,

As long as top managers of big health care organizations can act with impunity, can avoid all responsibility for their organizations' bad behaviors, and can personally profit wildly from their companies actions, the health care death spiral will continue. Will we continue to cry out in the wilderness, or will anyone else see the writing on the wall?

But it gets worse. Note that two of the recent Pfizer settlements were of private litigation in which the US government was not involved. One was of alleged anti-competitive behavior, and the other of alleged deceptions that could have resulted in patient harm. Both of these could have been causes of government action, but were not. So it appears that the US government is getting less inclined to do anything to challenge the impunity of top corporate leaders. Instead, the current Trump regime and its allies in Congress seem hell-bent on further rewarding top corporate leaders. For example, while the supposed tax reform legislation that just passed Congress was pushed by Trump as a way to improve the economy, it looks like it will most benefit corporate leaders. A story in Bloomberg on November 29, 2017, stated,

Major companies including Cisco Systems Inc., Pfizer Inc. and Coca-Cola Co. say they’ll turn over most gains from proposed corporate tax cuts to their shareholders, undercutting President Donald Trump’s promise that his plan will create jobs and boost wages for the middle class. The president has held fast to his pledge even as top executives’ comments have run counter to it for months. Instead of hiring more workers or raising their pay, many companies say they’ll first increase dividends or buy back their own shares.

In particular,

Robert Bradway, chief executive of Amgen Inc., said in an Oct. 25 earnings call that the company has been “actively returning capital in the form of growing dividend and buyback and I’d expect us to continue that.” Executives including Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey, Pfizer Chief Financial Officer Frank D’Amelio and Cisco CFO Kelly Kramer have recently made similar statements.

Share buybacks, like dividend increases, tend to benefit stockholders, but not workers (much less customers, or in Pfizer's case, patients),

in testimony before the bicameral Joint Economic Committee on Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said that the plans outlined by corporate executives to reward investors were unlikely to raise wages for workers. 'I don’t think share buybacks would increase wages,' Yellen said when asked by Michigan Democratic Senator Gary Peters about the impact of CEOs’ plans. Investment in capital and equipment, not buybacks, would raise productivity and pay, she said.

Left unstated is that top corporate executives are now paid mainly in stock shares and stock options. So they would be major beneficiaries of increased dividends and increased stock prices. For example, the Pfizer 2017 proxy statement lists the following share holdings of its top-paid executives: common stock shares stock units Group President, Pfizer Innovation Health Albert Bourla DVM, PhD 112,489 30,653 Executive Vice President, Business Operations and CFO Frank A D'Amelio 342,176 76,009 President, Worldwide Research and Development Mikael Dolsten MD, PhD 50,820 191,189 Former Group President, Global Innovative Pharma Business Geno J Germano 115,712 35,546 Chairman of the Board, CEO Ian C Read 645,370 317,117 Group President, Pfizer Essential Health John D Young 92,434 78,559 Note that Mr D'Amelio was quoted in the article above. As an owner of more than 400,000 Pfizer shares or share equivalents, he would be expected to substantially personally profit from increases in dividends and stock buybacks. And how likely is it that the Trump regime will respond to any entreaties about tougher law enforcement and more rigorous regulation of pharmaceutical and other large health care corporations? After all, huge numbers of executive branch appointments to positions that deal with health care have been coming through the revolving door from health care corporations and their lobbying firms, etc. At the time of his appointment, the current head of the US Food and Drug Administration had huge conflicts of interest generated by his former positions in and allied with the pharmaceutical industry (look here and here). The gentleman currently nominated to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services was a former top executive at pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly (look here). And do we really expect rigorous law enforcement from a regime whose former national security adviser just pleaded guilty to lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (look here); and whose former national security adviser and current nominee to be Ambassador to Singapore K T McFarland was just shown to have admitted that Russia had "thrown" the election to Mr Trump, but seemed to think that Mr Trump should then reward Russia by reducing sanctions imposed by the Obama administration (look here)? The Sunlight Foundation has found that President Trump has over 600 conflicts of interest, and that his family has over 1100 (look here). Do we really expect his regime to improve the integrity of health care leadership? It is now past time to expect that our polite protests about health policy and measured calls for true health care reform will have any impact on health policy, as long as the inmates are in control of the asylum. We need wholesale changes in top health care leadership in government, and wholesale changes in the top leadership of the government, if we want anything even slightly resembling true health care reform. Achieving true health care reform will require much more than polite protests. Article source:Health Care Renewal

0 notes