The Greedy Leading the Greedy - Multimillionaire Former Johnson and Johnson CEO Approved Huge Compensation for JP Morgan Chase CEO After Company Paid $20 Billion in Legal Settlements

JP Morgan Chase CEO Got Huge Raise Despite Company's Recent Huge Legal Settlements

The current compensation set by the board of directors of JP Morgan Chase for CEO Jamie Dimon, $20 million a year, has attracted some attention (e.g., see this commentary by Matt Taibbi), especially given the contrast between his raise and the $20 billion or so the company had to pay out last year in settlements of allegations of unethical practices.  A New York Times opinion piece rushed to Mr Dimon's defense

in the world of executive compensation, especially when viewed from the rarefied perspective of other chief executives, and more broadly on Wall Street, Mr. Dimon’s pay — and how it was determined — is not only defensible, but laudable.

Also,

I spoke this week to several people with direct knowledge of the board’s discussions about Mr. Dimon’s pay. They said that the compensation committee went through an exhaustive process to determine the right level and that the board considered the likely negative reaction. 'We were mindful of it, but it didn’t influence our decision,' said one, who like the others, spoke only on condition of anonymity. 'Some people were going to criticize us unless we paid him nothing. We were trying to do the right thing.'

The author did conclude with a quote from Rep Peter Welch (D - Vermont),

This isn’t really about Jamie Dimon. It’s about a whole culture of immunity for the consequences of your actions.

A Retired Pharmaceutical CEO Who Also was Hugely Compensated Despite his Company's Troubles Set Dimon's Pay

We have frequently discussed how the culture of immunity, or impunity found in finance may carry over into health care, since now many extremely rich  leaders of finance firms sit on boards of trustees of health care institutions like hospitals and hospital systems, universities and their associated medical schools and teaching hospitals, and health related foundations, and boards of trustees of health care corporations.

In this case, maybe the culture carried over from health care to finance.

The NY Times article noted

 The compensation and management development committee of JPMorgan Chase’s board has three members, all seasoned business luminaries in their own right. Lee R. Raymond, the chairman, is the former long-serving chairman and chief executive of Exxon Mobil. Stephen B. Burke is chief executive of NBCUniversal. William C. Weldon is the former chairman and chief executive of Johnson & Johnson.

Mr Weldon is the former pharmaceutical representative who rose to CEO of giant pharmaceutical/ biotechnology/ device company Johnson and Johnson.  Despite the appellation of business luminary above bestowed by the author of the NYT article, we noted here how many settlements have been made by, fines assessed against, and other adverse legal actions affecting Johnson and Johnson in the recent past.  Our lengthy summary of such cases is appended at the end of this post.

Yet Mr William Weldon, the outgoing CEO on whose watch most of the misbehavior resulting in the legal actions listed in the appendix below occurred, retired with a huge retirement package, after receiving extremely generous compensation prior to that.   The retirement package was estimated to be worth from $143 to $197 million (look here).  In 2010, his total compensation was $29 million (look here).   According to the 2012 Johnson and Johnson proxy statement, his 2011 total compensation was greater than $26 million. As far as I can tell, Mr Weldon never suffered any negative consequences for his company's sorry record, and retired a very rich man.

Yet the luminous Mr Weldon got to make the decision about how much to pay Mr Jamie Dimond after his company's recent sorry record.

Summary

So it appears that the top hired executives of health care and finance organizations, and the so-called stewards sitting on their boards of directors are all blending together.  Together they are in charge of assuring that top hired executives get richer and richer even while the companies they lead commit seemingly endless strings of ethical and sometimes legal offenses.


Is this any way to run health care, or the economy?

As I have repeated ad nauseum,

Many of largest and once proud health care organizations now have recent records of repeated, egregious ethical lapses. Not only have their leaders have nearly all avoided penalties, but they have become extremely rich while their companies have so misbehaved.

These leaders seem to have become like nobility, able to extract money from lesser folk, while remaining entirely unaccountable for bad results of their reigns. We can see from this case that health care organizations' leadership's nobility overlaps with the supposed "royalty" of the leaders of big financial firms, none of whom have gone to jail after the global financial collapse, great recession, and ongoing international financial disaster (look here). The current fashion of punishing behavior within health care organization with fines and agreements to behave better in the future appears to be more law enforcement theatre than serious deterrent.  As Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick exhorted his fellow Democrats, I exhort state, federal (and international, for that  matter) law enforcement to "grow a backbone" and go after the people who were responsible for and most profited from the ongoing ethical debacle in health care.

Again, true health care reform would make leaders of health care organization accountable for their organizations' bad behavior.

Appendix - Johnson and Johnson Recent Legal Record

2010

- Convictions in two different states in 2010 for misleading marketing of Risperdal
- A guilty plea for misbranding Topamax in 2010
2011

- Guilty pleas to bribery in Europe in 2011 by Johnson and Johnson's DePuy subsidiary
- A guilty plea for marketing Risperdal for unapproved uses in 2011 (see this link for all of the above)
- A guilty plea to misbranding Natrecor by J+J subsidiary Scios (see post here)
2012

- In 2012, testimony in a trial of allegations of unethical marketing of the drug Risperdal (risperidone) by the Janssen subsidiary revealed a systemic, deceptive stealth marketing campaign that fostered suppression of research whose results were unfavorable to the company, ghostwriting, the use of key opinion leaders as marketers in the guise of academics and professionals, and intimidation of whistleblowers. After these revelations, the company abruptly settled the case (see post here).
-  Also in 2012,  Johnson & Johnson was fined $1.1 billion by a judge in Arkansas for deceiving patients and physicians again about Risperdal (look here).
-  Also in 2012, Johnson & Johnson announced it would pay $181 million to resolve claims of deceptive advertising again about Risperdal (see this post). 

2013

-  In 2013, Johnson & Johnson settled case by shareholders alleging that management made misleading statements and withheld material information about manufacturing problems (see this post)

-  In 2013, Johnson & Johnson Janssen subsidiary pleaded guilty to a charge of misbranding Risperdal, and settled for a total of $2.2 billion allegations that it promoted the drug for elderly demented patients and adolescents without an indication, and despite evidence of its harms (see this post). 

-  In 2013, Johnson & Johnson DePuy subsidiary agreed to settle with multiple plaintiffs for $2.5 billion allegations that it sold defective mental-on-metal artificial hip, and hid evidence of its harms .

- In 2013, Johnson & Johnsonn Janssen subsidiary was found by two juries to have concealed harms of its drug Topamax (see this post for this and above case).

- In 2013, Johnson & Johnson Ethicon subsidiary's Advanced Surgical Products and two of its executives agreed to settle charges by US FDA that is sold mislabeled products used to sterilize equipment such as endoscopes (see this post).

- In 2013, Johnson & Johnson fined by European Commission for anticompetitive practices, that is, collusion with Novartis to delay marketing generic version of Fentanyl (see this post). 

No Needle, but the Damage was Done - A New Example of Suppression of Research about Adverse Effects of Prescription Narcotic Analgesics

This story feels personal, since as a physician who trained starting in the 1970s, figuring out how to manage patients who desperately wanted narcotics, whether to relieve pain, relieve addiction, or relieve financial distress has been a constant challenge.

Background  - Treating Pain while Avoiding "the Needle and the Damage Done"

Almost as soon as I started clinical training in medical school I came up against the problem of narcotics.  In the 1970s, narcotic addiction was a pressing problem that threw a dismal shadow over society..  In the hospital and emergency room we daily saw overdoses and the complications of narcotics addiction, including some particularly nasty infections like bacterial endocarditis,  While dealing with these, we tried to do our best to manage the severe pain of cancer and other relentless diseases with limited tools, narcotics being the most potent.

We knew that we should not let our bleak experiences with addiction to illicit narcotics prevent us from giving adequate pain medication to those with metastatic cancer.  However, it was never clear how to best to help people with chronic pain from diseases that were not so immediately deadly.  And whatever it took we wanted not to promote "the needle and the damage done."


Things did not become easier in the 1990s when we  incessantly heard about under-diagnosis and under-treatment of  pain, and how we should not be so afraid of addiction and other adverse effects when prescribing legal narcotics.  As we heard this, however, it seemed that more people with less well-defined chronic pain were coming to us seeking relief, sometimes while preoccupied with narcotics as the solution to their problems.  Yet many of these patients seemed at risk of addiction, appeared already addicted, or even appeared to be seeking drugs so they could sell them to others.

In my most recent clinical position, it seemed I was always dealing with new patients with years of obscure musculoskeletal pain who felt I was the miracle physician they were seeking, often specifically to prescribe something like Vicodin, Percodan, or Oxycontin.  When on weekend call I inevitably hear from some poor patient who had somehow run out of or lost an important medication, which turned out to be Vicodin, Percodan, or Oxycontin, and just needed a simple refill without the bother of actually seeing a doctor.  Etc, etc, etc.

How could I relieve real suffering without becoming the pusher man? 

The Over Promotion of Narcotic Pain Treatment  

Then the realization began to dawn that patients, doctors and society were being victimized by a new type of pusher man, this time dressed in a suit and working for an "ethical" drug company.  In the earlier days of Health Care Renewal, we first posted (in 2006) about allegations of deceptive and unethical promotion of fentanyl by Cephalon that lead to its overuse by patients beyond those with cancer who were its ostensible target population.  Then in 2007 came the spectacular case of guilty pleas by a subsidiary of Purdue Pharma and several of its executives for "misbranding" Oxycontin,  that is, promoting it far beyond any medically legitimate use in severe chronic pain.  Following that various investigations, well chronicled in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, showed how pharmaceutical companies employed deceptive marketing techniques, subverting medical education and research, and creating conflicted key opinion leaders and institutionally conflicted disease advocacy groups, to push more "legal" narcotics  For example, see the Journal Sentinel reports the subversion of :  medical schools and their faculty; .medical societies, disease advocacy groups, and foundations; and guideline writing panels.  In 2012, we posted about how a drug company paid key opinion leader admitted to second thoughts about his role promoting narcotics.

The realization that that overtreatment of chronic pain, now matter how sketchy, never mind the adverse effects of narcotics, was driven by greed and marketing did not make managing chronic pain and patients who wanted narcotics easier.

One strategy we used was to try to find drugs nearly as effective as narcotics (although we began to realize that narcotics are also notw as effective as we thought) but less addictive.  The latest story by the indefatigable John Fauber of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel suggests that strategy too was subverted.

 Suppression of Research about Addiction to Tramadol

One workaround I sometimes attempted was to prescribe tramadol (e.g., Ultram, Janssen), an opioid which was promoted as non-narcotic and non-addicting.  However, like many quick pharmaceutical solutions to difficult problems promoted in the last few years, that did not often seem to work as well as expected.  Now, per Mr Fauber, it appears that

the FDA failed to heed a key piece of research indicating tramadol had the potential to be abused when it first appeared on the U.S. market in 1995. The drug was not placed under the Controlled Substance Act.

Despite recent research affirming its abuse potential, restrictions on prescribing it are no more stringent than for Lipitor or Viagra.

The Controlled Substance Act places drugs into five progressively restrictive categories based on their abuse potential. At the top of the list are drugs such as heroin. At the other end are cough medicines with limited amounts of codeine.
In deciding tramadol need not be on the list, the FDA based its decision largely on research in which the drug was injected as well as reports from Europe, where it had been on the market for years, that showed very little abuse.

However, the agency also had unpublished research showing that when given to opioid abusers orally in high doses, rather than being injected, it produced opiate-like effects that were similar to those from oxycodone, the narcotic in OxyContin, one of the most abused drugs in America. 

Oops.  Here is more detail about the suppressed research,

Tramadol was first introduced in Germany in 1977.

Data from Germany had suggested it was only about one-tenth as potent as morphine when injected. Other data showed that after years of use in Germany and other countries there was very little abuse of the drug.

However, in the early 1990s, researchers at Johns Hopkins University did a study in which high doses of the drug were given orally to opioid abusers. Taken that way, tramadol acted much differently than when injected.

At very high doses it produced opiate-like effects that were similar to high-dose oxycodone.

Taken by mouth, the drug is transformed in the liver to a metabolite known as M1, which is able to attach to and activate opioid receptors in the brain. It is M1 that is believed to produce the desirable, opiate-like effect.

In 1994, Ortho-McNeil, part of the R.W. Johnson Pharmaceutical Research Institute of Johnson & Johnson, sought approval from the FDA to sell its brand-name version of the drug, Ultram, in the United States.

The Johns Hopkins study never was published, but the company said it was provided to the FDA.

Also, oops.  The FDA decided not to list the drug as a controlled substance, realized more thought might be needed in the future, but did not appear too worried about who would be doing the thinking.  

That was when the FDA allowed Ortho-McNeil to fund its own committee, separate from the FDA, that would monitor the country for problems with the drug.

While it was called an 'independent steering committee,' Ortho-McNeil paid for the group's work and also paid consulting fees to its members.

Sidney Schnoll, a former member of the committee, said he could not remember how much the committee members were paid. In total, the program cost Ortho-McNeil about $15 million a year, said Schnoll, now an executive with Pinney Associates, a Bethesda, Md., company that works with drug and opioid companies.

'There was absolutely nothing independent about this group,' said Andrew Kolodny, a New York addiction specialist and advocate of tighter controls on opioids.

From early on, Ortho-McNeil's marketing plan for tramadol meant keeping it off the list of controlled substances where it would have difficulty competing against other narcotic painkillers such as Tylenol 3 and Tylenol 4, Schnoll said in a 2009 interview. Both Tylenol products contain codeine and are schedule 3 drugs.

The Schnoll interview was done by two professors, one from the University of Florida and one from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York, as part of a project at University of Michigan Substance Abuse Center.

'There were equally good products that were cheaper on the market,' Schnoll said, according to a transcript of the interview. 'So they really wouldn't have much of the market. They wanted to see if it would be possible to get the drug onto the market as a non-controlled substance.'

After a decade, the eight-member Ortho-McNeil committee dissolved itself in December 2005, without ever having recommended that tramadol be put under the Controlled Substances Act.

Oops, again.  Meanwhile, the adverse effects of tramadol were becoming more apparent.

An analysis by the Journal Sentinel and MedPage Today found that tramadol use is up dramatically since 2008, the earliest year for which data is available. It rose from 25 million prescriptions that year to nearly 40 million in 2012, according to data from IMS Health, a market research firm.

In 2011, the drug was linked to 20,000 emergency department visits around the country. In Florida alone, there were 379 overdose deaths involving tramadol that year, up from 106 in 2003, according to the DEA.

In Milwaukee County, 20 people died of a drug overdose involving tramadol from 2010 through October 2013, according records from the Medical Examiner's Office. In most of those cases, tramadol was one of several opioids that had been taken.

Final oops.  Perhaps no needles were involved, but the damage was being done.  

Summary - Goddam the Pusher Man

The over-promotion of addictive narcotics for pain relief has become an instructive example of deceptive and unethical practices used by commercial health care firms seeking revenue no matter what it takes to get it.  Just the latest article on tramadol illustrated the use of paid key opinion leaders and more broadly, the creation of conflicted medical academics for marketing objectives (here, apparently, obfuscating the dangers of the product); the suppression of clinical research (for the same reason); and at least raised the possibility of regulatory capture.  It seems unlikely that whoever made the decisions to use the tactics worried about adverse effects including loss of the integrity of research, subversion of academic medicine, ;undermining medical decision making, and obviously most importantly direct harm to patients.  (I would note that the decision makers appeared to be working for Johnson and Johnson, a company which seems to have a growing history of questionable behavior.)  

Health care professionals should at least learn that the pusher man does not always look like a character out of Easy Rider.

The Camel's Aching Back - Johnson and Johnson and Novartis Fined 16 Million Euro for "Anticompetitive" Scheme to Delay Generic Fentanyl

Legal and regulatory actions unfavorable for giant pharmaceutical, biotechnology and device company Johnson and Johnson just keep coming.  We last discussed such a story only two weeks ago here. 

The Latest Case

This latest story got only desultory US coverage from the wire services.  The most complete version is in the European Commission press release. 

The basics were:

The European Commission has imposed fines of € 10 798 000 on the US pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and € 5 493 000 on Novartis of Switzerland. In July 2005, their respective Dutch subsidiaries concluded an anticompetitive agreement to delay the market entry of a cheaper generic version of the pain-killer fentanyl in the Netherlands, in breach of EU antitrust rules.

In more detail,

J&J initially developed Fentanyl and has commercialised it in different formats since the 1960s. In 2005, J&J's protection on the fentanyl depot patch had expired in the Netherlands and Novartis' Dutch subsidiary, Sandoz, was on the verge of launching its generic fentanyl depot patch. It had already produced the necessary packaging material. 

However, in July 2005, instead of actually starting to sell the generic version, Sandoz concluded a so-called 'co-promotion agreement' with Janssen-Cilag, J&J's Dutch subsidiary. The agreement provided strong incentives for Sandoz not to enter the market. Indeed, the agreed monthly payments exceeded the profits that Sandoz expected to obtain from selling its generic product, for as long as there was no generic entry. Consequently, Sandoz did not offer its product on the market. The agreement was stopped in December 2006 when a third party was about to launch a generic fentanyl patch.

The agreement therefore delayed the entry of a cheaper generic medicine for seventeen months and kept prices for fentanyl in the Netherlands artificially high - to the detriment of patients and taxpayers who finance the Dutch health system.

The obligatory colorful bits,

 Why did J&J and Novartis conclude that agreement? According to internal documents Sandoz would abstain from entering the Dutch market in exchange for 'a part of [the] cake'. Instead of competing, Janssen-Cilag and Sandoz agreed on cooperation so as 'not to have a depot generic on the market and in that way to keep the high current price'. Janssen-Cilag did not consider any other existing potential partners for the so-called 'co-promotion agreement' but just focused on its close competitor Sandoz. Sandoz engaged in very limited or no actual co-promotion activities.

So, 

 The Commission therefore concluded that the object of this agreement was anticompetitive and infringed Article 101 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 

Johnson and Johnson's Ever Lengthening Unhappy Legal History

There have been so many settlements made by, fines assessed against, and other adverse legal actions affecting Johnson and Johnson in the recent past that we must make a major revision of our summary of such cases (see same appended at the end of this post.)

Yet despite all these actions, there is no hint that anything will change at the company.  After all, it is extremely profitable, and all the fines, while they individually appear large, are not a big fraction of the money it brings in.  And, as we have noted far too often, not one of these actions actually provides any negative consequences, much less severely punishes anyone at the company who authorized, directed, or implemented the bad behavior.  

Instead, the leadership of the company continues to make itself very rich. As we wrote here,  Mr William Weldon, the outgoing CEO on whose watch most of the misbehavior resulting in the legal actions listed in the appendix below occurred, retired with a huge retirement package, after receiving extremely generous compensation prior to that.  The new CEO as of April, 2012,  Mr  Alex Gorsky, per the company's 2013 proxy statement, already owns more than 190,000 Johnson and Johnson shares,  and received $10,977,109  total compensation in 2012.  Mr Weldon received over $29 million in total compensation just for 2012, the year in which he retired.  Other top executives received from over $3.5 million to over $8 million. One can only imagine how much top executives are making this year.

So Johnson and Johnson, once admired for proclaiming in its famous credo to "put the needs and well-being of the people we serve first," now seems to put its own hired managers first.  It boggles the mind that despite this amazing record of bad behavior, the executives who presided over it still have jobs, have made no obvious changes in how they manage the company, and in fact continue to get ridiculously rich.  The board of directors, which includes the President of the University of Michigan, a Professor and Emeritus Chancellor and Vice President of Health Affairs at Emory, a Professor at MIT, a former FDA Commissioner, and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, and the Vice Chancellor of Health Sciences, Dean of the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA); Chief Executive Officer of the UCLA Health System, who seemingly ought to care about the integrity of evidence, protecting patients from harm, and the need for simple honesty, have not obviously done anything about the apparent massive violation of the company credo that has made its managers wealth.   Other than the stockholder lawsuit discussed below, the supposed owners of the company seem to be mute.

When will the straws break the camel's back?  In the absence of such a fracture, I repeat like an old, broken record... 

Many of largest and once proud health care organizations now have recent records of repeated, egregious ethical lapses. Not only have their leaders have nearly all avoided penalties, but they have become extremely rich while their companies have so misbehaved.

These leaders seem to have become like nobility, able to extract money from lesser folk, while remaining entirely unaccountable for bad results of their reigns. We can see from this case that health care organizations' leadership's nobility overlaps with the supposed "royalty" of the leaders of big financial firms, none of whom have gone to jail after the global financial collapse, great recession, and ongoing international financial disaster (look here). The current fashion of punishing behavior within health care organization with fines and agreements to behave better in the future appears to be more law enforcement theatre than serious deterrent.  As Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick exhorted his fellow Democrats, I exhort state, federal (and international, for that  matter) law enforcement to "grow a backbone" and go after the people who were responsible for and most profited from the ongoing ethical debacle in health care.

Again, true health care reform would make leaders of health care organization accountable for their organizations' bad behavior.

Appendix - Johnson and Johnson Recent Legal Record

2010

- Convictions in two different states in 2010 for misleading marketing of Risperdal
- A guilty plea for misbranding Topamax in 2010
2011

- Guilty pleas to bribery in Europe in 2011 by Johnson and Johnson's DePuy subsidiary
- A guilty plea for marketing Risperdal for unapproved uses in 2011 (see this link for all of the above)
- A guilty plea to misbranding Natrecor by J+J subsidiary Scios (see post here)
2012

- In 2012, testimony in a trial of allegations of unethical marketing of the drug Risperdal (risperidone) by the Janssen subsidiary revealed a systemic, deceptive stealth marketing campaign that fostered suppression of research whose results were unfavorable to the company, ghostwriting, the use of key opinion leaders as marketers in the guise of academics and professionals, and intimidation of whistleblowers. After these revelations, the company abruptly settled the case (see post here).
-  Also in 2012,  Johnson & Johnson was fined $1.1 billion by a judge in Arkansas for deceiving patients and physicians again about Risperdal (look here).
-  Also in 2012, Johnson & Johnson announced it would pay $181 million to resolve claims of deceptive advertising again about Risperdal (see this post). 

2013

-  In 2013, Johnson & Johnson settled case by shareholders alleging that management made misleading statements and withheld material information about manufacturing problems (see this post)

-  In 2013, Johnson & Johnson Janssen subsidiary pleaded guilty to a charge of misbranding Risperdal, and settled for a total of $2.2 billion allegations that it promoted the drug for elderly demented patients and adolescents without an indication, and despite evidence of its harms (see this post). 

-  In 2013, Johnson & Johnson DePuy subsidiary agreed to settle with multiple plaintiffs for $2.5 billion allegations that it sold defective mental-on-metal artificial hip, and hid evidence of its harms .

- In 2013, Johnson & Johnsonn Janssen subsidiary was found by two juries to have concealed harms of its drug Topamax (see this post for this and above case).

- In 2013, Johnson & Johnson Ethicon subsidiary's Advanced Surgical Products and two of its executives agreed to settle charges by US FDA that is sold mislabeled products used to sterilize equipment such as endoscopes (see this post).

- In 2013, Johnson & Johnson fined by European Commission for anticompetitive practices, that is, collusion with Novartis to delay marketing generic version of Fentanyl (in the current post above). 

How Many Straws? - Johnson and Johnson Settles Again, Again, Again...

It seems like a minor case, but is another straw for the camel.

The Latest Settlement

Reported in most detail by Modern Healthcare,

Two executives at a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson have agreed to pay a total of $50,000 to resolve allegations that they knowingly sold mislabeled products used in the sterilization of gastrointestinal scopes and surgical drills.  The settlement also calls for the J&J subsidiary, Advanced Sterilization Products, to pay $1.25 million to resolve a civil complaint filed by the Food and Drug Administration. ASP President Bernard Zovighian will pay $30,000, while Richard Alberti, quality and compliance vice president, will pay $20,000. None admitted wrongdoing.

'ASP's actions violated the law and put patients at unnecessary risk for infection,' Steve Silberman, director of compliance at the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.

Last year, ASP announced two recalls affecting a product called the Cyclesure 24 Biological Indicator, which is used to make sure that medical equipment sterilized using ASP's Sterrad low-temperature cleaning machines is free of bacteria, fungi and viruses.

FDA inspectors, according to a civil complaint last July, uncovered evidence that the company sold the Cyclesure 24 tests with 15-month expiration dates even though ASP's internal studies had not established the product's safe shelf life was that long.

After the issue was discovered, ASP shortened the shelf life of the Cyclesure indicators to six months. The company also recalled all lots of the products manufactured between February 2008 and December 2011.

Dirty endoscopes used during colon cancer screenings, for example, have been implicated in the transmission of hepatitis C and many types of bacteria, according to ASP's own website. 

Note that this case involves not just legal technicalities, but failures of disclosure that could have put real patients at risk of significant harm.

The Context

This case comes only one week after we discussed a huge ($2.5 billion) settlement by Johnson and Johnson of allegations that it withheld data about major safety problems affecting metal-on-metal hip prostheses, and two smaller settlements of allegations that it withheld safety data about the drug Topamax.


It is noteworthy that in this much smaller current settlement, two admittedly relatively low-level executives had to pay fines amounting to 4% of what the company had to pay. This is unusual.  Usually corporate executives escape any negative consequences, even in cases involving large amounts of money or possible harm to many patients.  If last week's settlement were to have imposed proportionate fines on executives, those fines would have totaled $100 million

The latest settlement does seem to follow the usual pattern: relatively small time individual offenders pay a penalty, while very rich and powerful individual offenders avoid all penalties. (For example, look here to see how one US prosecutor handled the case of Aaron Swartz versus the cases of misdeeds by big corporations)   Impunity by rich and powerful leaders of big organizations, and failure to enforce laws broken by such people is a very old story in American history, but that pattern was interrupted briefly after the great depression through the 1970s.  Now impunity for the rich and powerful is back, and maybe that is why 43% of the American population think our health care system is corrupt (look here).


Of course, the current settlement involved no admissions of wrongdoing.  Like most legal actions against big health care organizations, it is thus paradoxical.  Fines are paid, but at least on paper, not because of any wrongdoing.  So what were the penalties for?  Who knows?  But allowing a settlement without an admission of wrongdoing allows the next settlement to be made as if it were dealing with an isolated problem. 

As we mentioned in our last post on Johnson and Johnson, the latest settlement should be added to an increasingly  long list of the company's legal woes, often involving allegations and evidence of other unethical actions, sometimes involving guilty pleas to charges of such actions (see compilation of the record through July, 2013 here.)  Yet each settlement or action seems to take place in a vacuum, with no attention to what appears to be the company's record of ethical recidivism.  Of course, since nearly every action eschewed admissions of wrongdoing, on paper, there was no legal record of recidivism.  The whole situation is becoming so absurd that Jon Stewart on the Daily Show parodied the ability of Johnson and Johnson, and other big corporations, to escape any meaningful negative consequences of their actions.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook

As quoted on the Wrap

'Holy sh**t. They knowingly bribed doctors to give useless drugs to old people, the disabled and babies,' a stunned Stewart said. 'You’re not even allowed to do that in ‘Grand Theft Auto.''

When these issues start becoming subjects of popular parody, maybe I can entertain a tiny hope that something might be done.

 Conclusion

So I get to say again, again again...  many of largest and once proud health care organizations now have recent records of repeated, egregious ethical lapses. Not only have their leaders have nearly all avoided penalties, but they have become extremely rich while their companies have so misbehaved.

These leaders seem to have become like nobility, able to extract money from lesser folk, while remaining entirely unaccountable for bad results of their reigns. We can see from this case that health care organizations' leadership's nobility overlaps with the supposed "royalty" of the leaders of big financial firms, none of whom have gone to jail after the global financial collapse, great recession, and ongoing international financial disaster (look here). The current fashion of punishing behavior within health care organization with fines and agreements to behave better in the future appears to be more law enforcement theatre than serious deterrent.  As Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick exhorted his fellow Democrats, I exhort state, federal (and international, for that  matter) law enforcement to "grow a backbone" and go after the people who were responsible for and most profited from the ongoing ethical debacle in health care.

As we have said before, true health care reform would make leaders of health care organization accountable for their organizations' bad behavior.

Roy M. Poses MD on Health Care Renewal 

There They Go Again, Again... - Johnson and Johnson Loses Two Civil Cases, Makes $2.5 Billion Settlement Based on Claims it Withheld Safety Data on its Products

There has been some talk by US government officials that any day now they will actually get tough on corporate executives whose organizations are involved in multiply unethical actions (perhaps using the legally valid, but massively neglected responsible corporate officer doctrine, look here).  However, the march of legal settlements by such corporations continue without any hints of negative consequences for the people who might have actually been involved in unethical activity. 

So, we note another week, another multi-billion dollar settlement and another loss of a civil lawsuit by huge drug, device and biotechnology company Johnson and Johnson

The Articular Surface Replacement Metal-on-Metal Hip Prosthesis Settlement

After various rumors, the report of the settlement appeared in a New York Times article on November 19, 2013.  The basics were,

Johnson & Johnson and lawyers for patients injured by a flawed hip implant announced a multibillion-dollar deal on Tuesday to settle thousands of lawsuits, but it was not clear whether the deal would satisfy enough claimants.

Under the agreement, the medical products giant would pay nearly $2.5 billion in compensation to an estimated 8,000 patients who have been forced to have the all-metal artificial hip removed and replaced with another device. 

Separately, the company has agreed to pay all medical costs related to such procedures, expenses that could raise the deal’s cost to Johnson & Johnson to $3 billion, people familiar with the proposal said.

Under the plan, the typical patient payment for pain and suffering caused by the device would be about $250,000 before legal fees. Based on standard agreements, plaintiffs’ lawyers would receive about one-third of the overall payout, or more than $800 million, with those who negotiated the plan emerging as big winners.

The proposed settlement, which was submitted on Tuesday to a federal judge in Toledo, Ohio, must receive the support of 94 percent of eligible claimants to go forward.

An earlier NY Times article on a rumored version of the settlement emphasized that relevant litigation had featured strong allegations that Johnson  and Johnson's DePuy subsidiary hid what it knew about the faults of the device,

The A.S.R. hip was sold by DePuy until mid-2010, when the company recalled it amid sharply rising early failure rates. The device, which had a metal ball and a metal cup, sheds metallic debris as it wears, generating particles that have damaged tissue in some patients or caused crippling injuries. 

DePuy officials have long insisted that they acted appropriately in recalling the device when they did. However, internal company documents disclosed during the trial of a patient lawsuit this year showed that DePuy officials were long aware that the hip had a flawed design and was failing prematurely at a high rate.

Many artificial hips last 15 years or more before they wear out and need to be replaced. But by 2008, data from orthopedic databases outside the United States also showed that the A.S.R. was failing at high rates in patients after just a few years.

Internal DePuy projections estimate that it will fail in 40 percent of those patients in five years, a rate eight times higher than for many other hip devices. 

A later NY Times article about plaintiffs' sometimes negative reactions to the settlement added,

 The DePuy Orthopaedics division of Johnson & Johnson estimated in an internal document in 2011 that the device would fail within five years in 40 percent of patients. Traditional artificial hips, which are made of metal and plastic, typically last 15 years or more before replacement. 

 DePuy officials have insisted that they acted properly in handling the device, including waiting until 2010 to recall it. However, internal company documents show that company officials were warned years before by their own consultants that the device was so problematic they would not use it in their patients. 

In January, 2013, the NY Times had reported in more detail about how DePuy executives concealed evidence about safety issues with the hips,

. Johnson and Johnson executives knew years before they recalled a troubled artificial hip in 2010 that it had a critical design flaw, but the company concealed that information from physicians and patients, according to internal documents disclosed on Friday during a trial related to the device’s failure.

The company had received complaints from doctors about the device, the Articular Surface Replacement, or A.S.R., even as it started marketing a version of it in the United States in 2005. The A.S.R.’s flaw caused it to shed large quantities of metallic debris after implantation, and the model failed an internal test in 2007 in which engineers compared its performance to that of another of the company’s hip implants, the documents show.

Still, executives in Johnson & Johnson’s DePuy Orthopaedics unit kept selling the A.S.R. even as it was being abandoned by surgeons who worked as consultants to the company. DePuy executives discussed ways of fixing the defect, the records suggest, but they apparently never did so.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers introduced the documents on Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court during opening arguments in the first A.S.R.-related lawsuit to go to trial.

In particular, 

In 2007, DePuy engineers tested the A.S.R.’s rate of wear to see if it matched the wear rate of another all-metal hip implant made by the company. It did not.

'The current results for A.S.R. do not meet the set acceptance criteria for this test,' that report stated.

The same year, company officials began discussing ways to fix the problem, like redesigning the cup to eliminate the groove. But at the same time, it was actively marketing the A.S.R. to surgeons in the United States, who were implanting it into tens of thousands of patients.

'We will ultimately need a cup redesign, but the short-term action is manage perceptions,' one top DePuy sales official told a colleague in a 2008 e-mail. A DePuy executive, Andrew Ekdahl, who is now the unit’s president, was also told by a company consultant that the A.S.R. was flawed, according to another document. 

In mid-2008, DePuy apparently abandoned the redesign project, an internal document indicates. A company spokeswoman, Mindy Tinsley, declined to comment on the document. 

In the fall of 2009, the Food and Drug Administration rejected DePuy’s application to sell the resurfacing version of the A.S.R. in the United States, saying it was concerned about, among other things, “high concentration of metal ions” in the blood of patients who received it. 

DePuy executives soon started making financial estimates of when the company should stop selling the A.S.R., based on the time it would take to convert surgeons to another company implant, a document shows.

So the evidence introduced in litigation suggested that top DePuy executives knew the design was faulty, but chose to not disclose the evidence of this, and not to withdraw the product, but rather to "manage perceptions." 

As is typical of most settlements made by big health care corporations in the last 10 years, no one at DePuy or its Johnson and Johnson parent who might have authorized, directed, or implemented the continued sales of the device despite warnings that it might be unsafe would have to suffer any negative consequences.  In particular, apparently Mr Ekdahl will not suffer any such consequences (and was not obviously named in the few news reports of the settlement.)   Mr Ekdahl, now Worldwide President, DePuy Synthes Joint Reconstruction, was quoted in the official Johnson and Johnson news release about the settlement.

The Topamax Verdicts

This case, which was much smaller in terms of the monetary amounts involved, got much less coverage, but Bloomberg did report on November 18, 2013,

Johnson & Johnson's  Janssen Pharmeceuticals unit was ordered by a Philadelphia jury to pay $11 million in a case claiming its anti-seizure drug Topamax caused birth defects, the second such loss in less than a month.

Again, the case involved claims that the company withheld information about the safety of its product,

Janssen failed to adequately warn doctors for Haley Powell, a stay-at-home mother, of the risks of Topamax before she gave birth to a son with a cleft lip, jurors in state court in Philadelphia found today.

'Janssen has long known that this drug causes debilitating birth defects and yet intentionally kept this information from physicians and patients,' Shelley Hutson, an attorney for Powell, said after the verdict was read.

Furthermore,

 Janssen knew as early as 1997 that animal studies showed an increased risk for birth defects, especially oral clefts, Hutson said during closing arguments on Nov. 15.


Hutson accused Janssen of operating in a culture of secrecy and of intentionally concealing safety reports in 2003 and 2005.She rejected arguments by the company that it presented the information on poster boards, in abstracts and at medical conferences. Those actions “do not keep patients safe,” Hutson said.

'As early as 1997 in admission after admission, this company knew and they didn’t tell the doctors,' Hutson said.

A report in Law360 emphasized,

 Plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania suits alleged the company didn't fully, truthfully or accurately disclose Topamax data to the FDA, to them and to their doctors. As a result, Janssen intentionally and fraudulently misled the medical community, the public and herself about the risks to a fetus associated with the use of Topamax during pregnancy, plaintiffs claimed.

 Summary

There they go again....  So Johnson and Johnson has announced two multi-billion dollar settlements in one month (November, 2013, look here for the first).  It also announced a smaller settlement involving the marketing of Topamax, which is now in addition to a 2010 guilty plea for misbranding Topamax in 2010 (look here).  Note that all the November, 2013 legal actions involved allegations, often backed by seemingly convincing evidence produced in litigation (as noted above), of deceptive, unethical practices.  Both cases above included allegations that the company sold products without fully disclosing those products' harms to patients.  Furthermore, all the month's legal actions are now added to a long list of Johnson and Johnson's legal woes, often involving allegations and evidence of other unethical actions, sometimes involving guilty pleas to charges of such actions (see compilation of the record through July, 2013 here.)  (By the way, Synthes, which is now another Johnson and Johnson subsidiary, and is not run by the same individual on whose watch the ASR case occurred, has had its own legal and ethical woes, look here.) 

Yet despite this lengthy and sorry record, no individual manager or executive at Johnson and Johnson, including its many and confusing subsidiaries, seems to have suffered any negative consequences for authorizing, directing, or implementing any unethical activities, whether they risked harming patients, or whether they resulted in a guilty plea by a corporate entity.  Instead, as we have discussed most recently here, the top executives of the company have grown very rich. 

So since the US government seems to continue to recycle its policy of allowing corporate managers and executives impunity regardless of how repetitively harmful their actions might be to patients' and the public's health, I will recycle my comments from earlier in November, 2013,....

The latest settlement in the parade is another marker of the sort of conduct that big health care organizations have exhibited to increase revenue, and to use that revenue as a rationale for making their top insiders very rich.  The particular conduct alleged here could have put patients at risk, partly by deceiving health care professionals.  Yet in their wisdom, top US law enforcement saw fit not to try to hold any individuals accountable for this conduct, and allowed the company to deny any misconduct other than a single misdemeanor by a subsidiary.  This occurred despite the company's history of multiple legal settlements and findings of guilt in various courtrooms.

Yet none of these actions has resulted in any negative consequences for any individual within the company.  No one who authorized, directed, or implemented bad behavior will pay any penalty, even were the bad behavior to have lead to significant personal enrichment.

As we have said ad infinitum, and on the occasion of a previous Johnson and Johnson settlement, many of largest and once proud health care organizations now have recent records of repeated, egregious ethical lapses. Not only have their leaders have nearly all avoided penalties, but they have become extremely rich while their companies have so misbehaved.

These leaders seem to have become like nobility, able to extract money from lesser folk, while remaining entirely unaccountable for bad results of their reigns. We can see from this case that health care organizations' leadership's nobility overlaps with the supposed "royalty" of the leaders of big financial firms, none of whom have gone to jail after the global financial collapse, great recession, and ongoing international financial disaster (look here). The current fashion of punishing behavior within health care organization with fines and agreements to behave better in the future appears to be more law enforcement theatre than serious deterrent.  As Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick exhorted his fellow Democrats, I exhort state, federal (and international, for that  matter) law enforcement to "grow a backbone" and go after the people who were responsible for and most profited from the ongoing ethical debacle in health care.

As we have said before, true health care reform would make leaders of health care organization accountable for their organizations' bad behavior.

Roy M. Poses MD on Health Care Renewal 

A New, and Huge ($2.2 Billion) Settlement for Johnson and Johnson, but "No Individuals were Charged with Wrongdoing"

The march of legal settlements made by big health care organizations has resumed with a bang.  As reported in most major media outlets, giant drug/ device/ biotechnology company Johnson and Johnson has made a big settlement with the US Department of Justice.

The Basics of the Settlement

As reported by Bloomberg / Businessweek,

Johnson & Johnson agreed to resolve criminal and civil probes into the marketing of Risperdal, an antipsychotic drug, and other medicines by paying more than $2.2 billion, one of the largest U.S. health-fraud penalties. 

J&J’s Janssen unit will plead guilty to a misdemeanor criminal charge over misbranding Risperdal for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including treating elderly patients with dementia. Under a plea agreement announced today, Janssen will pay a $334 million fine and forfeit $66 million.

Janssen also settled civil claims that it marketed Risperdal without approval for the elderly, children and the mentally disabled, and that it paid kickbacks to physicians and to Omnicare Inc., the largest pharmacy for nursing homes. The civil accord covered off-label marketing of Risperdal; Invega, another antipsychotic; and Natrecor, a heart drug.

This settlement covered conduct that health care professionals ought to find particularly disturbing, including marketing Risperdal for elderly people with dementia without an approved indication, despite evidence that it could be particularly harmful to those patients; marketing Risperdal to adolescent boys without an indication, again despite evidence that it could be particularly harmful to those patients; and using kickbacks to market Risperdal.

Promoting Risperdal for Dementia Despite Increased Risk of Death

This issue was best summarized by the Wall Street Journal,

Prosecutors alleged that J&J's Janssen Pharmaceuticals unit promoted Risperdal to elderly patients suffering from dementia, despite no approval for that use. Prosecutors also alleged that J&J's 'ElderCare' sales force pushed Risperdal for use in these elderly patients, and sales representatives' bonus awards failed to distinguish prescriptions for schizophrenia or the unapproved dementia use.

In 2005, the FDA required the label warn that elderly patients suffering from dementia-related psychosis were at a higher risk of death.

The New York Times added,

 Johnson & Johnson officials tried to expand the market for Risperdal to older dementia patients soon after the drug was approved in 1993 to treat symptoms of psychiatric disorders, according to federal court filings. 

The drug, whose generic name is risperidone, was primarily tested in schizophrenia patients, and the Federal Drug Administration repeatedly rejected efforts by the company to expand the drug’s use to older dementia patients, according to the filings.

But Johnson & Johnson, federal officials said, actively pursued the market for geriatric patients. The company created a dedicated sales force, ElderCare, to promote the drug and others to doctors who primarily treated older patients.

The drug, the company claimed, could address symptoms that made treating these patients a challenge, especially in a nursing home setting, including agitation, confusion, hostility and impulsiveness. The company’s sales brochures highlighted these symptoms and minimized the fact that the drug was approved to treat schizophrenia, according to federal documents.

 Federal officials said the company knew that Risperdal posed serious health risks for older adults, like an increased risk of strokes, but it played them down. The drug’s label was later updated to warn against the use of the drug in older patients with dementia.

So the allegations were that the company pursued an elaborate and deceptive strategy to promote the drug for elderly dementia patients despite knowledge that the drug was particularly risky for such patients.

Promoting Risperdal for Adolescent Boys Despite Increased Risk of Gynecomastia

Again, per the WSJ,

Prosecutors also alleged that J&J promoted Risperdal for use by boys suffering from mental disabilities despite knowing that use could raise levels of a hormone stimulating breast development.

The NYT added,

Federal prosecutors also say, as part of the civil settlement, that Johnson & Johnson promoted the use of Risperdal in people with mental disabilities and children, even though the company did not receive F.D.A. approval to market to children until 2006. Janssen told its sales representatives to visit child psychologists and mental health facilities that mainly focused on children, promoting the drug as a safe treatment for disorders like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder, the government said. 

Johnson & Johnson knew that children were susceptible to certain health risks from taking Risperdal, including the possibility that boys could develop breasts through elevated production of the hormone prolactin, federal officials said. 

Again, the allegations were that the company pursued an elaborate deceptive strategy to market the drug for children despite knowledge that the drug was particularly risky for such patients.  

No Executives were Discomfited by the Disposition of This Case

The company took pains to emphasize that the settlement only required a single guilty plea to a misdemeanor by a company subsidiary, and did not involve any other admissions of guilt, or any penalties to specific human beings.  For example, per Bloomberg/ Business Week,

'Today we reached closure on complex legal matters spanning almost a decade,' Michael Ullmann, J&J’s general counsel, said in a statement. 'This resolution allows us to move forward and continue to focus on delivering innovative solutions that improve and enhance the health and well-being of patients around the world.'

While Janssen 'accepts accountability' for the actions described in the misdemeanor plea, the civil settlement 'is not an admission of any liability or wrongdoing, and the company expressly denies the government’s civil allegations,' J&J said.

So why give up a perfectly good $2.2 billion (minus $400 million fine and forfeiture by the Janssen subsidiary for the single misdemeanor)?  Was "closure" all that valuable?

In addition, in the NY Times we found ,

Ernie Knewitz, a spokesman for Johnson & Johnson, noted that the misdemeanor charge was being entered on behalf of the company and no individuals were charged with wrongdoing. 'Mr. Gorsky [current CEO] has been an outstanding Johnson & Johnson leader for more than 20 years,' he said.

Would you expect someone who works for Mr Gorsky to say otherwise?  Yet it was on Mr Gorsky's watch that much of the alleged bad conduct actually happened. 

Alex Gorsky was promoted to chief executive officer of J&J in April 2012, in part because of his record of generating sales as leader of Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

Furthermore, the Inquirer noted that Mr Gorsky was deposed in one of the many civil lawsuits filed by patients against Johnson and Johnson.

The 60-page transcript of Gorsky's deposition in one of the Philadelphia suits was part of the publicly available court record. In the transcript, McCormick walks Gorsky through discussions from 2001 with Joseph Biederman, a Harvard medical school professor and a Massachusetts General Hospital pediatric psychiatrist who gained fame - and criticism - for advocating the use of pharmaceuticals to treat children with perceived mental illness. That was before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved, in still-limited ways, drugs such as Risperdal for children.

In a one-page letter dated Dec. 7, 2001, Biederman requested $500,000 to start what became the Johnson & Johnson Center for the Study of Pediatric Psychopathology. Gorsky said in the deposition that he approved that payment.

Gorsky was asked whether he had been hoping Biederman and, by extension, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard, would help J&J to get wider diagnosis and treatment for child and adolescent mental disorders.

'I think our goal was to, yes, have better diagnostic criteria for children who are in need of treatment and to have better therapeutic options for children who are in need of treatment,' Gorsky said.

Also in the transcript, McCormick discussed with Gorsky a document called the 'Annual Report 2002: The Johnson & Johnson Center for Pediatric Psychopathology at Massachusetts General Hospital.' Biederman was the director of the center, and one of the goals of its research, according to the report, was that 'it will move forward the commercial goals of J&J.'

Thus this testimony seems to imply that current Johnson and Johnson CEO Gorsky was involved in making large payments to an important key opinion leader (KOL) who was supposed to use his academic gravitas to "move forward the commercial goals" of Johnson and Johnson, specifically by promoting Risperdal for children.

Yet, as we discussed above, neither Mr Gorsky nor any other person at Johnson and Johnson who might have authorized, directed, or implemented the alleged conduct which was the subject of the settlement, conduct which Johnson and Johnson of course denies was misconduct, suffered any negative consequences.

Mr Gorsky's total compensation as CEO in 2012 was $10,977,109 according too the company's 2013 proxy statement. The retiring CEO, William Weldon, on whose overall watch the alleged events occurred, received $29,838,259 that year.  We last discussed their compensation and its contrast with the company's ethical track record here.

These payments also occurred despite all the other settlements Johnson and Johnson has had to make because of allegations about its marketing of Risperdal.  As described by Bloomberg/ Businessweek,

The settlement won’t resolve suits brought by attorneys general in Arkansas, Louisiana and South Carolina, where the company has appealed or has said it will appeal judgments over Risperdal sales.

Judges or juries in those states have ordered J&J to pay a total of about $1.8 billion in damages and fines over Risperdal marketing campaigns that were found to have misled doctors and patients about the drug’s health risks and effectiveness.

In 2012, a judge in Arkansas ordered the drugmaker to pay $1.2 billion in fines over Risperdal marketing. That verdict came three months after J&J decided to end a trial in Texas over the drug’s sales with a $158 million settlement. The Arkansas judge also awarded the state $180 million in attorney fees, J&J said in an August regulatory filing. The company is appealing the judgment.

In June 2011, a judge in South Carolina ordered J&J to pay $327 million in penalties for deceptively marketing the medicine. Ten months earlier, jurors in Louisiana ordered the drugmaker to pay almost $258 million to state officials over J&J’s Risperdal marketing campaign in the state. A Louisiana judge later ordered the drugmaker to pay an additional $73.3 million in attorney fees and costs.

The payments further occurred despite a previous settlement involving another drug whose marketing was at issue in the current settlement, according to Bloomberg / Businessweek,

In October 2011, J&J’s Scios unit pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation over Natrecor and paid an $85 million criminal fine.

Finally, the compensation was given despite other legal actions not having to do with Risperdal, Invega or Natrecor, as we most recently summarized,
- A guilty plea for misbranding Topamax in 2010 (look here)
- Guilty pleas to bribery in Europe in 2011 by J+J's DePuy subsidiary (look here)
 - Accusations that the company, which makes smoking cessation products, participated along with tobacco companies in efforts to lobby state legislators (see post here)

Summary

The latest settlement in the parade is another marker of the sort of conduct that big health care organizations have exhibited to increase revenue, and to use that revenue as a rationale for making their top insiders very rich.  The particular conduct alleged here could have put patients at risk, partly by deceiving health care professionals.  Yet in their wisdom, top US law enforcement saw fit not to try to hold any individuals accountable for this conduct, and allowed the company to deny any misconduct other than a single misdemeanor by a subsidiary.  This occurred despite the company's history of multiple legal settlements and findings of guilt in various courtrooms.

Yet none of these actions has resulted in any negative consequences for any individual within the company.  No one who authorized, directed, or implemented bad behavior will pay any penalty, even were the bad behavior to have lead to significant personal enrichment.

As we have said ad infinitum, and on the occasion of a previous Johnson and Johnson settlement, many of largest and once proud health care organizations now have recent records of repeated, egregious ethical lapses. Not only have their leaders have nearly all avoided penalties, but they have become extremely rich while their companies have so misbehaved.

These leaders seem to have become like nobility, able to extract money from lesser folk, while remaining entirely unaccountable for bad results of their reigns. We can see from this case that health care organizations' leadership's nobility overlaps with the supposed "royalty" of the leaders of big financial firms, none of whom have gone to jail after the global financial collapse, great recession, and ongoing international financial disaster (look here). The current fashion of punishing behavior within health care organization with fines and agreements to behave better in the future appears to be more law enforcement theatre than serious deterrent.  As Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick exhorted his fellow Democrats, I exhort state, federal (and international, for that  matter) law enforcement to "grow a backbone" and go after the people who were responsible for and most profited from the ongoing ethical debacle in health care.

As we have said before, true health care reform would make leaders of health care organization accountable for their organizations' bad behavior.

Addendum - Other Comments

See also similar sentiments from 1BoringOldMan,

 J&J closes out the escrow fund set aside for this settlement. Alex Gorsky goes to his West Point Anniversaries and Boy Scout Board meetings an ongoing success story [shoveling…]. And what was this all about?

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper

and in a press release from Public Citizen,

Until more meaningful penalties and the prospect of jail time for company heads who are responsible for such activity become common, companies will continue defrauding the government and putting patients’ lives in danger.

Former FDA Commissioner, CMS Administrator McClellan adds Johnson and Johnson Board Membership to Positions with General Atlantic LLC, Capital Royalty, Castlight Health, and AvivReit

Our latest example of the interchangeability of top insiders within corporate health care and the government agencies that are supposed to regulate corporate health care comes via an announcement from Johnson and Johnson,

Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) announced today that Mark B. McClellan, M.D., Ph.D., Senior Fellow in Economic Studies, and Director of the Initiative on Value and Innovation in Health Care, Brookings Institution, will join the Board of Directors on October 15, 2013.  Dr. McClellan will serve on the Regulatory, Compliance & Government Affairs Committee and the Science, Technology & Sustainability Committee of the Board.

As former commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 2002 to 2004, and as the former administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from 2004 to 2006, Dr. McClellan has more than two decades of public service and academic research experience. From 2001 to 2002, he served as a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers and senior director for health care policy at the White House. During President William J. Clinton's administration, Dr. McClellan held the position of deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy.

So Dr McClellan has gone from running the US Food and Drug Administration, the primary government regulator of the pharmaceutical industry, to stewardship of one of the biggest pharmaceutical (and biotechnology and device) companies.

Not noted in that announcement was that Dr McClellan has been collecting positions in health care corporations since at least 2009.  The examples I found included in chronological order:

2009 - General Atlantic LLC

This appears to be a private equity firm which claims to be a "leading global investment firm."

From a 2010 a Mergers & Acquisitions article,

A year ago, the firm hired Dr Mark McClellan, previously a commissioner of the Food & Drug Administration, to its healthcare practice as a special advisor.

According to the firm's current website, he is still a special advisor.  

2010 - Capital Royalty LP

In a 2010 press release, this apparently private equity firm claimed to be

a market pioneer and innovator in healthcare investing with a focus on intellectual property investments in FDA-approved biopharmaceutical assets

In that release, it announced the creation of a Strategic Advisory Committee that included Dr Mark McClellan.  He still sits on that committee. 

2012 - Castlight Health

In a 2012 press release, this firm claimed to be

developer of a personalized health care shopping portal offering unbiased information about health care cost and quality

That press release announced the addition of Dr McClellan to the firm's Advisory Board, on which he still sits. 

2013 - AvivReit

This firm "specializes in the ownership and triple-net leasing of post-acute and long-term care skilled nursing facilities (SNFs)" per its website.

Dr McClellan is currently on its board of directors.  He apparently was appointed in 2013. 

Notably, I did not see anything in any of these firms' announcements about Dr McClellan or their biographies of him that noted his board or advisory committee positions with other firms.

Summary

Dr Mark McClellan rose through the ranks in the US executive branch ending with positions as FDA commissioner and administrator of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).  He served under two presidents, Clinton and George W Bush.  Within 3 years of exiting DHHS, he picked up his first important commercial position, at General Atlantic LLC, and then added other positions with Capital Royalty, Castlight Health, AvivReit, and now the biggest of all, Johnson and Johnson.  Meanwhile he apparently continues at the Brookings Institution.  He must be one very busy man.

This case could be lumped with those of another former FDA commissioner and Secretary of Health and Human Services who ended up as a Director of Medtronic (see this post),  another Secretary of DHHS who ended up on the boards of multiple health care corporations (see this post), a director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) who became a Sanofi executive, etc, etc (see this post).

While some might argue whether his acquisition of a leading advisory position with a private equity firm three years after he left DHHS technically constituted a spin through the revolving door, Dr McClellan's cumulative acquisition of four more such positions within the following four years certainly demonstrates how our corporate dominated health care system and the government agencies which are supposed to be regulating it to assure the health and safety of patients, and the maintenance of the public health seem to be run by an interchangeable cast of insiders.  We have asked before whether we can trust federal regulators to put patients' and the public's health first when they know they could easily become  candidates for lucrative private positions in the companies they regulate, or which are affected by their regulations, presumably assuming they have not done too much during their time in government to offend the leaders of such companies.

We have noted that the system in which government and big corporations largely overlap in terms of their leadership and presumably goals is called corporatism.  One can argue that such systems end up being run primarily for the benefit of corporate and government insiders.

 Until we dispel the fog of corporatism that has spread over the government that was once supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, expect no real health care reform, and expect continuing rising costs, declining access, and worsening patient care. Obviously, true health care reform would start with the government and its officials putting patients' and the public's health first, way ahead of the financial comfort of corporate leaders.

I would note that neither the currently controversial and now operational Affordable Care Act, nor any of its opponents schemes for alternatives addresses this issue.

by Roy M. Poses MD for Health Care Renewal 

Johnson and Johnson Settles Suit Alleging Management Incompetence and Deception, Managers Continue to Prosper

Very quietly, pharmaceutical/ biotechnology/ medical device corporate giant Johnson & Johnson just settled another lawsuit. The most pithy version is by Ed Silverman on Pharmalot, although Reuters and Bloomberg published short accounts.

The New Settlement

Per Mr Silverman, the gist is:

The health care giant agreed to resolve the dispute brought over allegations that J&J management shirked their responsibilities and allowed a chain of events that resulted in congressional probes; lost market share, consumer confidence and revenue, and a consent decree with the FDA. In the lawsuit, a shareholder charged that J&J bungled the integration of the Pfizer consumer health acquisition, placed inexperienced execs in charges of its OTC unit and cut costs so drastically that quality control suffered.

The lawsuit, which was brought by Ronald Monk, alleged that the health care giant made misleading statements about its products before disclosing problems with the Fort Washington plant and another in Puerto Rico. He also maintained that J&J withheld material information before its decision three years ago to shut down the Fort Washington plant, where contamination led to the unpublicized recall of defective Motrin tablets in 2009.

In agreeing to the settlement, J&J refused to admit any wrongdoing

So let me review. The allegations in this case were all about problems with the management of Johnson and Johnson.  They included allegations that management was incompetent and deceptive.  The incompetence was in handling the core functions of the company, assuring that its drug products were pure and unadulterated.  The deception was of patients, the public, and the nominal owners of the company to whom management is supposed to report, and allegedly included an attempt to cover up concerns about the purity of its drug products.

The proposed settlement follows the current practice of allowing the defendant not to admit the allegations, leaving their truth unproven.  However, one wonders, given that the allegations are about the core responsibilities of management and were leveled by the company owners, why the management would not defend their honor more forthrightly.

The Company's Sorry Legal Record

Furthermore, this settlement also follows the current practice of being made without reference to any other seemingly relevant legal proceedings.  In fact, it is just the latest of a long string of settlements and other resolutions of legal actions, including guilty pleas, by Johnson and Johnson management.  As we summarized most recently here, these included:

- Convictions in two different states in 2010 for misleading marketing of Risperdal
- A guilty plea for misbranding Topamax in 2010
- Guilty pleas to bribery in Europe in 2011 by Johnson and Johnson's DePuy subsidiary
- A guilty plea for marketing Risperdal for unapproved uses in 2011 (see this link for all of the above)

- A guilty plea to misbranding Natrecor by J+J subsidiary Scios (see post here)
- In 2012, testimony in a trial of allegations of unethical marketing of the drug Risperdal (risperidone) by the Janssen subsidiary revealed a systemic, deceptive stealth marketing campaign that fostered suppression of research whose results were unfavorable to the company, ghostwriting, the use of key opinion leaders as marketers in the guise of academics and professionals, and intimidation of whistleblowers. After these revelations, the company abruptly settled the case (see post here).
-  Also in 2012,  Johnson & Johnson was fined $1.1 billion by a judge in Arkansas for deceiving patients and physicians again about Risperdal (look here).
-  Also in 2012, Johnson & Johnson announced it would pay $181 million to resolve claims of deceptive advertising again about Risperdal (see this post).

Even though the record includes a number of settlement in which management did not have to admit guilt, the company has made a surprising number of guilty pleas in just the last few years.  Despite all this evidence of poor, that is incompetent or unethical management, Johnson and Johnson managers have been getting very rich.

As we mentioned here, Mr William Weldon, the outgoing CEO on whose watch most of the misbehavior resulting in the legal actions above occurred, retired with a huge retirement package, after receiving extremely generous compensation prior to that.  The new CEO as of April, 2012,  Mr  Alex Gorsky, per the company's 2013 proxy statement, already owns more than 190,000 Johnson and Johnson shares,  and received $10,977,109  total compensation in 2012.  Mr Weldon received over $29 million in total compensation just for 2012, the year in which he retired.  Other top executives received from over $3.5 million to over $8 million. 

Summary

So why do the stockholders, the owners of Johnson and Johnson continue to pay so much to an executive team on whose watch so many bad things have happened?  Why did law enforcement authorities allow the company to continue to plead guilty or settle cases without imposing any negative consequences on these executives?  Maybe only the Shadow knows. Of course, the lack of any discussion beyond that on Health Care Renewal, that puts each new settlement or guilty plea in the context of the ones before, and juxtaposes them to the rewards of given to management, may not help. 

As we said the last time we addressed the contrast between Johnson and Johnson's sorry legal record and its voluminous payments to executives, we have noted again and again and again that many of largest and once proud health care organizations now have recent records of repeated, egregious ethical lapses. Not only have their leaders have nearly all avoided penalties, but they have become extremely rich while their companies have so misbehaved.

These leaders seem to have become like nobility, able to extract money from lesser folk, while remaining entirely unaccountable for bad results of their reigns. We can see from this case that health care organizations' leadership's nobility overlaps with the supposed "royalty" of the leaders of big financial firms, none of whom have gone to jail after the global financial collapse, great recession, and ongoing international financial disaster (look here). The current fashion of punishing behavior within health care organization with fines and agreements to behave better in the future appears to be more law enforcement theatre than serious deterrent.  As Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick exhorted his fellow Democrats, I exhort state, federal (and international, for that  matter) law enforcement to "grow a backbone" and go after the people who were responsible for and most profited from the ongoing ethical debacle in health care.

As we have said before, true health care reform would make leaders of health care organization accountable for their organizations' bad behavior.