Pfizer - Too big to nail

silverharp

CNN had a good story on Pfizer who have avoided prosecution for illegal marketing because if would then be excluded from Medicare and Medicaid so in effect is "too big to nail"

it makes a joke of state regulation no?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/02/pfizer.bextra/index.html?hpt=T2

But when it came to prosecuting Pfizer for its fraudulent marketing, the pharmaceutical giant had a trump card: Just as the giant banks on Wall Street were deemed too big to fail, Pfizer was considered too big to nail.
Why? Because any company convicted of a major health care fraud is automatically excluded from Medicare and Medicaid. Convicting Pfizer on Bextra would prevent the company from billing federal health programs for any of its products. It would be a corporate death sentence.
Prosecutors said that excluding Pfizer would most likely lead to Pfizer's collapse, with collateral consequences: disrupting the flow of Pfizer products to Medicare and Medicaid recipients, causing the loss of jobs including those of Pfizer employees who were not involved in the fraud, and causing significant losses for Pfizer shareholders.
"We have to ask whether by excluding the company [from Medicare and Medicaid], are we harming our patients," said Lewis Morris of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Black Swan

Safe pharmaceuticals from Canada could offset any not supplied by Pfizer, and for a reduced price, but the US Pharm lobby would block this by pressuring all the Congressmen they bought with their election campaign contributions?

dunleakelleher

As well as the thousands of jobs that Pfizer's have in Ireland. Lets ignore that... Only in Ireland do we look a gift horse in the mouth, and then try ride it

Black Swan

We shouldn't complain about Pfizer because of all the jobs it generates in Ireland, just like we shouldn't complain about the Afghan and Iraq wars, because of all the jobs and revenue generated in Shannon as a major logistical staging point for the US military?

SLUSK

Haven't you already figured it out? Laws and regulations only apply to little people. :mad::mad:

ChocolateSauce

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Safe pharmaceuticals from Canada could offset any not supplied by Pfizer, and for a reduced price, but the US Pharm lobby would block this by pressuring all the Congressmen they bought with their election campaign contributions?

Safe pharmaceuticals? What do you mean by that? If you mean generic versions of drugs on which Pfizer owns the patent, those drugs are chemically identical to the brand ones.

MysNthR0p3

Foregoing any puns that Viagra may help overcoming size issues when 'nailing' Pfizer (sorry, couldn't resist), it is only in a position of power as long as its patents remain current.

A similar issue occurred with Reckitt Benckiser (who make Gaviscon) and the NHS in the UK. They have to tighten up the law to make it easier for generics to be developed once patents expire.

As for Canadian generics, generics can't be developed for a medication until a company's patent expires. As far as I'm aware, these patents are usually filed covering multiple regions.

ChocolateSauce

MysNthR0p3 wrote: »

As for Canadian generics, generics can't be developed for a medication until a company's patent expires. As far as I'm aware, these patents are usually filed covering multiple regions.

This is very true, but sometimes generics are still made illegally. If they're made in the third world and sold via the internet it can be very hard to protect the patent. I know because I've bought generic versions of patented drugs this way.