Pfizer pleads guilty to promoting drug for off-label use
Compliance Monitor, May 19, 2004
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
Pfizer Inc. became an industry example last week when it plead guilty to promoting its anti-seizure drug for off-label use.
On May 13, it agreed to settle criminal and civil charges and pay fines of more than $430 million for charges that its Warner-Lambert unit promoted non-approved uses for Neurontin, according to an Associated Press report.
The settlement includes a $24.6 million payment for whistleblower David Franklin, who filed the original lawsuit in 1996.
Under the agreement released May 13 at a Department of Justice press conference, Pfizer acknowledged Warner-Lambert spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote non-approved uses for Neurontin. It said it paid physicians large fees for speaking engagements and flew them to expensive resorts under the guise of educational trips.
According to the office of the Attorney General in California, the settlement requires Warner-Lambert to pay $38 million to resolve deceptive marketing allegations. It will also pay $392 million to resolve federal and state investigations of Medicaid fraud, illegal kickbacks, and submitting false claims to obtain public funds.
The $392 million includes a $240 million fine for violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. In addition, the company will pay $152 million to the states to settle the Medicaid fraud allegations. The Medicaid fraud portion of the settlement will become final upon approval by the states.
Pfizer also agreed to sign a corporate integrity agreement (CIA) for the monitoring of future marketing practices. To view the CIA, click here.
According to a statement on the Pfizer Web site, "The underlying allegations and related investigations originated in 1996, well before Pfizer's acquisition of Warner-Lambert in 2000. The allegations and conduct pertain solely to Warner-Lambert practices."
To read the press release from the California Attorney General, click here.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Compliance Monitor!
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Q&A: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q/A. One injection code or two?
- Cohesive History and Physical Requirements
- Searched
