Lilly paid doctors to prescribe Zyprexa, notes say

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co. paid doctors in South Carolina for participating in a speakers' program in exchange for prescribing the antipsychotic Zyprexa, according to notes by Lilly sales representatives reviewed by Bloomberg News.

One Lilly sales representative even used golf bets to get more patients on the drug. During a golf game, a doctor agreed to start new patients on Zyprexa for each hole on which the sales rep scored a par.

“I got four pars out of nine holes,” Lilly salesman Vince Sullivan said in a February 2002 note. “I said I wanted my four new patients.”

The notes were reported by Bloomberg News this afternoon after being made public for the first time in a court hearing today in South Carolina’s lawsuit against Indianapolis-based Lilly. The state says it spent $200 million it shouldn’t have due to Lilly’s marketing of Zyprexa for unapproved uses.

South Carolina wants a court to impose a $5,000 fine against Lilly for each Zyprexa prescription since 1997, potentially yielding billions of dollars, according to Bloomberg.

Marni Lemons, a Lilly spokeswoman, told Bloomberg that the state’s lawyers took the notes “out of context” and “not one physician employed by the state of South Carolina has testified Lilly promoted off-label to them.”

“Call notes are jottings written by sales reps and most reps make hundreds of notes monthly. They are not literal recitations of interactions with physicians,” Lemons added.

In January, Lilly agreed to pay $1.42 billion to federal and state governments to resolve a lawsuit over Zyprexa marketing brought by the U.S. Justice Department. South Carolina did not join that settlement.

More than 30 states sued Lilly over Zyprexa. The only case that went to trial was in Alaska, which ended with a settlement that calls for Lilly to pay the state $15 million.

Other notes from Sullivan also suggest Lilly linked its payments to doctors with their volume of Zyprexa prescriptions.

In an August 2001 note, Sullivan told another salesman to tie a doctor’s Zyprexa prescriptions to participation in physician meetings where the benefits of Zyprexa were discussed. “If his numbers go up, maybe he can talk,” Sullivan said in the note, according to Bloomberg.

A year later, Sullivan’s sales records indicate he was pressing a doctor to write more Zyprexa prescriptions “because we’re paying him so much money” in the speakers’ program.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

  2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

  3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

  4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

  5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.