IBJNews

Drug company makes $181M settlement with states

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. and parent company Johnson & Johnson on Thursday announced a $181 million settlement with 36 states, including Indiana, and the District of Columbia over charges of marketing anti-psychotic drugs for non-approved uses.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, representing one of the states involved, claimed in a court filing that Janssen engaged in deceptive practices from 1998 to at least 2004 in the marketing of the drugs Risperdal, Risperdal Consta, Risperdal M-Tab and Invega. The multistate settlement comes amid a similar federal case that is still pending.

Schneiderman said the company promoted "off-label" uses of the drugs not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. For instance, Janssen is accused of promoting Risperdal, which is used to treat schizophrenia and other mental illnesses, for non-approved uses including dementia, anger management and anxiety. Janssen rewarded doctors who prescribed and promoted Risperdal for unapproved uses with lucrative consulting agreements, according to Schneiderman's complaint.

"This landmark settlement holds the companies accountable for practices that put patients in danger, and serves as a warning to other pharmaceutical giants that they must play by one set of rules. It goes further by ensuring that the corporations stop rewarding doctors for prescribing certain drugs or presenting scientifically-suspect studies as sound," Schneiderman said in a statement.

Janssen did not admit wrongdoing as part of the settlement, under which it agreed it would not promote the drugs for off-label uses or make misleading claims. The Titusville, N.J.-based company said it wanted to avoid unnecessary expenses and a prolonged legal process.

"We have chosen this path to achieve a prompt and full resolution of these state claims and to ensure we continue to focus on our mission of providing medicines to meet the significant unmet needs of many people who suffer from mental illness," Janssen President Michael Yang said in a statement.

Janssen said the multistate settlement is separate from the disclosure made earlier this month by Johnson & Johnson concerning an agreement in principle with the Department of Justice to settle three pending civil matters regarding the sales and marketing of Risperdal and Invega, the sales and marketing of the respiratory drug Natrecor and allegations that the drug dispensing company Omnicare Inc. of Kentucky was provided with rebates regarding Risperdal and other products.

The company said there are still unresolved issues with federal justice officials.

Omnicare agreed to pay $90 million in 2009 to resolve an inquiry into its actions. The government said Johnson & Johnson made illegal payments to Omnicare between 1999 and 2004, and Omnicare's annual sales of Risperdal nearly tripled to $280 million over that period.

Schneiderman called Thursday's action the largest-ever multistate consumer protection-based pharmaceutical settlement. New York will receive $9 million under the settlement.

In addition to New York, Indiana, the District of Columbia and lead state Florida, other states involved in the settlement are Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I'm a CPA who works with a wide range of companies (through my firm K.B.Parrish & Co.); however, we work with quite a few car dealerships, so I'm fairly interested in Fatwin (mentioned in the article). Does anyone have much information on that, or a link to such information? Thanks.

  2. Historically high long-term unemployment, unprecedented labor market slack and the loss of human capital should not be accepted as "the economy at work [and] what is supposed to happen" and is certainly not raising wages in Indiana. See Chicago Fed Reserve: goo.gl/IJ4JhQ Also, here's our research on Work Sharing and our support testimony at yesterday's hearing: goo.gl/NhC9W4

  3. I am always curious why teachers don't believe in accountability. It's the only profession in the world that things they are better than everyone else. It's really a shame.

  4. It's not often in Indiana that people from both major political parties and from both labor and business groups come together to endorse a proposal. I really think this is going to help create a more flexible labor force, which is what businesses claim to need, while also reducing outright layoffs, and mitigating the impact of salary/wage reductions, both of which have been highlighted as important issues affecting Hoosier workers. Like many other public policies, I'm sure that this one will, over time, be tweaked and changed as needed to meet Indiana's needs. But when you have such broad agreement, why not give this a try?

  5. I could not agree more with Ben's statement. Every time I look at my unemployment insurance rate, "irritated" hardly describes my sentiment. We are talking about a surplus of funds, and possibly refunding that, why, so we can say we did it and get a notch in our political belt? This is real money, to real companies, large and small. The impact is felt across the board; in the spending of the company, the hiring (or lack thereof due to higher insurance costs), as well as in the personal spending of the owners of a smaller company.

ADVERTISEMENT