IBJNews

Glaxo to pay $105 million in multistate settlement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

GlaxoSmithKline Plc, the United Kingdom's largest drugmaker, will pay $105 million to settle claims by California, New York, Indiana and more than 40 other states that it illegally promoted asthma and antidepressant drugs.

The accord will prohibit Glaxo from providing incentive payments to salespeople that encourage uses of the drugs not indicated on their labels, and from using paid doctors to promote its products. The agreement announced Wednesday covers the asthma drug Advair and two antidepressants, Paxil and Wellbutrin.

Indiana will receive nearly $2.1 million in the settlement, the attorney general's office disclosed Wednesday.

California’s portion of the settlement, the largest of any state, is $7.1 million, Kamala Harris, the state’s attorney general, said in a statement. Legal documents describing the agreement will be filed Wednesday in state court in San Diego, according to Harris.

Glaxo said about a week ago that it faces a criminal probe in the U.K. following allegations in China that its employees bribed doctors, hospitals and medical associations to boost sales. Accusations of wrongdoing by company employees also have surfaced in Iraq, Poland, Jordan and Lebanon.

The U.S. Justice Department began looking in 2010 into whether Glaxo and other drugmakers violated a federal law against bribing officials in foreign countries.

Antidepressant uses

The $105 million settlement is a fraction of what Glaxo has paid over the years to resolve claims it illegally marketed Paxil and Wellbutrin. In 2012, the drugmaker pleaded guilty and paid $3 billion to resolve criminal and civil allegations that it pushed the sale of the antidepressant drugs for unapproved uses and failed to properly turn over clinical data on its Avandia diabetes drug. Indiana received $6.3 million in that settlement.

Under U.S. law, a doctor can prescribe a medicine for any condition, as long as the drug is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as safe and effective. Drug companies, however, aren’t allowed to promote a drug for uses other than those approved by FDA regulators.

The company also was forced to pay out more than $1 billion to settle lawsuits claiming Glaxo officials hid that Paxil could cause birth defects.

Glaxo didn’t admit to any wrongdoing as part of Wednesday's $105 million settlement with the state attorneys general, Mary Ann Rhyne, a company spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement.

Glaxo, based in London, violated California consumer protection laws by misrepresenting the uses and qualities of certain drugs, according to Harris.

‘Significant penalty’

The settlement requires GlaxoSmithKline to “pay a significant penalty and imposes strong new rules designed to prevent future misrepresentations,” Harris said.

States participating in the settlement include Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. The District of Columbia also took part.

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. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

  2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

  3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

  4. Exciting times in Carmel.

  5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1

ADVERTISEMENT