IBJNews

Lilly cites 'deep concerns' over China kickback allegations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis-based drugmaker Eli Lilly and Co. said it is investigating allegations its employees paid Chinese doctors at least $4.9 million in bribes and kickbacks.

 The employees allegedly gave bribes to Chinese doctors to promote the sales of two diabetes drugs in Shanghai and the eastern Chinese province of Anhui, the 21st Century Business Herald reported Thursday, citing a former senior manager of the company identified by the pseudonym Wang Wei. Bribes and special payments are common practice for selling products, the person was cited as saying.

The allegations make Lilly the third major multi-national drugmaker accused of bribing doctors in return for prescribing drugs. GlaxoSmithKline Plc, based in London, and Paris-based Sanofi face similar investigations. Four Glaxo employees having been detained over allegations that the company paid $490 million in spurious travel and meeting expenses as well as trading in sexual favors.

“We are deeply concerned about the allegations made against Lilly China,” Yan Connie Li, a Lilly spokeswoman, said in an e-mail Thursday. “Although we have not been able to verify these allegations, we take them seriously, and we are continuing our investigation.”

The 21st Century Business Herald is a newspaper based in the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou.

The newspaper reported that doctors received payments from Lilly representatives as high as $130 in some cases for each new patient. The doctors were asked to fill out cards on each patient after they prescribed the medication. Lilly representatives then collected the cards and paid the doctors, the paper said.

The paper also reported that Lilly representatives were evaluated on the number of returned cards. Those with the highest totals received rewards. Reps who failed to meet set totals were eliminated from the team.

The paper said documents it obtained provided by the source showed that Lilly made the payments in 2011 and planned to do so last year as well.

Insulin is used treat diabetes, a chronic condition in which the body either does not make enough insulin to break down the sugar in foods or uses insulin inefficiently. Over time, diabetics are at higher risk for heart attacks, kidney problems, blindness and other serious complications.

Lilly has made a big push to expand its presence in China, in part to provide treatments for diabetes, a disease that has grown rapidly in recent years. In late 2010, it announced that it would open a diabetes research center in China to develop treatments.

In Sanofi’s case, a whistle-blower said the drugmaker paid about $280,000 in bribes to 503 doctors in the country, the 21st Century Business Herald reported on Aug. 8. Government scrutiny has extended to other foreign drugmakers and local hospitals since China’s Ministry of Public Security detailed the Glaxo allegations on July 15.

Lilly said it was aware of similar allegations last year, and did an investigation that failed to verify them.

“We were made aware of very similar allegations in 2012 by a former sales manager from the region that was mentioned in the article,” Li said. “At the time of the allegations, we did an exhaustive investigation to search for any evidence of kickbacks. The investigation was very thorough and included employee interviews, e-mail monitoring, and expense report audits.”

Lilly has been in trouble over bribery in the past. In 2012, the company agreed to pay $29.4 million to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to settle charges that it paid off government officials to obtain government contracts in Brazil, China, Russia and Poland from 1994 to 2009.

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT