New York Sues Merck over Vioxx Fraud

by David Gutierrez (NaturalNews)

The city and state of New York have filed a joint lawsuit against Merck & Company for deliberately concealing the dangers of its painkiller Vioxx, thereby defrauding public health programs out of millions of dollars in prescription costs.

"Merck's irresponsible and duplicitous conduct endangered the health of New Yorkers and wasted our tax dollars," said New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo. "Even as evidence was piling up showing just how dangerous this drug was, Merck put profits above all else."

The New York Supreme Court will decide whether Merck defrauded New York's Medicaid and Elderly Pharmaceutical Insurance programs. The plaintiffs say that if doctors had known the risks posed by Vioxx, they never would have prescribed the drug, and state agencies would never have paid out $100 million to Merck for the product. They are asking the court to force Merck to pay back all of that money.

New York is the seventh state to file such a lawsuit against the company, following Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Utah and Texas. More than 25,000 lawsuits have been brought against the company to date for its alleged malfeasance in covering up the dangers of Vioxx.

From 1999 to 2004, Vioxx was widely prescribed as a painkiller for arthritis and migraines. When it was revealed that the drug significantly increased patients' risks of heart attacks and strokes, however, Vioxx was pulled from the market.

Lawyers for the company promised that they were "vigorously defending" the case, and denied any wrongdoing on the part of their clients. "We are confident that our behavior has been responsible," said Kent Jarrell, a spokesperson for Merck's lawyers.

The city of New York also has a lawsuit pending in federal court against 44 pharmaceutical companies including Merck. In that lawsuit, the city has alleged that the companies artificially inflated the prices of their products, thereby defrauding the city's Medicaid program."

The pharmaceutical industry routinely engages in fraudulent business practices," said consumer health advocate Mike Adams. "With Big Pharma, fraud is not the exception; it's the way business is routinely conducted. And yet, despite the outrageously illegal and unethical business practices pursued by these companies, it is worth noting that they manage to pay their way out of any criminal judgments and thereby maintain a clean legal record that allows them to continue doing business with state and federal governments," Adams said.

Merck will pay $671M to settle Medicaid overcharge cases

From: Associated Press

Merck (MRK) has agreed to pay a combined total of $671 million to settle claims that it overcharged Medicaid programs for two big-selling drugs, Vioxx and Zocor, and to resolve allegations of improper marketing to doctors, U.S. prosecutors and company officials announced Thursday.

The settlement with Merck resolves allegations that the company paid improper inducements to doctors to prescribe the cholesterol drug Zocor and the painkiller Vioxx.

Drug companies are required to report to the government the lowest price for its product to ensure that Medicaid programs get the benefit of the same discount. Merck, however, was hiding the steep discounts it gave to hospitals by reporting higher prices to the government, prosecutors said.

From 1997 to 2001, Merck also gave money and perks to doctors and other health care professionals to entice them to prescribe Merck drugs, a practice the government called excessive.

In a case in Philadelphia, Merck agreed to pay $399 million plus interest for improper calculation of Medicaid rebates and its marketing practices. In a Louisiana case, it agreed to pay $250 million plus interest for its rebate practices.

Merck said the settlements do not constitute an admission of any liability or wrongdoing.
The Louisiana case involved pricing for the heartburn drug Pepcid when it was sold only with a prescription. The Philadelphia case, which involved a related Nevada action, involved pricing programs for the cholesterol drugs Zocor and Mevacor and the painkiller Vioxx, which was pulled from the market in September 2004.

"What we have here is a disagreement (over) the rules of the Medicaid rebate program," said Merck spokesman Ronald Rogers. "These civil settlements were the best and most appropriate way to resolve these lengthy investigations and bring these matters to closure." "At the time that these pricing programs were in place, Merck believes that it acted in good faith and complied with the regulations that were in place at the time," he said.

When Merck reported its fourth-quarter financial results Jan. 30, they included a $671 million charge for the anticipated resolution of federal and state civil probes into past sales and marketing practices.

"The company has been working with federal and state authorities and has been making progress toward definitive agreements" to resolve the matters, the earnings report said.

The only state not involved in the settlement is Arizona.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Meehan was joined at the news conference by officials with the Department Of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General and representatives of state Attorneys General in Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts and Nevada.

Challenge filed to Merck's Vioxx Settlement

From: Associated Press

Lawyers for hundreds of people who sued Merck over its withdrawn painkiller Vioxx are challenging a key provision of a proposed $4.85 billion settlement.

The lawyers are based in Illinois and Missouri and represent about 2,600 plaintiffs. They are asking a federal judge in New Orleans to rule that portions of the settlement can't be enforced in all states because it prevents lawyers from giving clients their "independent professional advice."One of the attorneys says the legal team's request is similar to ones made in St. Clair County, Illinois, where there are about 60 cases against Merck.The deal is expected to end an estimated 45,000 to 50,000 state and federal lawsuits. However, at least 85% of plaintiffs in several different categories must agree to the deal before it can be completed.