Merck is not the only company paying no taxes in the US, but they are by far the largest benefactor that is listed on the S&P 500 Stock. According to an article in the USA today the biggest example of no taxes is Merck. They actually had a negative tax rate of 7.5 % according to Matt Krantz of USA Today. Yet they had an increase in profits of 52% or 1.9 billion in the most recent qtr. So they made almost 2 billion and paid no taxes.
Their gains appear to be because they profit in countries with lower tax rates. The USA Today article said: Merck got a tax benefit in the quarter from an option exercise connected with rival AstraZeneca buying Merck's interest in a partnership. Financial moves connected to the deal resulted in Merck getting a one time tax benefit.
The way we see it is that companies like Merck raise prices on their drugs because they complain about their R&D (research and development) costs, and also complain about competition, or lower priced generic drugs. Yet they don’t suffer when one of their drugs kills someone unless there is a class action suit. If someone commits suicide while using Celexa, or Remeron Merck doesn’t suffer.
People die from their drugs, and Merck doesn’t get a tax bill on $1.9 billion in income in only one quarter. The pharmaceutical ogre keeps getting bigger and bigger, yet there isn’t any penalty when a person commits mass murder or suicide when on their drugs. I am sure the $1.9 billion tax break can cover any lawsuit if there are any. So the beat goes on.
Showing posts with label Merck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Merck. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Merck to Pay $950 Million in Settlement Over Vioxx Health Care Fraud
Vioxx is not an antidepressant, but we wanted to continue to enlighten readers of the unethical actions of Pharmaceutical Companies. Merck will pay $950 million and was forced to plead guilty to a criminal misdemeanor in their illegal promotion of Vioxx and their deception of the government and consumers. This court action is part fine ($320 million) and in part to settle civil penalties ($630 million). This came about from a 2004 study showed that Vioxx increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Vioxx was initially approved as a pain killer in 1999. This ruling is based on Merck promoting via marketing and pharmaceutical representatives unauthorized “off label” marketing. According to the Wall Street Journal a Merck spokesman Ronald Rogers indicated that some sales representatives promoted Vioxx as a treatment to rheumatoid arthritis before FDA approval. The government indicated that its representatives didn’t inform medical practitioners regarding Vioxx’s issue with cardiovascular safety.
Other pharmaceutical companies have recently been fined for misrepresentations such as GlaxoSmithKline $3 billion settlement for improper drug marketing. Dey Inc. Dey Pharma L.P. agreed to pay $280 million to settle False Claims Act allegations. The Justice department indicated that the Dey Pharma inflated government payments when they charge the Medicare and Medicaid a higher amount over actual price paid by health care providers. That discovery was related by Ven-A-Care. Elli-Lilly, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca have also been fined heavily in the past few years.
Pharmaceutical companies have shown a pattern in promoting their products for other reasons then FDA approval. This misrepresentation and unethical behavior must be from top management to the sale representatives. Why would a sale rep inform medical practitioners of the uses of drugs unless they were told to indicate so by management? This also brings up another issue as doctors are allowed to prescribe drugs for “off label” uses. Shouldn’t a drug be only allowed to be used for the reason it was approved by all involved in the drugs distribution? It looks like a Congressional law is needed here.
Friday, August 13, 2010
DOJ Targets Pharmaceutical Companies Globally in Corruption Probe
Financial Times FT.com
By Stephanie Kirchgaessner
August 12, 2010
The US Department of Justice is scrutinising payments by leading pharmaceuticals companies for hospitality, consultants, licensing agreements and charitable donations in markets around the world as part of a wide-ranging corruption probe.
GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Eli Lilly, among others, have disclosed being contacted by the DoJ and Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the investigation. Merck, the US drugs group, announced last week that it had also been contacted and was co-operating with investigators.
An industry attorney familiar with the probe said that the DoJ was looking at whether pharma companies had ignored a “systematic risk” inherent in the global drugs business and ignored obligations under local and US anti-bribery law.
The highly regulated nature of the business, combined with the fact that healthcare officials in many non-US markets were government funded, made the industry a natural target for such a probe, the person added.
The investigation is at a relatively early stage but is considered a priority for the DoJ.
While hospitality – including meals and all expenses-paid travel for conferences – has long been considered a potential risk for pharma groups, the DoJ’s probe is looking at all aspects of companies’ dealings in non-US markets, people familiar with the matter say. That includes the recruitment of physicians for clinical trials. In some markets, the same physicians may serve on regulatory boards that approve or deny drugs.
The DoJ declined to comment. But last November, Lanny Breuer, head of the DoJ’s criminal division, announced that investigators would be focusing on international corruption in the pharmaceuticals industry for “years”.
Mr Breuer warned a conference of pharmaceutical industry lawyers that prosecutors were gearing up for an investigation of international corruption in the sector. The drugs companies took notice.
That threat has now become a reality. Merck, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Baxter, SciClone, and Bristol-Myers Squibb have in recent months received inquiries from the DoJ and the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with an industry-wide bribery investigation.
GlaxoSmithKline, the UK drugmaker, told the Financial Times on Thursday that it too had received “inquiries” from US authorities, but that it disclosed the issue “reactively” only to selected reporters in April.
Pfizer, the world’s largest pharmaceutical group, said in February that it had voluntarily provided the DoJ and SEC with information concerning potentially improper payments outside the US and was exploring resolution of the matter.
There is perhaps no industry that is as vulnerable to violations of US anti-bribery laws as the pharmaceutical industry. In markets round the world, the companies deal, sometimes thousands of times in a single day, with doctors, clinicians, hospital operators and regulators who are considered under US law to be government officials, because they are employed by state-owned facilities.
Under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the US anti-bribery law, companies may not offer items of value to foreign government officials for profit. One industry lawyer involved in the matter said global pharmaceutical companies operating in countries with state-run medical institutions deal with government officials at every turn of their business: whether it is seeking the go-ahead for a manufacturing site; obtaining drug licences; conducting clinical trials; importing drugs; selling and marketing drugs to physicians; or getting a product on to a hospital’s approved list.
“What most companies will find is that all of these areas are risky and, if they don’t train and educate their people, they are going to find themselves with issues. For example, if you have hired customs brokers, how do you know they aren’t bribing officials?” the attorney said.
According to the law firm Arnold & Porter, the DoJ is particularly interested in corrupt payments that may have influenced the reliability or integrity of data in clinical trials performed outside the US. A recent report by the Department of Health and Human Services found 80 per cent of marketing applications for drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the US had relied on at least one foreign trial.
“Companies may find themselves facing critical legal issues if approval of products rested on the results of studies the DoJ deems corrupt,” Arnold & Porter said in an advisory letter to clients last month.
A person familiar with the investigation confirmed that clinical trials were one of several areas the DoJ was examining.
Alexandra Wrage, the president of Trace, a non-profit organisation that helps companies establish anti-corruption practices, said that alleged wrongdoing at pharmaceutical companies could often centre on inappropriately lavish hospitality, such as wining and dining doctors from state-run hospitals at conferences in Bali or Monaco.
Copy and paste link here (free FT.com Reg.):http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9a8e8f90-a63e-11df-8767-00144feabdc0.html
By Stephanie Kirchgaessner
August 12, 2010
The US Department of Justice is scrutinising payments by leading pharmaceuticals companies for hospitality, consultants, licensing agreements and charitable donations in markets around the world as part of a wide-ranging corruption probe.
GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Eli Lilly, among others, have disclosed being contacted by the DoJ and Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the investigation. Merck, the US drugs group, announced last week that it had also been contacted and was co-operating with investigators.
An industry attorney familiar with the probe said that the DoJ was looking at whether pharma companies had ignored a “systematic risk” inherent in the global drugs business and ignored obligations under local and US anti-bribery law.
The highly regulated nature of the business, combined with the fact that healthcare officials in many non-US markets were government funded, made the industry a natural target for such a probe, the person added.
The investigation is at a relatively early stage but is considered a priority for the DoJ.
While hospitality – including meals and all expenses-paid travel for conferences – has long been considered a potential risk for pharma groups, the DoJ’s probe is looking at all aspects of companies’ dealings in non-US markets, people familiar with the matter say. That includes the recruitment of physicians for clinical trials. In some markets, the same physicians may serve on regulatory boards that approve or deny drugs.
The DoJ declined to comment. But last November, Lanny Breuer, head of the DoJ’s criminal division, announced that investigators would be focusing on international corruption in the pharmaceuticals industry for “years”.
Mr Breuer warned a conference of pharmaceutical industry lawyers that prosecutors were gearing up for an investigation of international corruption in the sector. The drugs companies took notice.
That threat has now become a reality. Merck, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Baxter, SciClone, and Bristol-Myers Squibb have in recent months received inquiries from the DoJ and the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with an industry-wide bribery investigation.
GlaxoSmithKline, the UK drugmaker, told the Financial Times on Thursday that it too had received “inquiries” from US authorities, but that it disclosed the issue “reactively” only to selected reporters in April.
Pfizer, the world’s largest pharmaceutical group, said in February that it had voluntarily provided the DoJ and SEC with information concerning potentially improper payments outside the US and was exploring resolution of the matter.
There is perhaps no industry that is as vulnerable to violations of US anti-bribery laws as the pharmaceutical industry. In markets round the world, the companies deal, sometimes thousands of times in a single day, with doctors, clinicians, hospital operators and regulators who are considered under US law to be government officials, because they are employed by state-owned facilities.
Under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the US anti-bribery law, companies may not offer items of value to foreign government officials for profit. One industry lawyer involved in the matter said global pharmaceutical companies operating in countries with state-run medical institutions deal with government officials at every turn of their business: whether it is seeking the go-ahead for a manufacturing site; obtaining drug licences; conducting clinical trials; importing drugs; selling and marketing drugs to physicians; or getting a product on to a hospital’s approved list.
“What most companies will find is that all of these areas are risky and, if they don’t train and educate their people, they are going to find themselves with issues. For example, if you have hired customs brokers, how do you know they aren’t bribing officials?” the attorney said.
According to the law firm Arnold & Porter, the DoJ is particularly interested in corrupt payments that may have influenced the reliability or integrity of data in clinical trials performed outside the US. A recent report by the Department of Health and Human Services found 80 per cent of marketing applications for drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the US had relied on at least one foreign trial.
“Companies may find themselves facing critical legal issues if approval of products rested on the results of studies the DoJ deems corrupt,” Arnold & Porter said in an advisory letter to clients last month.
A person familiar with the investigation confirmed that clinical trials were one of several areas the DoJ was examining.
Alexandra Wrage, the president of Trace, a non-profit organisation that helps companies establish anti-corruption practices, said that alleged wrongdoing at pharmaceutical companies could often centre on inappropriately lavish hospitality, such as wining and dining doctors from state-run hospitals at conferences in Bali or Monaco.
Copy and paste link here (free FT.com Reg.):http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9a8e8f90-a63e-11df-8767-00144feabdc0.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)