GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp and with the court awarding a total of $114,247,233 to the state. Earlier this year, the state was awarded a $215 million ver­dict against the AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical Company.

State Attorney General Troy King initiated legislation against the drug giants for mas­sive overcharges to the Alabama Medicaid Agency. According to the state, both compa­nies overcharged Medicaid for drugs from 1991 to 2005. The companies had allegedly charged the state more for medications than they did other customers. This is against the law as Medicaid is to be charged the drug maker’s lowest offered prices. The state initially sought $800 million in settlement.

“The people of Alabama can be reassured that grave injustices are being made right
and that public funds taken by corporate manipulation schemes are being recovered,” said
the attorney general. He went on to say that the state will, “hold accountable anyone, no
matter how powerful and wealthy, who would take advantage our state and our citizens.”

These cases being tried in Alabama for overcharges to the Alabama Medicaid Agency have become known as “average wholesale pricing” (AWP) cases. The state contends that the pharmaceutical companies misreported and then inflated the prices they charged for prescription drugs resulting in a scheme to overcharge Medicaid. Earlier this year the attorney general filed lawsuits against 79 companies for their participation in this AWP scheme.

The first court award from these lawsuits went against AstraZeneca for a total of $215 million. A judge later reduced the award to a still substantial amount of $160 million. In this current suit, GlaxoSmithKline is to pay $80,989,539 with Novartis to pay $33,257,694.

The attorney general seemed pleased with the court’s decision. “The State of Alabama continues to achieve victories in the important work of recovering what has been stolen from the Alabama Medicaid Agency and those who depend upon that agency for their needed medicines,” he said.

Source: The State of Alabama Office of the Attorney General. A.G. Announces Second Victory in Drug Pricing Lawsuit?’ Press Release. July 2008.
http://www.ago.state.al.usinews_template.cfm?Item=1192

The state brought suit against Lilly to recover the many millions of dollars spent in treating patients who had experienced weight gain, high blood pressure and dia­betes as a result of taking Zyprexa. The lawsuit was a result of the state’s claim that it and healthcare providers received insufficient warning that the use of Zyprexa may result in one or more of these medical conditions.

The lawsuit asked that Lilly pay the state for those costs and also pay for civil penalties under the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

Before the trial got underway, Judge Mark Rindner ordered ongoing mediation to occur between the two parties. The $15 million dollar settlement agreement is far less than state Attorney General Talis J. Colberg was seeking at the trial’s outset, but he was satisfied with the end result.

“I am very pleased with the efforts by Assistant Attorney General Ed Sniffen and our team of trial attorneys, Colberg said. “We believe this is a good result for the State of Alaska and the Department of Health and Social Services.”

In agreeing to the settlement, Eli Lilly and Company did not admit to any wrongdoing in their promotion or sale of Zyprexa in Alaska. Lilly’s senior vice president and general counsel said, “While we had a strong defense, we agreed with the state that the best result for everyone is an amicable resolution.”

Included in the settlement for the state is the assurance that Alaska will be treat­ed as favorably as any other state that may settle with Lilly over similar claims.

Zyprexa was first approved as an “atypical antipsychotic” to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorders. Since then, it has been prescribed to over 23 million people in the United States and 80 other countries.

Currently, nine other states have lawsuits pending against Lilly that are very sim­ilar to this one in Alaska. Also, 33 additional states are in the process of investigat­ing a joint action against the company seeking a claim settlement.

Source: Inside Indiana Business. Press Release, March 2008. http://www.insideindianabusiness.corn/newsitem.asp?1D=28529

The belief that the United States is in the throes of a medical malpractice lawsuit crisis can be blamed on just a tiny group of negligent doctors, according to “The Great Medical Malpractice Hoax” just released by the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.

Just 5.9 percent of doctors have been responsible for 57.8 percent of all medical malpractice payments, the study found. Each of these doctors had at least two payments, while conversely, the vast majority of physicians — 82 percent — have never had a medical malpractice payment, and a few physicians have even been involved in numerous malpractice litigations and, in most cases, still continue to practice, flourish and prosper.

The study, covering the 15-year period from 1990 through 2005, analyzed data from the National Practitioner Data Bank Public Use File that details all malpractice payments made on behalf of doctors as well as disciplinary actions against doctors.

“We’ve been telling the legislature and the public about this for years. Now we finally have the data to prove it,” said Allan Zelikovic, head of the Medical Malpractice Unit at Weitz & Luxenberg in a press release commenting on the report. The law firm is one of the largest and most successful in the country dealing with pharmaceuticals, accidents, injuries,
pollutants and malpractice.

Real crisis is inadequate patient safety

Part I of the analysis shows that the claims of business and medical lobbies are “exaggerated and unsupported by the facts.”

Part II examines data related to physician error and discipline, finding that “the real medical malpractice crisis continues to be inadequate patient safety, rather than the legal system.”

The report claims that there is a grievous lack of accountability on the part of a small group of doctors who commit a substantial number of avoidable errors that seriously injure patients.

The report contends that the business lobby seeks to protect its interests and distract people from medical negligence by calling for limits on malpractice litigation.

Healthcare providers, said the report, would be better served by striving to improve patient safety than giving credence to myths perpetuated about the court system.

Sources: Public Citizen’s analysis of malpractice payments as reported in the National Practitioner Data Bank Public Use File for the years 1990 to
2005, http://www.citizen.org/documents/NPDB%20Report_Final.pdf, Weitz and Luxenberg,
http://www.weitzlux.com/malpractice/doctors&nurses/news/medicalmalpractice_435554.html

The oft-repeated political argument for restricting patients’ legal rights is that undeserving patients are overburdening the system with too many “frivolous” medical malpractice lawsuits. A new study by researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health and Brigham and Women’s Hospital challenges the view that frivolous litigation is rampant and expensive.”

Among the study’s findings:

Most injuries that result in claims are caused by medical error. A full 63 percent of the injuries were judged to be the result of error and most of those claims received compensation; on the other hand, most individuals whose claims did not involve errors or injuries received nothing.

Claims typically involved injuries that were severe. Note that 80 percent of claimsinvolved injuries that caused significant or major disability or death.

Few claims result in court trial, and with regard to those that do, juries are conservative as patients “rarely won damages at trial, prevailing in only 21 percent of verdicts as compared with 61 percent of claims resolved out of court.”

Only 15 percent of the claims were decided by trial verdict.

According to the researchers, most instances of medical malpractice do not result in a lawsuit. “Previous research has established that the great majority of patients who sustain a medical injury as a result of negligence do not sue. Failure to pay claims involving error adds to a larger phenomenon of underpayment generated by the vast number of negligent
injuries that never surface as claims.”

This research indicates that if medical error is suspected, that a person should not be deterred from seeking a settlement because someone may consider the suit “frivolous.” Even though the large majority of claims (63 percent) involve error, they warn, those that do not involve error are not “frivolous.”

SOURCE: http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_NEJMLegalSystem.htm