<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Pharma 101 - Pharmaceutical Fraud &#187; Unapproved uses</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pharmaceutical-kickbacks.com/tag/unapproved-uses/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pharmaceutical-kickbacks.com</link>
	<description>Information &#38; Insight On Qui Tam Lawsuits Based Upon Unlawful Kickbacks, Marketing &#38; Pricing Conduct.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 21:42:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Consequences of Pharmaceutical Fraud Settlements: Off-Label Marketing Continues?</title>
		<link>http://pharmaceutical-kickbacks.com/consequences-of-pharmaceutical-fraud-settlements-off-label-marketing-continues/</link>
		<comments>http://pharmaceutical-kickbacks.com/consequences-of-pharmaceutical-fraud-settlements-off-label-marketing-continues/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 18:26:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nolan and Auerbach</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceutical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[False Claims Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[off label]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[off label drug marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Off label marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceutical Fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unapproved uses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pharmaceutical-kickbacks.com/?p=232</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Reporter Susan Todd wrote a fine article in the June 6, 2010 Star –Ledger about off-label marketing. “There are very few companies that haven’t had their turn in the wheelhouse to get a spanking,” according to a quote in the article by Ira Loss, an independent analyst who follows the pharmaceutical industry. “I tend to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reporter Susan Todd wrote a fine <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2010/06/drugmakers_continue_off-label.html" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2010/06/drugmakers_continue_off-label.html?referer=');">article in the June 6, 2010 Star –Ledger</a></span> about off-label marketing.</p>
<p>“There are very few companies that haven’t had their turn in the wheelhouse to get a spanking,” according to a quote in the article by Ira Loss, an independent analyst who follows the pharmaceutical industry. “I tend to think the pressure put on these salesmen to hit targets and goals leads to misbehavior.”</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.whistleblowerfirm.com/pharmaceutical-fraud/off-label-marketing/" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.whistleblowerfirm.com/pharmaceutical-fraud/off-label-marketing/?referer=');">Off-label marketing</a></span> allows pharma companies to increase profit from their best-selling products. This illegal shortcut is alluring because the companies don’t invest in further FDA approvals. Pfizer generated $10 billion in about five years selling its seizure drug Neurontin for unapproved uses.</p>
<p>Doctors may prescribe medicines for unapproved uses, but pharma companies cross the line when their reps sell physicians on the idea of using drugs for off-label purposes, sometimes with inducements and misrepresentations.</p>
<p>These violations of the False Claims Act will continue, one expert said, as long as drug companies make more on off-label promoting than they lose in fines. But big financial penalties and the threat of having medicines taken off Medicare, Medicaid and other formularies could make the risk too great.</p>
<p>Frank Palumbo, executive director of the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy Center on Drug and Public Policy, said in the article: “I think companies are on notice at this point to make sure they’re in compliance. Adopting a corporate integrity agreement puts a company on notice that they need to be more proactive about their sales reps are doing.”</p>
<p>For more information about <a href="http://www.whistleblowerfirm.com/about-the-law/qui-tam/" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.whistleblowerfirm.com/about-the-law/qui-tam/?referer=');">qui tam</a> law and <a href="http://www.whistleblowerfirm.com/pharmaceutical-fraud/overview/" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.whistleblowerfirm.com/pharmaceutical-fraud/overview/?referer=');">pharmaceutical fraud</a>, contact Nolan and Auerbach, PA.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pharmaceutical-kickbacks.com/consequences-of-pharmaceutical-fraud-settlements-off-label-marketing-continues/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Purdue Pharma Agrees to $19.5 Million Settlement Over Off Label Marketing of OxyContin</title>
		<link>http://pharmaceutical-kickbacks.com/purdue-pharma-agrees-to-195-million-settlement-over-off-label-marketing-of-oxycontin/</link>
		<comments>http://pharmaceutical-kickbacks.com/purdue-pharma-agrees-to-195-million-settlement-over-off-label-marketing-of-oxycontin/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2007 16:14:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nolan and Auerbach</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceutical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[off label]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Off-label use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceutical Fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Purdue Pharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Food and Drug Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unapproved drug]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unapproved uses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pharmaceutical-kickbacks.com/?p=58</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Purdue Pharma has agreed to settle claims by 26 states and the District of Columbia for marketing and promoting OxyContin for unapproved uses i.e. for use every 8 hours as opposed to the FDA approved dosage of every 12 hours.  The states alleged that FDA rules were violated by Purdue promoting OxyContin as the painkiller [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Purdue Pharma has agreed to settle claims by 26 states and the District of Columbia for marketing and promoting OxyContin for unapproved uses i.e. for use every 8 hours as opposed to the FDA approved dosage of every 12 hours.  The states alleged that FDA rules were violated by Purdue promoting OxyContin as the painkiller “to start with and the one to stay with” for numerous kinds of pain even though the drug was specifically approved a more limited use in patients who need long-term pain management.  Further, the states contend that Purdue paid its sales force based on how much physicians prescribed OxyContin which led to the “misuse, diversion and abuse” of OxyContin according to Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. Pursuant to the $19.5 million settlement, Purdue must immediately stop its off-label marketing and heed the warning label contained on its packaging.</p>
<p>To read more click <a href="http://www.courant.com/business/hc-oxycontin0509.artmay09,0,3575931.story%20or" target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.courant.com/business/hc-oxycontin0509.artmay09_0_3575931.story_20or?referer=');">here</a> or more about pharmaceutical fraud at <a href="http://www.whistleblowerfirm.com/pharmaceutical-fraud/" target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.whistleblowerfirm.com/pharmaceutical-fraud/?referer=');">Nolan &amp; Auerbach.</a></p>
<div class="zemanta-pixie" style="margin-top: 10px; height: 15px;"><span class="zem-script more-related"><script src="http://static.zemanta.com/readside/loader.js" type="text/javascript"></script></span></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pharmaceutical-kickbacks.com/purdue-pharma-agrees-to-195-million-settlement-over-off-label-marketing-of-oxycontin/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eli Lilly and Company in More Hot Water</title>
		<link>http://pharmaceutical-kickbacks.com/eli-lilly-and-company-in-more-hot-water/</link>
		<comments>http://pharmaceutical-kickbacks.com/eli-lilly-and-company-in-more-hot-water/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 14:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nolan and Auerbach</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[off label]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceutical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eli Lilly and Company]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Off-label use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceutical Fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceutical industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unapproved drug]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unapproved uses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zyprexa]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pharmaceutical-kickbacks.com/?p=29</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Montana is the latest state to sue Eli Lilly and Company, alleging that the company improperly and fraudulently marketed Zyprexa, an antipsychotic drug for unapproved uses.  According to Montana Attorney General Mike McGrath, Eli Lilly improperly promoted Zyprexa for off label use and illegally paid kickbacks to physicians.  Lilly created a sales force of 280 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Montana is the latest state to sue Eli Lilly and Company, alleging that the company improperly and fraudulently marketed Zyprexa, an antipsychotic drug for unapproved uses.  According to Montana Attorney General Mike McGrath, Eli Lilly improperly promoted Zyprexa for off label use and illegally paid kickbacks to physicians.  Lilly created a sales force of 280 persons according to the State of Montana complaint, “to promote Zyprexa exclusively for off-label uses, specifically for long-term-care facilities to maximize off-label use of Zyprexa sales.” Under federal laws, pharmaceutical companies are prohibited from marketing their drugs for off-label or unapproved uses. Lilly’s worldwide sales of Zyprexa were $4.36 billion in 2006.</p>
<p>To read more click <a href="http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070313/BUSINESS/703130343" target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070313/BUSINESS/703130343&amp;referer=');">here.<br />
</a></p>
<div class="zemanta-pixie" style="margin-top: 10px; height: 15px;"><span class="zem-script more-related"><script src="http://static.zemanta.com/readside/loader.js" type="text/javascript"></script></span></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pharmaceutical-kickbacks.com/eli-lilly-and-company-in-more-hot-water/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

