LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas — A Johnson & Johnson subsidiary downplayed and hid risks associated with the antipsychotic drug Risperdal, a jury determined Tuesday in Arkansas’ billion-dollar lawsuit against Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel’s office is seeking fines of at least $1.2 billion for the 250,000 Risperdal prescriptions the state’s Medicaid program paid for over 3½ years. The penalty will be decided in a separate hearing Wednesday before Circuit Judge Tim Fox, who presided over the trial…The 12-person jury returned its verdict after about three hours of deliberations. Jurors, who heard 10 days of testimony, weren’t told about the financial stakes, beyond that Janssen could have seen a $200 million swing in its revenues if it issued alarming warnings that the drug could cause weight gain, diabetes and other health effects. The award would go toward the state’s Medicaid fund…
Other states that have sued over Risperdal include Texas, which reached a $158 million settlement with Janssen in January but did not admit fault. Texas had sought damages of about $1 billion. In December, a South Carolina judge upheld a $327 million civil penalty against Johnson & Johnson. Jurors in Arkansas had a set of 10 questions to decide — five regarding Janssen and five for its Johnson & Johnson parent company. The jury ruled in favor of the state on all 10 questions. Only nine votes were needed to reach a decision on any question. Several of the decisions were split 11-1 or 10-2.
From page 13 of the 2010 David Rothman Expert Report:
“….
The strategy was set forth early in the history of Risperdal. Already in September 1992, a consulting (State and Federal Associates) gave J&J a blueprint that it would subsequently follow. (J -TXCID 1513719-3849) The firm advised that between 60 and 80 percent of schizophrenia medications were paid for by state mental health and Medicaid programs, and should be the prime target of promotional activity. (p. 2) The firm also recommended devoting special attention to issues of cost, on the grounds that Risperdal would be more expensive than the generic alternatives, such as Haldol, but cheaper than the competing drug, (81) It particularly advised J&J to identify state mental health officials because they would be essential to Risperdal’s marketing success, including marketing in Texas. J&J should meet with the key state officials and establish relationships with them; (96) the company should be certain to interact with mental health program directors, make its case to them, and use research findings from pharmocconomics to buttress the argument (83-84). So too, the firm urged J&J to work with such patient advocacy groups as the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) to expand mental health insurance benefits and thus gain more of a market for Risperdal. (95) Indeed, it recommended that J&J enlist support from NAMI to accompany the product launch. (97) J&J generally followed their advice, and undue influence frequently marked efforts to fulfill this agenda….”
Does anyone know what is happening to or for the patients who experienced harm (in any state, anywhere in the US)?
Thanks for keeping abreast of these developments.
I hope they get fined PER prescription, in that case it can somehow represent those ppl who ARE the prescription recipients, and the recipients of a crime done against them by a major pharmaceutical company. The people are always the last to ever see any justice, in fact they really never do individually.
This drug (Risperdal) was my introduction as a parent to a nightmare of watching a child go sheet white and have trouble breathing, and hell she was only 11 years old, in 1999. I had no idea what these pills were, what they did, or any of it like I do now. Yes, that was malpractice in my opinion. The kicker is they replaced the *crap* with Zyprexa! God bless the kids who have suffered at the hands of greed.
A quick deliberation.
Is the 2010 David Rothman expert report you cite available on line?