Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1395386
 
 

Footnotes (414)



 


 



Promoting, Prescribing, and Pushing Pills: Understanding the Lessons of Antipsychotic Drug Litigation


Douglas Mossman


University of Cincinnati College of Medicine

Jill L. Steinberg


University of Cincinnati - College of Law

May 1st, 2009

Michigan State University College of Law Journal of Medicine and Law, Vol. 13, 2009
U of Cincinnati Public Law Research Paper No. 09-09

Abstract:     
Ineffectiveness of prescription drugs, hidden drug hazards, and advertising violations have led to several drug recalls and numerous lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies in recent years. These suits have involved several varieties of medications, but psychoactive medications have figured especially prominently. A recent $1.4 billion settlement by Eli Lilly & Company related to improper promotion of its top-selling drug olanzapine included the largest individual corporate criminal fine in U.S. history.

Improper promotion is far from the sole reason why olanzapine and other “second-generation” antipsychotic (SGA) drugs have become so successful. Rather, the widespread adoption of SGAs represents a collective judgment error by the medical profession. For policymakers, the olanzapine litigation is important because it provides an impetus for learning what makes certain drugs successful and for understanding processes that determine medication choices, physicians’ judgments, and expenditures for drugs. Litigation will not solve problems with these processes, so understanding them is crucial if regulatory agencies and other entities wish to avert future medical judgment errors and suboptimal uses of healthcare dollars.

To promote this understanding, we first describe the rapid switch from older drugs to SGAs and summarize recent evidence suggesting that the switch was improvident. We then review the lawsuits brought against Lilly, which exemplify the many types of liability claims that drugs may generate. We next describe marketing techniques that drug companies use to get physicians to prescribe their products, the special features of SGAs that have contributed to their huge success, and the ways that pharmaceutical companies exercise virtually total control over the information doctors use to prescribe drugs. We suggest that funding more independent, comparative effectiveness studies and giving pharmaceutical companies incentives to generate and disclose more information about their products’ flaws might produce better medications, help physicians make better treatment decisions, and improve patient safety.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 90

Keywords: antipsychotic, second-generation, side effects, off-label

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: April 27, 2009 ; Last revised: October 5, 2009

Suggested Citation

Mossman, Douglas and Steinberg, Jill L., Promoting, Prescribing, and Pushing Pills: Understanding the Lessons of Antipsychotic Drug Litigation (May 1st, 2009). Michigan State University College of Law Journal of Medicine and Law, Vol. 13, 2009; U of Cincinnati Public Law Research Paper No. 09-09. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1395386

Contact Information

Douglas Mossman (Contact Author)
University of Cincinnati College of Medicine ( email )
260 Stetson Street, Suite 3200
P. O. Box 670559
Cincinnati, OH 45219
United States
513-558-4423 (Phone)
Jill L. Steinberg
University of Cincinnati - College of Law ( email )
P.O. Box 210040
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0040
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,481
Downloads: 134
Download Rank: 129,798
Footnotes:  414
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.344 seconds