The tragic case of the Boston Marathon bombing illustrates how myth making about tough law enforcement obscures the impunity enjoyed by top health care executives.
A "Tough to a Fault" Prosecutor
A recent Reuters article touted the toughness of the prosecutor who will take on the case of the surviving accused Boston terrorist:
Similarly, an article in Bloomberg included this:
One of the cases cited as an example of Ms Ortiz's toughness was her prosecution of electronic information freedom activist Aaron Swart. As Rueters noted,
At the time, Ms Ortiz was criticized for being unreasonably harsh, but then as now toughness was touted as her style.
Not So Tough on Corporate Crime
However, as we pointed out then, while Ms Ortiz was noted for being tough on individuals accused of various offenses, she was notably not so tough on individuals involved in alleged corporate health care wrong doing.
In particular, as we wrote before, Ms Ortiz was involved in three settlements of notably bad behavior by large health care corporations, none of which involved prosecution of, or any penalties for the individuals at the corporations who authorized, directed or implemented the bad behavior.
Forest Pharmaceuticals
In September, 2010, how Ms Ortiz led the pursuit of a settlement with Forest Pharmaceuticals became apparent (look here). The company was accused of promoting its anti-depressant Celexa for use in adolescents and children. Such drugs have since been shown to increase the risk of suicide by such young patients, and this drug was only approved for adults. At the time, Ms Ortiz said, "Forest Pharmaceuticals deliberately chose to pursue corporate profits over its obligations to the F.D.A. and the American public." Although the offense may have lead to use of the drug by many adolescents and children, and hence may have lead to some of them attempting or committing suicide, the case was settled only with fines. As is usual in such legal settlements, no individual corporate executive who authorized or lead the off-label and potentially dangerous marketing of the drug was arrested, or accused, and none suffered any negative consequences.
GlaxoSmithKline
In October, 2010, how Ms Ortiz led the pursuit of a settlement with GlaxoSmithKline became apparent (look here.) The company was accused of selling drugs that were not what they appeared to be, apparently because the wrong drugs were put in labelled containers. Obviously, taking one drug, like Paxil, GSK's anti-depressant which has a number of known adverse effects, including suicide risk for adolescents and children as noted above, when a patient is supposed to be taking a wholly different drug could lead to patient harm. At that time, Ms Ortiz said, "We will not tolerate corporate attempts to profit at the expense of the ill and needy in our society -- or those who cut corners that result in potentially dangerous consequences to consumers." Again, while the settlement involved a guilty plea by a GSK subsidiary, again no individual corporate executive who had authority over the drug manufacturing was arrested or accused, much less suffered any negative consequences.
St Jude Medical
In January, 2011, Ms Ortiz led the pursuit of a settlement with St Jude Medical (look here). The company was accused of paying kickbacks to doctors to implant its cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) and pacemakers. Obviously, providing kickbacks to doctors may have lead them to plant devices in patients who did not really need them, yet the devices and the implantation procedures can have adverse effects. At that time, Ms Ortiz said, "The United States alleges that St Jude solicited physicians for the studies in order to retain their business and/or convert their business from a competitor's product." Again, as is usual, the settlement did not require any executive who authorized or directed the activities leading to the kickbacks suffered any negative consequences.
Despite this, note that Bloomberg in its recent coverage of the Tsarnaev prosecution even tried to make Ms Ortiz failure to hold any individuals accountable for this health care corporate misbehavior seem like tough prosecution.
Again, note that apparently being a "leader" in health care fraud prosecution involved pushing for big fines to be paid by the corporations involved in actions that may have harmed many patients, but no punishment for the individuals who may have authorized, directed or implemented the bad behavior, but being "tough" on Aaron Swartz involved pushing for a long imprisonment of someone whose alleged crime was not violent, and did not result in anyone being hurt.
Summary
As we have noted again and again and again, leaders of large health care organizations, particularly the largest health care corporations, seem to enjoy virtual impunity. No matter how bad the behavior of the corporations which they are supposed to be leading, and no matter whether such behavior might have harmed patients, they almost never have to face any negative consequences, especially not fines they must pay themselves, much less prison time. We have documented many legal settlements of often egregiously bad alleged behavior that did not involve any penalties for top corporate leaders.
One way corporate leaders thus escape accountability seems to be the cultivation of myths that distract the public from what is going on. One such urban legend seems to be the toughness of government prosecutors. If prosecutors are believed to be uniformly tough and uncompromising, then the public may be lead to believe either that they are tough and uncompromising on corporate crime
As we have said repeatedly, true health care reform would require making the leaders of health care organizations accountable, especially for the effects of their actions on patients' and the public's health.
A "Tough to a Fault" Prosecutor
A recent Reuters article touted the toughness of the prosecutor who will take on the case of the surviving accused Boston terrorist:
As the top federal law enforcer in Massachusetts, U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz has taken heat for being tough to a fault and coming down too hard on some defendants.
But as she builds a possible death penalty case against suspected Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, the unflinching approach that earned her opponents in the past could become a legal asset for the biggest case of her career, said attorneys who have faced off against her.
'The criticism lately has been that they've over-charged some people and been overly harsh,' said Peter Elikann, a Boston defense attorney.'I don't think that's relevant for Tsarnaev because no one is going to accuse any prosecutor of making too big a deal out of this case.'
Similarly, an article in Bloomberg included this:
Ortiz’s former bosses insist that she’s ready for her moment on the big stage.
'She’s tough-minded and exceptionally professional,' [former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott] Harshbarger said.
One of the cases cited as an example of Ms Ortiz's toughness was her prosecution of electronic information freedom activist Aaron Swart. As Rueters noted,
One of Ortiz's best-known cases to date was her prosecution of Aaron Swartz on wire fraud and hacking allegations for downloading millions of articles from an academic database.
Swartz, a 26-year-old computer prodigy, hanged himself in his Brooklyn, New York, apartment in January, prompting friends and family to partly blame Ortiz's prosecution for his death.
At the time, Ms Ortiz was criticized for being unreasonably harsh, but then as now toughness was touted as her style.
Not So Tough on Corporate Crime
However, as we pointed out then, while Ms Ortiz was noted for being tough on individuals accused of various offenses, she was notably not so tough on individuals involved in alleged corporate health care wrong doing.
In particular, as we wrote before, Ms Ortiz was involved in three settlements of notably bad behavior by large health care corporations, none of which involved prosecution of, or any penalties for the individuals at the corporations who authorized, directed or implemented the bad behavior.
Forest Pharmaceuticals
In September, 2010, how Ms Ortiz led the pursuit of a settlement with Forest Pharmaceuticals became apparent (look here). The company was accused of promoting its anti-depressant Celexa for use in adolescents and children. Such drugs have since been shown to increase the risk of suicide by such young patients, and this drug was only approved for adults. At the time, Ms Ortiz said, "Forest Pharmaceuticals deliberately chose to pursue corporate profits over its obligations to the F.D.A. and the American public." Although the offense may have lead to use of the drug by many adolescents and children, and hence may have lead to some of them attempting or committing suicide, the case was settled only with fines. As is usual in such legal settlements, no individual corporate executive who authorized or lead the off-label and potentially dangerous marketing of the drug was arrested, or accused, and none suffered any negative consequences.
GlaxoSmithKline
In October, 2010, how Ms Ortiz led the pursuit of a settlement with GlaxoSmithKline became apparent (look here.) The company was accused of selling drugs that were not what they appeared to be, apparently because the wrong drugs were put in labelled containers. Obviously, taking one drug, like Paxil, GSK's anti-depressant which has a number of known adverse effects, including suicide risk for adolescents and children as noted above, when a patient is supposed to be taking a wholly different drug could lead to patient harm. At that time, Ms Ortiz said, "We will not tolerate corporate attempts to profit at the expense of the ill and needy in our society -- or those who cut corners that result in potentially dangerous consequences to consumers." Again, while the settlement involved a guilty plea by a GSK subsidiary, again no individual corporate executive who had authority over the drug manufacturing was arrested or accused, much less suffered any negative consequences.
St Jude Medical
In January, 2011, Ms Ortiz led the pursuit of a settlement with St Jude Medical (look here). The company was accused of paying kickbacks to doctors to implant its cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) and pacemakers. Obviously, providing kickbacks to doctors may have lead them to plant devices in patients who did not really need them, yet the devices and the implantation procedures can have adverse effects. At that time, Ms Ortiz said, "The United States alleges that St Jude solicited physicians for the studies in order to retain their business and/or convert their business from a competitor's product." Again, as is usual, the settlement did not require any executive who authorized or directed the activities leading to the kickbacks suffered any negative consequences.
Despite this, note that Bloomberg in its recent coverage of the Tsarnaev prosecution even tried to make Ms Ortiz failure to hold any individuals accountable for this health care corporate misbehavior seem like tough prosecution.
The office has been a leader in health-care fraud prosecutions, securing $4 billion in civil and health-care recoveries in 2012. Those included a $3 billion payment from GlaxoSmithKline Plc (GSK), which pleaded guilty to charges that it illegally promoted prescription drugs.
Again, note that apparently being a "leader" in health care fraud prosecution involved pushing for big fines to be paid by the corporations involved in actions that may have harmed many patients, but no punishment for the individuals who may have authorized, directed or implemented the bad behavior, but being "tough" on Aaron Swartz involved pushing for a long imprisonment of someone whose alleged crime was not violent, and did not result in anyone being hurt.
Summary
As we have noted again and again and again, leaders of large health care organizations, particularly the largest health care corporations, seem to enjoy virtual impunity. No matter how bad the behavior of the corporations which they are supposed to be leading, and no matter whether such behavior might have harmed patients, they almost never have to face any negative consequences, especially not fines they must pay themselves, much less prison time. We have documented many legal settlements of often egregiously bad alleged behavior that did not involve any penalties for top corporate leaders.
One way corporate leaders thus escape accountability seems to be the cultivation of myths that distract the public from what is going on. One such urban legend seems to be the toughness of government prosecutors. If prosecutors are believed to be uniformly tough and uncompromising, then the public may be lead to believe either that they are tough and uncompromising on corporate crime
As we have said repeatedly, true health care reform would require making the leaders of health care organizations accountable, especially for the effects of their actions on patients' and the public's health.
The Myth of the Tough Prosecutor as a Distraction from Health Care Corporate Executives' Impunity
![The Myth of the Tough Prosecutor as a Distraction from Health Care Corporate Executives' Impunity]()
Reviewed by MCH
on
April 25, 2013
Rating:
No comments: