Uh-oh...looks like we're in for more griping about how we're the anti-Christ after CBS news report tonight. Interesting to hear Brent dragged into the mud a little. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/forced-switch-maneuver-spurs-lawsuit-against-drugmaker/
Although probably not the most ethical way to do business, there is nothing illegal here. Actavis/FRX currently owns both XR and IR. They don't have to sell either if they don't want. There is no criminal action being investigated. It's just another lawsuit. Sorry, but at the end of the day, medical treatment is not considered an inalienable right in the Constitution, we are still living in a free market, and Pfizer still needs inversion.
Agreed, Howard might have considered it as an option but in the end would never have done it. With a two-bit hustler like Saunders you can surely expect more underhanded fleecing of consumers.
Sweetie-the problem isn't not "selling"-that word doesn't fit-it's withdrawing Namenda & its 60-80 hour half life from the market. I hate asking docs to switch! It's not right & it's not cool at all! Doing this is clearly going against what's best for the patients. It's just wrong.
Apparently he never went over our CIA material. We are reminded to pass the smell test. We are asked to make sure what we say would pass the embarrassment test. How many times have we been warned to watch what we say because others outside the business may take it wrong. The guy basically violated everything we have been told. Ugh
I assure you Executive Management, including our General Counsel and our legal team, not only went over our CIA but understands what it allows and what it doesn't. I doubt you have the same knowledge or understanding. Again, while unethical, it isn't illegal to stop selling a product. The NY suit is politics - it will be tossed and never see the inside of a court room. BTW - although I don't think the case has merit I also think DC'ing the IR is a shaken decision from a ethical perspective, but a good decision from a purely business objective. Some docs are annoyed today but many or most will keep prescribing....
Exactly. Moral or ethical? Hmmmm.... Legal, yes. Imagine- you have two TVs in your home. I have none. I want to buy one of your TVs. You don't want to sell at the price I offer. No one can make you. No one can make you sell at all. Actavis owns IR and XR. They don't have sell either if they don't want. That simple. You all get it now?
RD here on monitor - you are correct. It is certainly questionable as to ethics. Legal department may have issues.
I agree. How many times have we been told 'Does it pass the Red a Face test'. If not, don't do it or say it. When we pick a restaurant for a speaker program? How much we spend on a lunch? We monitor those closely but a statement like this we let slide? It doesn't matter if it is legal (it is) or ethical ( it isn't) does it follow the directions we have been given? Does it pass the Red Face test? Absolutely not. So, what happens when a Rep or DM does this? PIP? Let go? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. But we all know, in a company where the people who were responsible for the CIA are promoted, nothing will happen.
The legal expert who keeps pontificating about how this move ignores that they are pursuing an anti trust legal argument which probably goes to the abuse of the market monopoly patent exclusivity gives a company. Whether or not this clearly cynical business move and attempt to manipulate the market for Namenda XR by creating the absence of IR is an abuse of that market monopoly would be for the courts or oig to decide. It might be an interesting time for a generics maker to come to market early with an IR version since Actavis no longer chooses to sell it. Karma...
