 |
| Lawsuits 'r Us |
You Can't Sue Companies for Good Deeds Not Done
FIRST, SOME BACKGROUND
In line with its history of extensive legal actions, seven lawsuits since 2014, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation is calling for Congressional and FDA investigations of Gilead Sciences for failing to adhere to the AHF priority list.
“LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS
WIRE)--AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) will host a Media Availability all day
Tuesday, May 31st, to announce its call on both the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and the United States Congress to open investigations of
Gilead Sciences Inc., a maker of HIV/AIDS medications.
“AHF will call on Congress and
the FDA to investigate the Bay Area drug company and its executives over
allegations of drug patent manipulation and anti-trust claims regarding
slightly different formulations of tenofovir, a key HIV/AIDS drug used by as
many as 80% of American HIV/AIDS patients.
“A blistering front page Los
Angeles Times article published Sunday (“A question of timing: A lawsuit claims
Gilead Sciences could have developed a less-harmful version of its HIV treatment
sooner” Melody Peterson, LA Times, 5/29/16)”
**
Based on tenofovir, a chemical found by a Czech Academy
researcher before AIDS began to ravish the planet, Gilead Sciences came up with
an administerable formulation with less side effects and proved it to be a virus
fighting drug for HIV and Hepatitis-B. It
was approved for HIV in 2001 and Hep-B in 2008.
In 2004 another version, TAF, showed some promise in preliminary trials
at reducing bone loss and kidney effects, mainly because of its greater
anti-viral activity (need to take less). Development got put on hold until 2010 for any
number of reasons.
You can find the “blistering” article
here, should you want to see it.
A couple paragraphs of note:
“Looking back, Tim Horn of the
Treatment Action Group, which advocates for AIDS patients, said: “That’s a
decade of potentially avoidable kidney and bone toxicity.”
“Horn said Gilead’s decision to
resume trials as the original drug’s patent was nearing expiration ‘suggest
that this is much more about market dominance than it was about finite
resources for research and development.’”
“Looking back”? “Suggest”?
If I “look back,” not only could I have prevented
thousands of healthcare crises, like the Black Death for instance (Fleas, man,
fleas!), but I could advise every company about which charitable foundations to support with massive discounts, and which ones are going to stab you in the back. And since
when was a Congressional or FDA investigation justified because timing “suggests”
a profit motive to a certain decision? It's not like Gilead is financed on charitable donations, where profit motives might be more suspect.
Frankly, our market system is predicated on Gilead making a reasonable profit or it won't survive to develop more drugs. And lately, the company stakeholders wouldn’t mind
seeing some advancement on the money front.
 |
| Gilead Sciences 1-year stock performance |
One Gilead response from the article:
“Gilead executives say the
drug’s patent expiration had nothing to do with their decision to halt trials
in 2004.
“’It’s simplistic to look back
and say, well, TAF is a safer version and why didn’t you develop it sooner,’
said Norbert Bischofberger, the company’s chief scientific officer, using the
shorthand name for the new drug.
“Bischofberger said Gilead
stopped the project to shift money to looking for another type of HIV medicine,
known as an integrase inhibitor. The company restarted the research years
later, he said, after it saw a need for a less toxic drug for aging HIV
patients, who are more susceptible to kidney and bone problems.”
NOW, TO ADDRESS AHF
Face it, if it
wasn’t for discoveries or at least commercialization by drug companies, the AIDS
Healthcare Foundation would largely be a condom distributor and AIDS hospice. It’s time to get off your high horse.
 |
|
“Blistering”
LA Times
article and altruistic Gilead statements aside, this issue is largely about
AHF objecting to the way the patent system
is set up. There are a lot of
improvements that could be made (previous post with
my suggestions here, 3rd idea down). Primarily, fixes would stop companies
from being able to essentially make minor tweaks to extend patent protection,
as well as speed up and more effectively protect truly innovative discoveries.
Operating within the existing system to turn
a profit is not just a nice by-product of a business, it is their
raison d’etre.
When the system allows the effective blockage
of generics by legal means (e.g. endless lawsuits wasting time or costing too
much to make it worth doing), or worse still, patent trolls that stop new
discoveries in their tracks, or make them prohibitively expensive to the end
customer, we all lose.
This complaint by AHF is akin to accusing all
pharmaceutical companies of criminal negligence because they chose not to spend
billions developing orphan drugs (for diseases affecting very few patients). AHF judgment coming with the benefit of
a decade of hindsight, of course.
 |
| Ah, must be the Hollywood life (see the sign?) for AHF President Weinstein |
By the way, it appears AHF may not live in such a squeaky
clean glass house. Apart from the seven lawsuits AHF felt obliged to charitably provide its foes
and some of its benefactors,
Wikipedia states:
“In 2014, AHF was audited by Los
Angeles county and billed $1.7 million for duplicated services. AHF filed suit,
arguing that they were targeted on the basis of their political actions in the
2013 lawsuit. The lawsuit filed by AHF was thrown out by a judge.”
On April 9th, 2015, The
Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that "Three former managers with one of
the nation's biggest providers of HIV and AIDS care have filed a whistle-blower
complaint alleging the organization engaged in a $20 million scam to boost
Medicare and Medicaid payments." The article goes on to say,
"According to the federal lawsuit, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation paid
kickbacks to employees and patients for referrals that would increase billings
with the federal health-care programs."
Although AHF may have a beef with Gilead’s choosing to
develop other drugs rather than a safer version of TAF, the entire tax and
Medicare-paying population of the U.S. may have a beef with you.
AHF’s response:
"AHF states that it has
done nothing wrong and that the lawsuit demonstrates the plaintiffs' ignorance
of applicable laws. AHF strongly believes in its approach that offers financial
incentives to patients who test HIV+ and receive subsequent medical care and
treatment. As part of its program, AHF also compensates HIV testing counselors
for successfully linking such patients to care. These practices are common
incentives in public-health programs and are critical to stopping HIV in this
country.”
Hmmm. My thoughts:
·
It’s THREE former managers from AHF, not just
one possibly disgruntled individual.
How many thousands of managers do you have in this incentivized pay scam
that three is such a small portion as to be so easily dismissible?
·
Judging from
Glassdoor reviews (a mere 2.7 out
of 5.0 rating; average is 3.3), AHF executive management might be better off
looking internally at what could be improved:
o “These
people hired me and sent me to LA for training. No one in LA even knew I was
coming. Michael Weinstein came in and demanded [to] know who hired me. I was
hired for the Columbus Oh office. Mr Weinstein said ‘we dont have any money for
a case manager in the Columbus office.’ So I was informed that the job didnt
actually exist and I was sent back to Columbus, Oh.”
o “You
are thrown into a bucket full of interoffice politics that is comparable to
being on Capital Hill.” – Ft. Lauderdale office
o “I
watched the first season of House of Cards and called a fellow ex-employee and
said that was AHF.” – LA office
o “The
right hand has NO idea what the left hand is doing. WAAAY too many chiefs and
not enough workers. Michael Weinstein will suddenly swoop in and bring more
chaos and just as quickly disappear.” – Columbus, OH office
o “Absolutely
Unprofessional and Unethical management” – LA office
·
Why would THREE of your managers be so poorly educated
and trained that they had such an “ignorance of applicable laws”? How much responsibility for this falls on
those who hired them, chose them, or promoted them to that position?
·
It may well be common practice to provide
incentive pay to employees (Really? Charitable foundation employees?) and
patients to convince people to
receive free healthcare already subsidized by donors, taxpayers and volunteers. That doesn’t make it right. Nor does it make it legal, even if it
increases participation and legal agencies find it not worth bringing a case.
Just because you’re not prosecuted doesn’t mean you’re
not a criminal.
For examples, look at
Hillary Clinton and Lois Lerner.
And remember that view of the HOLLYWOOD sign non-profit
President Weinstein was enjoying? In 2016 AHF used its donations to
file a
"Suit against the City of Los Angeles, alleging that a particular
residential development is illegal. Said development is adjacent to the
luxurious 24-story tower occupied by the headquarters of the AFC, and thus
blocks the 'view' of the AFC."
AHF may not like what Gilead did in regards to TAF, but
it’s action is not criminal. Businesses
don’t have the luxury of receiving your free funding, some significant portion
of which apparently is better spent on frivolous lawsuits. What you are essentially objecting to is a drug
company choosing to pursue more lucrative opportunities that may or may not help
people with HIV (based on an integrase inhibitor, as was stated) or a different
disease (like an out-and-out cure for Hepatitis-C) - one that you at the AHF
probably could care less about.
