U.S. Effort to Remove Drug CEO Jolts Firms

[RamboLiberal]

Source: Wall Street Journal

A government attempt to oust a longtime drug-company chief executive over his company's marketing violations is raising alarms in that industry and beyond about a potential expansion of federal involvement in the business world.

The Department of Health and Human Services this month notified Howard Solomon of Forest Laboratories Inc. that it intends to exclude him from doing business with the federal government. This, in turn, could prevent Forest from selling its drugs to Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Administration. If the government implements its ban, Forest would have to dump Mr. Solomon, now 83 years old, in order to protect its corporate revenue. No drug company, large or small, can afford to lose out on sales to the federal government, a major customer.

The campaign against drug-company CEOs is part of a larger Obama administration effort to pursue individual executives blamed for wrongdoing rather than simply punishing companies. The government has tried to prosecute Wall Street executives in connection with the 2008 financial crisis, but with limited success.

The Health and Human Services department startled drug makers last year when the agency said it would start invoking a little-used administrative policy under the Social Security Act against pharmaceutical executives. This policy allows officials to bar corporate leaders from health-industry companies doing business with the government, if a drug company is guilty of criminal misconduct. The agency said a chief executive or other leader can be banned even if he or she had no knowledge of a company's criminal actions. Retaining a banned executive can trigger a company's exclusion from government business.



Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704123204576283283851626952.html

---

:nopity:

[Wilms]

1. Jolts thieves, more like it!

Good on Obama and Sebelius. That's a Change I can believe in!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

2. what a pile of garbage this WSJ article is

Both the headline and the article are written in such a way as to suggest Big Government Interference with private companies. Instead, the Federal government is merely saying, you broke the rules, so you can't do business with us. If they want to do business with other entities with this CEO at the helm, they're welcome to do so. If that doesn't leave them enough revenue to stay in business, then maybe the takeaway should be that it's a really bad idea to break the rules of the hand that feeds you, and that you should send your CEO away with his $50M retirement package so that you can get back in business.

[cui bono]

4. It's been Murdoched, so now it's worse than before. n/t

[Blue_Tires]

6. Uh... This was the WSJ mindset decades before the Rupert takeover...

[cui bono]

25. Right. Hence the "worse than before" part. n/t

[rpannier]

37. If the article had been about Obama attending a sailors funeral at sea

The Headline would have been

Obama Throws Naval Careerist Overboard

[Beavker]

7. Same should have been done on Bailouts

Hey Board members and Shareholders: You keep Blankfein, you get no Bail Out money, you tank, your stock is worthless. Or fire him, and...

Or something like that.

[dotymed]

39. Exactly, thus the line

"The government has tried to prosecute Wall Street executives in connection with the 2008 financial crisis, but with limited success", baffled me. When has Obama, via Holder, tried to prosecute the Wall Street thieves? I must have really missed those failed prosecutions.

[av8rdave]

19. Good point...deeper in the article...

They correctly point out that the target is individuals, not companies, but you would never get even a hint of that from the headlines.

Yellow journalism at its best (worst).

[Igel]

28. Precisely. The target is individuals.

Even if they're not accused of anything. It's a way of punishing the company to make sure that *it* knows to make sure that its CEOs do everything possible to avoid doing anything illegal.

Threaten the innocent with punishment is a nifty way of shifting the burden of enforcement to them. And, if it's not enforced across the board, is a neat way of making laws and law enforcement personal.

After all, everything that's not permitted must be illegal.

[av8rdave]

32. In this case, I'm not certain the individual they are targeting is all that innocent

[24601]

47. But it's OK to appoint a tax evader as Treasury Secretary n/t

[loudsue]

3. And THIS is why the corporations will be destroying democrats' chances in 2012.

It's going to be really ugly.

[freshwest]

10. Uglier than 2010, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1994, 1992, etc. Get ready to fight fire with facts.

:dem:

:kick:

[Duer 157099]

5. Let's see. The government can cause the ouster of a CEO

but can't use it's buying power to negotiate for lower drug prices?

Some sort of disconnect going on.

[freshwest]

9. No, a timeline. Death by a thousand cuts. We will have universal health care when they bleed enough.

[silverweb]

20. Sure.

Because overturning existing law with a hostile House is such a simple matter, right?

Reality can bite, so you use what you've got.

I think this move is resourceful and ingenious, and will get concrete results quickly.

[freshwest]

23. IDK what you're saying there. Peace.

[dotymed]

40. Again, we are the only country in the world

"civilized" or not, that doesn't negotiate drug prices. If that is not obviously a huge welfare give away to some of the wealthiest corporations in the world, I don't know what is.
Welfare for the wealthy and austerity for the poor and struggling........

[freshwest]

8. WTG, Obama! Other countries don't let these characters go unpunished, hiding behind stockholders.

Pardon me my second of schadenfreude.

:woohoo:

But then, I never claimed to be perfect.

:yoiks:

[defendandprotect]

11. About time -- everyone of "Big Pharma" compies has defrauded government ....

and they've been allowed nonetheless to resume business with government/Medicare!!!

Same, I think, with MIC contractors -- GE??

[w4rma]

12. Awesome!!!! (nt)

[InkAddict]

13. Hmmm.....opensecrets did not return any personal or soft

donations to either party. Did I search correctly?

[damntexdem]

14. They're not ousting him -- the firm can retain him as CEO if it wishes ...

to forgo a lucrative market.

;-)

[plumbob]

15. More like this, please.

Thank you.

[Angry Dragon]

16. Off with their heads

[lsewpershad]

17. It's about time

CEOs need to know what's going on.

[neoralme]

18. Soloman is a crook and a thug. What Forrest Labs did to people

who took Thyrolar is disgusting. But, then, they are all dishonest. Pfizer is by far the most crooked. My wife and I will not take anything they sell.

[KoKo]

21. Agree...Play that Fiddle! Sounds like Obama getting Tuff..but Play that Fiddle!

[Prof Lester]

33. Fiddle..

:nopity:

[Tumbulu]

22. Wow- fantastic!!!! (nt)

[Enthusiast]

24. Imagine that,

being held accountable for crime. I thought that phase of history was over, a thing of the past.

[Snoutport]

26. Best post I've read today! Thanks for sharing

[sulphurdunn]

27. If this were a just society

we'd be putting trainloads of the bastards in prison.

[yellerpup]

29. Isn't this the reason we have government?

They are supposed to be looking out for all the people. Why does business expect the government to treat them any differently than any other business? You blow it and you lose the account. How does getting dumped by your customer (THE biggest customer, but he should have thought of that beforehand) compute to the heavy hand of federal oppression? What babies! :rofl:

[Hotler]

30. The government has tried to prosecute Wall Street executives....

in connection with the 2008 financial crisis, but with limited success. Bullshit! They didn't try hard enough. If the government can throw Manning in jail they throw some bankers in jail.

[MasonJar]

31. I'm confused. Why not go after the companies?

[ehrnst]

34. Because fines were easy to pay. Drug companies pay billions every year for violations.

If they start hitting the ceo's with the responsibility, then the ceo's will have something to lose.

[RaleighNCDUer]

42. Exactly. The only thing that fining them does is cause a rise in prices -

they WILL make up that lost money.

The only viable threat is the loss of the market, or of jail time for the crooks, and in the corporate world it is very difficult to pinpoint just WHO the crook is.

Corporations will only police themselves if there is a policeman watching them.

[Recursion]

43. They even add it in to their drug prices

So we end up paying it.

[EC]

35. Well, damn right

Why should our tax dollars go to dishonest corps? We have a right to demand that any corp that gets government contracts be above board, including their board.

[robinlynne]

36. RIGHT ON!

[fasttense]

38. Well, if they are excluding him because of market violations

Wont they have to exclude every defense contractor too? And all those Wall Street CEOs who are doing business with our Federal Reserve, shouldn't they be excluded for market violations too?

I guess illegal activity in the case of Cheney's defense contractors and destroying an entire world economy are just fine. Just don't screw us when it comes to pharmaceuticals.

[goodnews]

41. I smell BS.....

The CEO is 83 years old, ready to bow out anyway. It sounds like Obama used this to boost his PR ratings. I smell BS. Besides what fines is the corporation facing? NONE! To fucking convenient. It also allows the company to continue business as usual. :puke:

[Recursion]

44. And if they had fined the corporation instead you'd be saying

"Why is that guy still allowed to work there?"

[goodnews]

46. How the fuck do you know what I'd be saying? Besides

you excluded the possibility that both things could be done. Firing and fining aren't mutually exclusive actions.

[ut oh]

45. Now they need to do this with

Military contractors...