Seeking Alpha

An appeals court ruling yesterday that dismissed the conviction of a sales rep who sold a drug...

An appeals court ruling yesterday that dismissed the conviction of a sales rep who sold a drug for non-FDA approved uses could have major ramifications for pharmaceutical companies, which have paid billions in fines for doing just that. Two out of three judges agreed with Alfred Caronia that his rights to free speech were violated. The government is expected to appeal the case, which could find its way to the Supreme Court.
Comments (9)
  • norjud
    , contributor
    Comments (203) | Send Message
     
    The docs want the facts. Don't let the FDA bully all the companies just so they can get free money...in the way of fines.
    4 Dec 2012, 08:23 AM Reply Like
  • rothd51
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    It's insulting to physicians when reps aren't permitted to respond to questions regarding off-label use of FDA approved drugs
    4 Dec 2012, 08:37 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3260) | Send Message
     
    Yup. It's the physician's reputation/liability on the line when they decide to go off-label. What a rep says or doesn't say should have no bearing on that.

     

    Off-label usage happens more often than people think
    4 Dec 2012, 08:56 AM Reply Like
  • larrysocie
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    Salesman, and politicians will say anything to move product. Off-label is salesman spin for not proven. Does anyone want their doctor using unproven drugs on their family?
    4 Dec 2012, 08:50 AM Reply Like
  • Little Dude
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    If its the best, or possibly only, option then yes. I'm only here to write this because an experimental procedure was used on me - do the procedure, 99% chance of dying, don't do the procedure, 100% chance of dying. Sometimes those
    4 Dec 2012, 08:57 AM Reply Like
  • stremberth
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    the difference is that the salesman will ALWAYS disclose that it is off label use & not approved by the FDA for a certain indication but.................A politician wont disclose the full story.
    4 Dec 2012, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • HesterPrynne
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Isn't that a MD's job -- to evaluate risks and benefits and present what s/he considers the best possible option (or one of the options) for their patient?
    4 Dec 2012, 10:12 AM Reply Like
  • fredk
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    The Physician always has the option of prescribing anything he/she feels will help the patient. As a result, they must have all of the possible information available to make that decision. Most often the Doctor relies on controlled scientific studies that prove efficacy of a particular therapy. The Sales Rep. facilitates this information, but does not promote unapproved uses.
    4 Dec 2012, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • MinorityView
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    The concern is that some companies put together well organized campaigns to push particular unapproved uses for drugs. Doctors are capable of being snowed or manipulated.
    4 Dec 2012, 02:14 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|