Imagine the following news report:
‘Children’s Publishing, Inc., has reached a $105 million settlement with several U.S. states over the unlawful market of its history books. The book publishing company did not admit wrongdoing but confirmed its agreement with 44 states and the U.S. Department of Education. “The settlement requires CPI to pay a penalty
and to agree to new rules designed the prevent future misrepresentations of its publications,” the New York attorney general said in a press release. New York is to get the largest portion of the settlement payout, about $7 million. The allegations go back several years, as federal and state authorities said CPI illegally promoted its history books as suitable for civics and other social studies courses. Under the agreement, CPI “is prohibited from providing incentives to its salespeople, which serve to encourage unapproved uses of the books, and from using paid teachers to promote their products,” the Texas attorney general said.'[1]
Now a real news report:
‘GlaxoSmithKline reached a $105 million settlement with several U.S. states over allegedly unlawful marketing of asthma and antidepressant drugs, several states said Wednesday. The pharmaceutical company confirmed it had reached an agreement with 44 states and the District of Columbia, resolving claims relating to violations of state trade-practice laws.
“This settlement requires GSK to pay a significant penalty and imposes strong new rules designed to prevent future misrepresentations of GSK products,” California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris said in a news release. California is getting the largest portion of the settlement payout, about $7.1 million. The settlement with the states centers on allegations dating back 14 years. The states said Glaxo illegally promoted Advair, as well as its Paxil and Wellbutrin antidepressants. Under the agreement, Glaxo “is prohibited from providing incentive payments to its salespeople, which serve to encourage off-label promotion of drugs, and from using paid doctors to promote its products,” the California attorney general’s office said.'[2]
On a scale of 1 to 10, please rank the absurdity of these two stories. Explain your ranking.
Sources:
[1] My fevered imagination.
[2] Michael Calia, “GlaxoSmithKline to Pay $105 Million in Multistate Settlement,” The Wall Street Journal, June 04, 2014.
Your imagination does sometimes seem fevered [1], perhaps you need one of those antidepressants from Glaxo [2]? 🙂
To answer your question: 10 and 3.
The drug companies have an interesting relationship with the FDA, the government, and government enforced monopolies via patents that the booksellers don’t have. If you get rid of the FDA, legalize all drugs with the possible exception of antibiotics, and give people full responsibility for their own lives, my absurdity scale numbers might change.
Good one, Bret. I agree about with your thought experiment about getting rid of the FDA. Then publishers and pharmaceutical companies can operate under the same set of open market principles.
Call me a cynic, but my first reaction to a story like this is that Glaxo obviously didn’t contribute to the correct campaigns or hire the correct ex-staffers as its lobbyists. Therefore, I must give both stories a 10.
There’s a strong case to be made that one is more likely to off oneself on antidepressants than otherwise. But that still does not justify the nonsense above (I’m hard-pressed to attach a figure because there’s so much nonsense being churned out by the politico-legal establishment). The state should be out of the credentialing and regulating business altogether (except for its own internal function) which provide an illusory sense of oversight, standards and safety.