Fake Botox Murder Charge
A California beautician was indicted for manslaughter for allegedly causing the death of a client following a fake Botox injection. Martha Mata Vasquez was accused of injecting cooking oil into the buttocks of the client, who died of an embolism in November. Ms. Vasquez faces up to 8 years in prison. This appears to be the first death linked to a counterfeit injection, although at least four people were paralyzed last year after receiving a raw animal toxin, said Caroline Van Hove, a spokeswoman for Botox manufacturer Allergan Inc. The company and the Food and Drug Administration closely monitor the injectable market in the hope of rooting out fake products and illegal use by unlicensed practitioners, Ms. Van Hove noted.
Connetics Insider Trading
The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged a Connetics Corp. executive with insider trading. According to the SEC, Connetics vice president Alexander Yaroshinsky sold 15,100 shares of Connetics stock shortly after an April 2005 conference call with the FDA. During that call, the agency said it would issue a nonapprovable letter for Connetics' acne treatment Velac (clindamycin/tretinoin) because of potential carcinogenicity issues. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Yaroshinsky also purchased 2,076 "put" contracts, which positioned him to benefit if Connetics' shares fell. When the company made the FDA's views public in June, Connetics' share price fell 27%, and Mr. Yaroshinsky made at least $680,000, according to an SEC statement. At the SEC's request, a judge issued an order freezing Mr. Yaroshinsky's assets.
Sunscreen Lawsuits
Two law firms have filed suit against seven sunscreen manufacturers, claiming the companies are making false claims about the products' ability to block harmful sun rays and prevent skin disease, including cancer. Named in the suit are Schering-Plough Corp. (Coppertone), Sun Pharmaceuticals Corp. and Playtex Products Inc. (Banana Boat), Tanning Research Laboratories Inc. (Hawaiian Tropic), Neutrogena Corp. and Johnson & Johnson (Neutrogena), and Chattem Inc. (BullFrog). The law firms, which are seeking class action status, say that claims that products protect against UVA rays are false because there is no standard for measuring UVA protection. Sun protective factor (SPF) standards apply only to UVB rays. The suits further allege that the products can't be said to be waterproof because they lose efficacy when immersed in water. "Parents, especially, have been defrauded into believing the false labeling and advertising claims of these products," said Mitchell Twersky, of New York law firm Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky LLP, in a statement. The suits, filed in California Superior Court in Los Angeles, seek "an injunction on the claims, compensation for consumers and other remedies, including a public education program concerning sun protection paid for by the industry," according to a statement by the other litigating firm, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP of Los Angeles. Schering-Plough is still evaluating the lawsuit, said company spokeswoman Denise Foy, who added that the company has disputed similar allegations in the past and that product labels are in compliance with FDA regulations.
Unwilling to Pay for Quality
Payers and the federal government are prodding providers toward meeting quality benchmarks as the first step to getting paid for delivering better care, but a new poll suggests that Americans might not be willing to personally pay extra for improved quality. A Wall Street Journal/Harris Interactive health care poll found that one-third of 2,123 adults surveyed said they were in favor of having insurers pay more for higher-quality care. This is an 11% drop from 2003, when a similar survey was conducted. In 2006, 54% of those surveyed said they weren't sure whether physicians and hospitals should be paid more by insurers to provide better care; that was a 14% increase in uncertainty from 2003. Just under half of those surveyed said there are fair and reliable ways to measure and compare quality of care. When asked whether they would be willing to pay more out of their own pocket, 57% said it would not be fair for patients to pay more to receive treatment from physicians or hospitals that had been shown to give better care. Similarly, 55% said they would not be willing to pay a higher premium to get access to higher-quality medical groups and hospitals. Around half agreed that the currently used quality-assessment mechanisms are fair, including how often physicians give preventive tests (55%) and how often they meet benchmarks in managing chronic conditions (61%). Forty-one percent said malpractice suits were a fair way to gauge the quality of care given by a physician.