ORT
LAUDERDALE, Fla., July 3 The unsolicited Prozac arrived in a hand-addressed
manila envelope. It came from a Walgreens drugstore not far from here, and there
was a "Dear Patient" form letter inside.
"Enclosed you will find a free one month trial of Prozac Weekly," it said.
"Congratulations on being one step to full recovery."
Advertisement
The mailing infuriated one recipient, a 59-year-old home caregiver who filed
a class-action lawsuit this week in state court here.
"They're going after me because I have a problem," said the caregiver, who
agreed to an interview in her lawyer's office here on the condition that her
name be withheld. "It bothers me to think that somebody could get into my
medical records and start sending me dangerous medications."
The suit says Walgreens, a local hospital, three doctors and Eli Lilly, which
makes Prozac, misused patients' medical records and invaded their privacy. It
also accused the drugstore and Lilly of engaging in the unauthorized practice of
medicine.
The plaintiffs' lawyers said they did not know how many people received the
mailings. "It could be anywhere from several dozen to several thousand," said
Gary M. Farmer Jr., one of the lawyers.
The suit seeks an unspecified amount of money and an injunction to prohibit
further mailings.
Legal experts said that sending drugs through the mail could be criminal if
the recipient does not have a prescription. How privacy law applies to medical
records used in marketing is an open question.
A Lilly spokeswoman said that sending unsolicited drugs through the mail was
against company policy and inappropriate. "While Lilly supports informing people
about new treatment options and encouraging them to discuss these options with
their doctor, what occurred in Florida appears to go beyond this," the
spokeswoman, Debbie Davis, said.
Experts in medical privacy have been critical of mailings of targeted
marketing materials based on information in patients' pharmaceutical and medical
records. They say the mailing of drugs is an unwelcome innovation.
"This is appalling in every possible way," said David L. Pearle, a professor
of medicine at Georgetown University. "It's an escalation of a deplorable
practice."
Joy Pritts, senior counsel at the Health Privacy Project in Washington, said
that "this is one step beyond what we normally see." On the other hand, Ms.
Pritts continued, the Prozac mailing was part of "the increasing trend for the
commercialization of health care information."
"It's being bought, sold and used like any other commodity," she said,
referring to patients' medical information. "This has nothing to do with
treating the patient. This has everything to do with generating profits."
Aggressive marketing tactics, experts said, are often linked to plummeting
sales. Lilly's patent for Prozac expired last August, and the drug's sales have
dropped more than 80 percent as generic equivalents have become available. But
Prozac Weekly is still under patent.
John Newton, a Florida assistant attorney general, said that a whole range of
pharmaceutical marketing practices was legally problematic.
"We are looking at these practices," Mr. Newton said. "The office of the
attorney general believes many of these practices violate Florida unfair and
deceptive practices laws."
The Prozac mailing, he said, may have been unlawful for reasons unrelated to
privacy.
"The safety concern is a legitimate concern," he said, referring to the
danger that the drugs would be found by children or used inappropriately.
"Another concern," he said, "is, if she doesn't have a current prescription
for Prozac, it's an illegal distribution" of a prescription drug.
The form letter that accompanied the Prozac was apparently prepared by a
sales representative for Lilly; it was signed by the caregiver's doctor and two
other local doctors.
"We are very excited to be able to offer you a more convenient way to take
your antidepressant medication," the letter said. "If you wish to try Prozac
Weekly, stop your antidepressant one day before starting Prozac Weekly, then
take Prozac Weekly once a week thereafter."
Stephen A. Sheller, a Philadelphia lawyer who also represents the plaintiffs
in the lawsuit here, had a suggestion for drug companies inclined to mail
unsolicited samples.
"What they should be doing is developing a drug to diminish their greed," Mr.
Sheller said.
The lawsuit says the lead plaintiff, the caregiver, identified only as S. K.,
has had a diagnosis of depression, "which she maintains in the strictest of
confidence due to potential public embarrassment and employment repercussions."
It says she did not have a prescription for Prozac.
"I hadn't been using Prozac for seven years or better," she said in the
interview. "It was a matter of a few months. It didn't agree with me."
She was living in Massachusetts when she tried the drug. She said her doctor
here, Lise Lambert, had not discussed Prozac with her, much less prescribed it.
Dr. Lambert, one of the doctors who signed the "Dear Patient" letter, is a
defendant in the suit. She did not return calls for comment. Her medical group
referred questions to Holy Cross Hospital, which is also a defendant.
A hospital spokeswoman said the hospital did not comment on matters in
litigation. In early June, however, the hospital issued a statement to The
Sun-Sentinel in South Florida.
"This particular effort," it said, "was the result of well-intentioned,
respected physicians being given an opportunity to arrange for some of their
patients to receive sample medications, at no cost, through proper, licensed
pharmacy channels."
The plaintiff here said Dr. Lambert admitted signing blank letterhead, which
the Lilly representative added text to and delivered to the drugstore for
mailing.
Whether or not Dr. Lambert reviewed the letter before signing, Dr. Pearle
said, the mailing was improper.
"It's highly unethical," he said, "because it's clear that the letter is not
an outgrowth of the doctor's relationship with the patient."
The plaintiff said the packaging that Lilly uses for the samples worried her,
too.
"They were very attractive because they had little beads inside a capsule,"
she said. "If my grandchildren were there and they got a hold of this little
package, they would have thought it was candy."
Michael Polzin, a spokesman for
Walgreen Company, said the drugstore did
nothing improper.
"We received a valid prescription from the doctor," Mr. Polzin said. "All of
the prescriptions in this program were faxed by doctors' offices. It was our
understanding that it was going out to people who are on Prozac."
Mr. Polzin said Lilly reimbursed the pharmacy for the samples. It is not
clear whether the doctors who signed the letter were compensated for doing so.
Mr. Polzin said that prescription drugs were routinely sent through the mail
and that the practice did not pose any safety hazard.
Ms. Davis, the Lilly spokeswoman, apologized for the mailing.
"It is inappropriate for Lilly sales personnel to support programs in which
medicine is mailed to patients without the patient's request," she said in a
statement.
"We understand why people should be concerned about receiving unsolicited
prescriptions in the mail. To the extent Lilly personnel may have participated
in this program, Lilly apologizes to those patients affected by it."
ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND
MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS
OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR
LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND
COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH
YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.
"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth."
-- Albert Einstein, letter to a friend, 1901
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William C. Jarvis, September 28, 1820
"What's the point of vaccination if it doesn't protect you from the unvaccinated?"
-- Sandy Gottstein
"Who gets to decide what the greater good is and how many will be sacrificed to it?"