FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 1, 2008

Contact:
Wells Wilkinson
(617) 275-2869
wwilkinson@communitycatalyst.org

Boston, MA – Three labor union benefit funds filed a formal objection yesterday to the proposed $40 million nationwide settlement of a class action lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE:GSK).  The lawsuit alleged that Glaxo defrauded health plans, union benefit funds and other “third party payors” by failing to disclose the increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior among children and adolescents taking the prescription antidepressants Paxil® and Paxil CR®.   The $40M settlement is to reimburse third party payors for payments they made to pharmacies for Paxil prescribed to children and adolescents from 1998 to 2004.

The union benefit funds objected to the settlement because the proposed claims process requires information that many health plan and benefit funds don’t have, or could only get through a burdensome, unreasonable process that would be more work than the potential claim was worth. The objectors are Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund (www.sbanyc.org/benefits), AFSCME District Council 37 Health and Security Plan (www.dc37.net/benefits/health.html) and IUOE Local 4 Health and Welfare Fund (www.local4funds.org). They provide prescription drug coverage for more than 320,000 union members, retirees and their families. 

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, TPPs can be reimbursed up to 40% of their costs for Paxil prescribed for Major Depressive Disorder, while all other prescriptions for Paxil for other conditions will only be reimbursed at 15%. This requires TPPs to list a diagnostic code for each and every pediatric prescription for Paxil that they paid for during the seven year period.  The objectors challenged this distinction, arguing that almost no one will really get a 40% refund, because almost no TPPs have diagnostic codes for the prescriptions they pay for. 

In addition, millions of prescriptions for Paxil were written during the seven years covered by the lawsuit (1998-2004), yet the settlement requires any claim for more than $1,000 in reimbursement to include exhaustive details regarding every individual prescription of Paxil paid for during that seven-year period.

The funds also objected to other requirements, including the way that TPPs are required to calculate the net cost of the payments they made, and to misleading and inaccurate statements in the settlement notice about class members’ rights to object, appear at the hearing, or appeal final approval of the settlement.

“A $40 million settlement may sound very positive, but the devil is very much in the details,” said Gina Alongi, Administrator of IUOE Local 4 Health and Welfare Fund. “The way the settlement is currently structured will prevent many health plans and union benefit funds like ours from getting any real compensation from it.”

The three union funds objecting to the settlement are all members of Prescription Access Litigation, a national coalition of more than 130 unions and consumer advocacy groups that works to challenge illegal practices by the pharmaceutical industry.

“TPPs will have to comb through mountains of medical records and bury themselves in paperwork before they ever see a penny from this settlement,” said Alex Sugerman-Brozan, director of PAL. “Class action settlements are only as good as their claims process, and this one fails at a very fundamental level.”

Last year, Prescription Access Litigation objected to an earlier Paxil class action settlement (Hoorman et. al. v. SmithKline Beecham). That $63M settlement was of a class action brought on behalf of consumers who paid for Paxil prescriptions for children and adolescents.  As a result of that objection, important changes protecting consumers’ rights were made to the settlement.

A settlement of a class action must be approved by the Court where the case is brought.  Because class actions affect the rights of people and entities that aren’t even aware of the lawsuit, the Court reviews settlements to make sure they are “fair, reasonable and adequate.”  Members of the class may object to the settlement, and request to speak at a hearing before the Court.

The case is Carpenters and Joiners Welfare Fund et. al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (U.S. District Court for Minnesota, Case #04-CV-3500). The Final Approval hearing in the case is scheduled for September 30, 2008 in the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  The deadline for third party payors to submit claims for payment from the settlement is December 12, 2008.  More information about the settlement, including claims forms, can be found at www.pediatricpaxiltppsettlement.com. A full copy of the funds’ objection to the settlement can be found at www.prescriptionaccess.org/docs/pediatric-paxil-objection.pdf

###

About AFSCME District Council 37 Health & Security Plan
AFSCME District Council 37 Health & Security Plan is a union benefit fund that provides supplemental health and welfare benefits, including a prescription drug benefit, to over 300,000 individuals, consisting of active municipal employees, their spouses and dependants, as well as retirees, who work or worked for New York City, the New York State Court System, various authorities, cultural institutions and the NYC Health and Hospital Corporation.

About Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund
Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund provides supplemental health and welfare benefits, including a prescription drug benefit, to 10,000 active and retired sergeants of the New York City Police Department.

About IUOE Local 4 Health and Welfare Fund
IUOE (International Union of Operating Engineers) Local 4 Health and Welfare Fund provides a health and welfare plan, including a prescription drug benefit, to 10,000 covered members of IUOE Local 4 and their families.  IUOE Local 4 represents heavy equipment operators, apprentices, mechanics, surveyors, equipment house employees, as well as waste water technician and some public sector employees in Eastern Massachusetts, Eastern New Hampshire and Maine.

About Prescription Access Litigation
Prescription Access Litigation (PAL) (www.prescriptionaccess.org) is a nationwide coalition of over 130 state, local, and national senior, labor and consumer health advocacy groups fighting to make prescription drugs affordable. The organizations in the PAL coalition have a combined membership of over 13 million people. PAL, a project of the national nonprofit health care advocacy group Community Catalyst (www.communitycatalyst.org), works to end illegal drug industry practices that increase the price of prescription drugs beyond the reach of the American consumer, using class action litigation and public education. PAL members have filed more than 30 lawsuits targeting such practices. News about PAL’s cases and public education efforts is published regularly on the PAL Blog at www.prescriptionaccess.org/blog