Arizona says GlaxoSmithKline's greed endangered kids with asthma
The lawsuit filed Thursday in Maricopa County Superior Court by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, citing the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, says that the London-based multinational company was motivated by greed when it discontinued a widely used medication, Flovent (fluticasone propionate) and replaced it with an identical authorized generic version "as part of a calculated scheme to avoid paying Medicaid rebates tied to years of price inflation."
GlaxoSmithKline officials on Thursday did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Until it was discontinued in 2023, Flovent was one of the most widely prescribed asthma medications in the country, and more than a million Arizonans relied on it, Mayes' office says. It had been available as a prescription metered-dose inhaler (Flovent HFA) and a dry powder inhaler (Flovent Diskus).
The switch to the identical generic version of both the metered dose and dry powder inhalers made by Prasco was deceptive on the part of GlaxoSmithKline and bad for some patients whose insurance did not pay for the generic version of the drug and who did not get the same health benefits from using other brands of inhalers, according to the lawsuit.
The switch was bad for taxpayers who lost out on rebates to Medicaid, a government health insurance program primarily for low-income people, the 22-page legal action says.
The state's lawsuit says GlaxoSmithKline discontinued Flovent due to greed. While it was still on the market, the company, over time, raised the price far beyond inflation, making billions of dollars from Medicaid and private consumers. When the company faced the possibility of owing Medicaid reimbursements for those excessive price hikes, it stopped making Flovent, the lawsuit says,
"GSK put corporate greed ahead of the health and safety of Arizona's families and children," Mayes said in a news release. "Their manipulation of the system has left countless patients without access to life-saving medication, caused a spike in emergency room visits, and likely contributed to preventable deaths. My office will not stand by while corporations put profit ahead of the health of children."
A provision of the American Rescue Plan removed a cap on Medicaid rebates on Jan. 1, 2024, which was the same day that GlaxoSmithKline discontinued Flovent. By reclassifying a chemical drug under a different name and label, GlaxoSmithKline avoided rebate obligations tied to the Flovent price inflation, the lawsuit says.
"It raised the price so much that, with the removal of the rebate cap, GSK was faced with the prospect of having to pay more to Medicaid in rebates than it would earn from sales of the drug to Medicaid," the lawsuit says. "GSK could have avoided such significant rebates by reducing Flovent's price, and thus reducing the amount of price inflation since Flovent's introduction. But GSK chose not to reduce Flovent's price."
The scheme allowed GSK to continue charging high prices while evading its legal obligations to taxpayers under Medicaid, leaving families and the public to bear the burden, the news release from Mayes' office says. The lawsuit, her office says, seeks to hold GSK accountable for violating laws that protect consumers from deceptive and unfair practices.
Some Arizona health providers say they witnessed firsthand how discontinuing Flovent resulted in serious health consequences for children with asthma.
'My colleagues and I saw firsthand ... what harm this caused to some of our pediatric patients with asthma. We had patients coming into our emergency departments and admitted to our pediatric intensive care units with severe asthma attacks because they were not taking their controller medication (Flovent),' Dr. Rahul Chawla, a pediatric emergency department physician at Banner Thunderbird Medical Center in Glendale, said in a news release.
'The patients and their families either couldn't obtain Flovent from pharmacies since they did not have it, or their parents could not afford to pay for it out of pocket since the new generic form was not covered.'
Reach health care reporter Stephanie Innes at Stephanie.Innes@gannett.com or follow her on X, formerly Twitter: @stephanieinnes.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes sues GlaxoSmithKline over Flovent
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Analysis-Out-gunned Europe accepts least-worst US trade deal
By Mark John LONDON (Reuters) -In the end, Europe found it lacked the leverage to pull Donald Trump's America into a trade pact on its terms and so has signed up to a deal it can just about stomach - albeit one that is clearly skewed in the U.S.'s favour. As such, Sunday's agreement on a blanket 15% tariff after a months-long stand-off is a reality check on the aspirations of the 27-country European Union to become an economic power able to stand up to the likes of the United States or China. The cold shower is all the more bracing given that the EU has long portrayed itself as an export superpower and champion of rules-based commerce for the benefit both of its own soft power and the global economy as a whole. For sure, the new tariff that will now be applied is a lot more digestible than the 30% "reciprocal" tariff which Trump threatened to invoke in a few days. While it should ensure Europe avoids recession, it will likely keep its economy in the doldrums: it sits somewhere between two tariff scenarios the European Central Bank last month forecast would mean 0.5-0.9% economic growth this year compared to just over 1% in a trade tension-free environment. But this is nonetheless a landing point that would have been scarcely imaginable only months ago in the pre-Trump 2.0 era, when the EU along with much of the world could count on U.S. tariffs averaging out at around 1.5%. Even when Britain agreed a baseline tariff of 10% with the United States back in May, EU officials were adamant they could do better and - convinced the bloc had the economic heft to square up to Trump - pushed for a "zero-for-zero" tariff pact. It took a few weeks of fruitless talks with their U.S. counterparts for the Europeans to accept that 10% was the best they could get and a few weeks more to take the same 15% baseline which the United States agreed with Japan last week. "The EU does not have more leverage than the U.S., and the Trump administration is not rushing things," said one senior official in a European capital who was being briefed on last week's negotiations as they closed in around the 15% level. That official and others pointed to the pressure from Europe's export-oriented businesses to clinch a deal and so ease the levels of uncertainty starting to hit businesses from Finland's Nokia to Swedish steelmaker SSAB. "We were dealt a bad hand. This deal is the best possible play under the circumstances," said one EU diplomat. "Recent months have clearly shown how damaging uncertainty in global trade is for European businesses." NOW WHAT? That imbalance - or what the trade negotiators have been calling "asymmetry" - is manifest in the final deal. Not only is it expected that the EU will now call off any retaliation and remain open to U.S. goods on existing terms, but it has also pledged $600 billion of investment in the United States. The time-frame for that remains undefined, as do other details of the accord for now. As talks unfolded, it became clear that the EU came to the conclusion it had more to lose from all-out confrontation. The retaliatory measures it threatened totalled some 93 billion euros - less than half its U.S. goods trade surplus of nearly 200 billion euros. True, a growing number of EU capitals were also ready to envisage wide-ranging anti-coercion measures that would have allowed the bloc to target the services trade in which the United States had a surplus of some $75 billion last year. But even then, there was no clear majority for targeting the U.S. digital services which European citizens enjoy and for which there are scant homegrown alternatives - from Netflix to Uber to Microsoft cloud services. It remains to be seen whether this will encourage European leaders to accelerate the economic reforms and diversification of trading allies to which they have long paid lip service but which have been held back by national divisions. Describing the deal as a painful compromise that was an "existential threat" for many of its members, Germany's BGA wholesale and export association said it was time for Europe to reduce its reliance on its biggest trading partner. "Let's look on the past months as a wake-up call," said BGA President Dirk Jandura. "Europe must now prepare itself strategically for the future - we need new trade deals with the biggest industrial powers of the world." (Additional reporting by Jan Strupczewski in Brussels; Christian Kraemer and Maria Martinez in Berlin; Writing by Mark John; Editing by Nick Zieminski) Sign in to access your portfolio
New York Post
15 minutes ago
- New York Post
Açaí prices set to rise as US imposes 50% tariff on imports
Bowls and smoothies made of the Amazon berry açaí have become ubiquitous in many cities across the US, but consumers may think twice about shelling out after Friday when a 50% tariff on imports from Brazil kicks in. Nearly all of the açaí pulp sold in the U.S., as well as in Europe and Asia, where people have also developed a taste for the tangy fruit, comes from Brazil. If no trade deal is reached between the Trump administration and the Brazilian government, the bowls could cost significantly more at hundreds of shops from New York to Los Angeles. Advertisement 4 A 50% tariff on açaí imports will kick in on Friday. New Africa – 'People already complain a bit about the price. If it gets more expensive, I guess it will become more of a luxury thing,' said Ashley Ibarra, who manages a Midtown Manhattan store owned by Playa Bowls LLC, a New Jersey-based company with around 300 shops in the U.S. With toppings like banana and granola, a bowl of açaí costs around $18 at Playa Bowls in New York. Competitor Oakberry Inc., the world's largest açaí chain with 700 stores in 35 countries, sells a smaller portion at a nearby Manhattan store for $13. Advertisement Playa Bowls declined to comment on the tariffs, and Oakberry did not respond to a request for comment. Açaí companies tout the product as an energy booster, a powerful antioxidant and a source of Omega-3 and other nutrients. The Food and Drug Administration said more research is needed to evaluate its possible health benefits. 'A friend introduced me to it one day, and I loved it, so I occasionally buy it,' said Milan Shek, 50, who was having an açaí bowl mixed with cereals and fresh fruits one recent afternoon in New York. Advertisement With a large markup, he said he would probably eat it less often. 4 A Playa Bowls location in New Orleans. William A. Morgan – Brazil's production and exports of açaí have skyrocketed in recent years. The berry went from being a local delicacy in small towns in the state of Para where it is mostly grown, to a widely popular treat across Brazil. Soon, exports began to be sent to other countries. Advertisement Production increased from around 150,000 metric tons 10 years ago to nearly 2 million tons last year, according to data from Brazil's statistics agency IBGE and the governments of Para and Amazonas. The U.S. is the largest foreign buyer, followed by Europe and Japan. 4 Açai production was 2 million tons last year, up from 150,000 tons 10 years ago. Imago Photo – Nazareno Alves da Silva, head of the Amazon Açaí Producers Association in Para, said companies were calculating how to absorb such a large cost increase in order to continue exports to the U.S. He wasn't optimistic. 'Right now, we still don't know how to do it. The numbers don't match,' he said. The trade would get too expensive for many U.S. importers, while Brazilian producers would be unable to cut prices enough to accommodate the tariff, he said, adding that producers would likely have to find other markets. 4 A smoothie made of açaí and other fruits. REUTERS Even those without an açaí habit are likely to feel the pinch of the Trump administration's tariffs on Brazil. Advertisement The South American country supplies about a third of the coffee consumed in the U.S., as well as orange juice and beef.
CNBC
16 minutes ago
- CNBC
U.S. and China to resume tariff talks on Monday in effort to extend truce
Senior U.S. and Chinese negotiators meet in Stockholm on Monday to tackle longstanding economic disputes at the center of the countries' trade war, aiming to extend a truce keeping sharply higher tariffs at bay. China is facing an Aug. 12 deadline to reach a durable tariff agreement with President Donald Trump's administration, after Beijing and Washington reached a preliminary deal in June to end weeks of escalating tit-for-tat tariffs. Without an agreement, global supply chains could face renewed turmoil from duties exceeding 100%. The Stockholm talks, led by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng, take place a day after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen met Trump at his golf course in Scotland to clinch a deal that would see a 15% baseline tariff on most EU goods. Trade analysts on both sides of the Pacific say the discussions in the Swedish capital are unlikely to produce any breakthroughs but could prevent further escalation and help create conditions for Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping to meet later this year. Previous U.S.-China trade talks in Geneva and London in May and June focused on bringing U.S. and Chinese retaliatory tariffs down from triple-digit levels and restoring the flow of rare earth minerals halted by China and Nvidia H20 AI chips and other goods halted by the United States. So far, the talks have not delved into broader economic issues. They include U.S. complaints that China's state-led, export-driven model is flooding world markets with cheap goods, and Beijing's complaints that U.S. national security export controls on tech goods seek to stunt Chinese growth. "Stockholm will be the first meaningful round of U.S.-China trade talks," said Bo Zhengyuan, Shanghai-based partner at China consultancy firm Plenum. Trump has been successful in pressuring some other trading partners, including Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines, into preliminary deals accepting higher U.S. tariffs of 15% to 20%. Analysts say the U.S.-China negotiations are far more complex and will require more time. China's grip on the global market for rare earth minerals and magnets, used in everything from military hardware to car windshield wiper motors, has proved to be an effective leverage point on U.S. industries. In the background of the talks is speculation about a possible meeting between Trump and Xi in late October. Trump has said he will decide soon whether to visit China in a landmark trip to address trade and security tensions. A new flare-up of tariffs and export controls would likely derail any plans for a meeting with Xi. "The Stockholm meeting is an opportunity to start laying the groundwork for a Trump visit to China," said Wendy Cutler, vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute. Bessent has already said he wants to work out an extension of the Aug. 12 deadline to prevent tariffs snapping back to 145% on the U.S. side and 125% on the Chinese side. Still, China is likely to request a reduction of the multi-layered U.S. tariffs, which total 55% on most goods, and further easing of U.S. high-tech export controls, analysts said. Beijing has argued that such purchases would help reduce the U.S. trade deficit with China, which reached $295.5 billion in 2024. China is currently facing a 20% tariff related to the U.S. fentanyl crisis, a 10% reciprocal tariff, and 25% duties on most industrial goods imposed during Trump's first term. Bessent has also said he would discuss the need for China to rebalance its economy away from exports toward domestic consumer demand. The shift would require China to put an end to a protracted property crisis and boost social safety nets to encourage household spending. Michael Froman, a former U.S. trade representative during former President Barack Obama's administration, said such a shift has been a goal of U.S. policymakers for two decades. "Can we effectively use tariffs to get China to fundamentally change their economic strategy? That remains to be seen," said Froman, now president of the Council on Foreign Relations think-tank.
