Criminal trial of Insys Therapeutics executives ends: NPR

The pleadings are over and the criminal trial of the pharmaceutical executive John Kapoor is now in the hands of the jury. The deliberations start on Monday.

The federal government has accused Kapoor and his four co-defendants of corrupting doctors and deceiving insurance companies. By instituting criminal proceedings against corporate executives, the federal government is generally perceived as an attempt to demonstrate aggressive action against pharmaceutical companies and the role they allegedly played in the epidemic. opioids.

"Driven by greed"

During the 10-week trial, federal prosecutors have described the long-time billionaire as a "greed-motivated" man. In closing arguments, US Deputy Attorney Nathaniel Yeager told jurors at the Moakley Federal Court House in Boston that Kapoor was putting the lives of his patients at risk for his own financial success.

Kapoor, the founder of Insys Therapeutics, reportedly oversaw a marketing strategy in which doctors paid more than $ 1 million to prescribe Subsys in large doses, often to patients who did not need it. Subsys is a highly addictive opioid analgesic up to 100 times more potent than morphine.

Then, according to prosecutors, Insys set up a call center to ensure that expensive drugs were covered by insurers. In the call centers, Insys employees reportedly claimed to come from doctors' offices and made diagnoses and other information needed to get their drugs approved.

"The decisions, the money, the strategy came from the top," said Yeager. The obligation of doctors to "first, do no harm, has become: first, do what you are told".

Yeager showed the jury internal worksheets to the company, detailing the amount of money paid to each doctor by Insys and the return on investment or "return on investment" generated by these payments. That is to say exactly how much money the company was earning thanks to the prescriptions of each paid physician. Yeager suggested that this is called ROB or "Return on Bribe".

Defense rests in less than three days

After nine weeks of testimony by government witnesses, the defense has been on track in less than three days.

"The story can not be true, and they do not care, because they have been watching this man," Kapoor's attorney, Beth Wilkinson, told the jurors during his final argument in November. designating Kapoor. "They want to show that they can shoot down the guy upstairs."

Wilkinson argued that Kapoor was motivated by two things. First, Kapoor vowed to do something after seeing his late wife suffer extreme pain as she died of cancer.

Second, Kapoor believed in the drug and thought it worked better and faster than comparable painkillers. That's why, according to his attorneys, Kapoor retained his shares in the company and stepped in as CEO when Insys Therapeutics struggled.

With respect to the allegedly illegal activity, Wilkinson blamed former Insys executives who failed, pleaded guilty and testified on behalf of the prosecution. She said that they orchestrated the arrangements, without Kapoor's knowledge.

Wilkinson argued that we should not trust the government's star witnesses. They had not only monitored the illegal schemes – they had a habit of lying – she explained.

Wilkinson spent much of his final argument detailing the inconsistencies between government witnesses.

Alec Burlakoff, the former vice president of sales at Insys, was one of the government's main witnesses.

Last month, on the witness stand, Burlakoff admitted to bribing doctors and testified that he deliberately targeted unscrupulous doctors known to prescribe opioids liberally. "The pill mills, for us, meant dollars," Burlakoff said. "He was not executed in the other way.He was sent to the pill mills."

He appeared briefly in a music video inserted by Insys sales representatives for patients to receive the highest possible dose. Burlakoff testified that he had discussed the anti-corruption strategy with Kapoor and that he was only following his advice.

But federal prosecutors and defense attorneys agree that Burlakoff has repeatedly lied to investigators and perhaps in his testimony.

Prosecutors claimed that Burlakoff's behavior was further evidence against Kapoor. "Do you want to hire him as your vice president of sales?" Yeager asked the jurors during his closing arguments. "You've seen it, do you want to put it in charge of a sales strategy?"

Kapoor's attorneys argued that this same behavior demonstrated the weakness of the government's cause. "If not, why would you make a deal with this guy?" They did not have enough proof if not, "Wilkinson said. "[Burlakoff] was the one. Every path – bad behavior, bad action – brings him back to him. "

After 10 weeks of testimony, dozens of witnesses and thousands of documents, the trial of John Kapoor and his co-defendants was assigned to the jury.