4 ms·

Pffffft. Explain why Pfizer keeps making epic regulatory faceplants when much smaller organizations, ostensibly with less industry experience, routinely manage

Pffffft. Explain why Pfizer keeps making epic regulatory faceplants when much smaller organizations, ostensibly with less industry experience, routinely manage to navigate regulations in the US without issue?

unmole 4y ago
A behemoth like Pfizer is a more attractive target for enforcement agencies?
- forgetfreeman 4y ago
  Nah. Regulators have performance metrics same as everyone. They'll gleefully target 150 headcount biotech firms in a heartbeat if they think there's a win to be had and smaller firms generally dont have the legal war chest required to fight a complianceviolation beef. See Also: OIG going after United Therapeutics on light pretext.
- spamizbad 4y ago
  Pfizer has more "surface area" but beyond that, no. Prosecutors love shooting fish in a barrel: it actually makes smaller biotech firms more attractive regulation targets.
  - johndhi 4y ago
    Disagree. Every civil prosecutor I've ever worked with wants a big "story." They are driven by headlines. Taking down local mom's pharmaco is the opposite of the narrative people want to read in the paper. We like the headline of this article: megacorp pfizer is evil. That's why we're in this thread, right?
    - forgetfreeman 4y ago
      You may disagree but the history of the Office of Inspector General crapping on sub-200 headcount biotech and pharma startups doesn't mesh with any of that. Keep in mind smaller firms don't put up anywhere near the fight a multinational like Pfizer is capable of, and the OIG knows this.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  We are told the opposite fairy tale when it comes to the IRS. "They have to go after regular people and small business owners because corporations have too many lawyers!"
  - clucas 4y ago
    Interesting, who makes that argument?
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      I can find someone making that case with a quick Google: https://www.april15th.com/irs-problems/why-irs-audits-more-small-businesses-than-big-corporations/ https://www.april15th.com/irs-problems/why-irs-audits-more-s... > The IRS brings in more dollars per hour auditing small mom and pop businesses, than they do auditing medium and large companies. > Why is that the case? Because the larger companies keep impeccable records and have tax experts to defend them; Enrolled Agents, CPAs, or tax attorneys that usually know more about the Tax Code than the IRS auditor-employee. I've found it in my conversations with people justifying the recent increases in IRS agents and the new $600 reporting requirement.
      - clucas 4y ago
        Reading that link, it appears they are saying the IRS is concentrates its efforts on small businesses because they have the best chance of recovery. You called it a fairy tale, do you believe that big corporations are actually bigger tax cheats than small businesses, and they're just getting away with it somehow?
        willcipriano 4y ago
        I do not have any of direct evidence of anything, I'm just a guy with a brain. This is one of many in a long series of "coincidences" that when put together starts to become nonsensical. Look at where we started. Pfizer gets fined more beacuse they are a bigger company and have more surface area, the law is complex and everyone is breaking it all the time so action against them doesn't mean they did anything wrong. In and of itself fine, that may be true. Then those same people will later say, the IRS went after that Mexican restaurant instead of Pfizer beacuse they are so big, and run such a tight ship that it would almost impossible to find any wrong doing. The tax code is very complex, so is drug regulation. Is the idea that Pfizer is hyper competent in tax law but incompetent when it comes to the core business? That doesn't hold water for me.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
Because Pfizer is a bigger target? Kind of like 3 Felonies a Day, lots of times the laws/regulations are so labyrinthine that if they look at you closely, they will find something.
hoffs 4y ago
Because you make example of big player, not small one.
- themaninthedark 4y ago
  But the opposite is claimed with respect to IRS audits. With that we are told the IRS goes after and fines the little guy because the rich can spend money for defense. Shouldn't we expect to see similar behaviors across regulators?
  - wbl 4y ago
    There are very different incentives for different regulators who operate with different bodies of law and degrees of compliance.
jollyllama 4y ago
I'll join the sibling comments in speculation: They're so big that they can either get away with it in aggregate or when they can't, can count on favorable judgements, like the comment about J&J. Favorable in the sense that the individuals personally responsible won't face the ramifications.
- forgetfreeman 4y ago
  Nailed it in one. I'm old enough to vividly remember the first time Pfizer the corporations-are-people business entity was convicted of a felony. In the decades since not only have they failed to substantially alter their approach to compliance issues, most of the largest industry players have followed suit since the profit/loss ratio for ignoring regulations has been shown by Pfizer's financials.

unmole 4y ago

A behemoth like Pfizer is a more attractive target for enforcement agencies?

forgetfreeman 4y ago
Nah. Regulators have performance metrics same as everyone. They'll gleefully target 150 headcount biotech firms in a heartbeat if they think there's a win to be had and smaller firms generally dont have the legal war chest required to fight a complianceviolation beef. See Also: OIG going after United Therapeutics on light pretext.
spamizbad 4y ago
Pfizer has more "surface area" but beyond that, no. Prosecutors love shooting fish in a barrel: it actually makes smaller biotech firms more attractive regulation targets.
- johndhi 4y ago
  Disagree. Every civil prosecutor I've ever worked with wants a big "story." They are driven by headlines. Taking down local mom's pharmaco is the opposite of the narrative people want to read in the paper. We like the headline of this article: megacorp pfizer is evil. That's why we're in this thread, right?
  - forgetfreeman 4y ago
    You may disagree but the history of the Office of Inspector General crapping on sub-200 headcount biotech and pharma startups doesn't mesh with any of that. Keep in mind smaller firms don't put up anywhere near the fight a multinational like Pfizer is capable of, and the OIG knows this.
willcipriano 4y ago
We are told the opposite fairy tale when it comes to the IRS. "They have to go after regular people and small business owners because corporations have too many lawyers!"
- clucas 4y ago
  Interesting, who makes that argument?
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    I can find someone making that case with a quick Google: https://www.april15th.com/irs-problems/why-irs-audits-more-small-businesses-than-big-corporations/ https://www.april15th.com/irs-problems/why-irs-audits-more-s... > The IRS brings in more dollars per hour auditing small mom and pop businesses, than they do auditing medium and large companies. > Why is that the case? Because the larger companies keep impeccable records and have tax experts to defend them; Enrolled Agents, CPAs, or tax attorneys that usually know more about the Tax Code than the IRS auditor-employee. I've found it in my conversations with people justifying the recent increases in IRS agents and the new $600 reporting requirement.
    - clucas 4y ago
      Reading that link, it appears they are saying the IRS is concentrates its efforts on small businesses because they have the best chance of recovery. You called it a fairy tale, do you believe that big corporations are actually bigger tax cheats than small businesses, and they're just getting away with it somehow?
      - willcipriano 4y ago
        I do not have any of direct evidence of anything, I'm just a guy with a brain. This is one of many in a long series of "coincidences" that when put together starts to become nonsensical. Look at where we started. Pfizer gets fined more beacuse they are a bigger company and have more surface area, the law is complex and everyone is breaking it all the time so action against them doesn't mean they did anything wrong. In and of itself fine, that may be true. Then those same people will later say, the IRS went after that Mexican restaurant instead of Pfizer beacuse they are so big, and run such a tight ship that it would almost impossible to find any wrong doing. The tax code is very complex, so is drug regulation. Is the idea that Pfizer is hyper competent in tax law but incompetent when it comes to the core business? That doesn't hold water for me.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago

Because Pfizer is a bigger target? Kind of like 3 Felonies a Day, lots of times the laws/regulations are so labyrinthine that if they look at you closely, they will find something.

hoffs 4y ago

Because you make example of big player, not small one.

themaninthedark 4y ago
But the opposite is claimed with respect to IRS audits. With that we are told the IRS goes after and fines the little guy because the rich can spend money for defense. Shouldn't we expect to see similar behaviors across regulators?
- wbl 4y ago
  There are very different incentives for different regulators who operate with different bodies of law and degrees of compliance.

jollyllama 4y ago

I'll join the sibling comments in speculation: They're so big that they can either get away with it in aggregate or when they can't, can count on favorable judgements, like the comment about J&J. Favorable in the sense that the individuals personally responsible won't face the ramifications.

forgetfreeman 4y ago
Nailed it in one. I'm old enough to vividly remember the first time Pfizer the corporations-are-people business entity was convicted of a felony. In the decades since not only have they failed to substantially alter their approach to compliance issues, most of the largest industry players have followed suit since the profit/loss ratio for ignoring regulations has been shown by Pfizer's financials.