Competition and Markets, Government, Legal, NHS, Society

Price-hiking pharmaceutical firms fined £260m

CMA RULING

PHARMACEUTICAL companies have been fined £260million after overcharging the NHS for life-saving drugs for almost a decade.

UK firms increased the price of hydrocortisone by more than 12,000 per cent and paid would-be rivals to stay out of the market, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) found.

The watchdog said Auden Mckenzie and Actavis UK, now known as Accord-UK, charged “excessively high prices” for the pills, used to treat adrenal insufficiency. The cost of a pack rose from 70p in 2008 to £88 by 2016 – a 12,471 per cent increase.

Meanwhile, NHS spending on the drug, which is taken by tens of thousands – including for the life-threatening condition Addison’s disease – rose from £500,000 a year to £80million.

Andrea Coscelli, chief executive of the CMA, said: “These are without doubt some of the most serious abuses we have uncovered in recent years. The actions of these firms cost the NHS – and therefore taxpayers – hundreds of millions of pounds.” The firms exploited the fact that de-branded drugs are not subject to NHS price regulation, enabling them to increase their prices without constraint.

Auden Mckenzie bought the licences for hydrocortisone and launched generic versions in 2008. It paid off rivals AMCo, now Advanz Pharma, and Waymade. Actavis UK took over the business in 2015 and continued paying off AMCo to stay out of the market.

The CMA said: “Auden Mckenzie’s decision to raise prices for de-branded drugs meant that the NHS had no choice but to pay huge sums of taxpayers’ money for life-saving medicines. These were egregious breaches of the law that artificially inflated the costs faced by the NHS, reducing the money available for patient care.

“Our fine serves as a warning to any other drug firm planning to exploit the NHS.”

The regulator said that Accord-UK will be liable for £65.6million of the fine, while former parent company Allergan is solely liable for £109.1million. The pair are also jointly liable for £2million.

Accord-UK, Accord Healthcare and the current parent company Intas are jointly and severally liable for £44.4million, the CMA said. There is a total fine of £42.8million for AMCo, while Waymade will be required to pay £2.5million.

The CMA’s decision also means the NHS will be able to seek damages for the firms’ behaviour. Accord said it is “disappointed” by the ruling and intends to appeal.

Standard
Britain, Government, Internet, Legal, Society, Technology

New enforceable code for web giants

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

FACEBOOK, Google and other social media platforms will be forced to introduce strict age checks on their websites or assume all their users are children.

Web firms that hoover up people’s personal information will have to guarantee they know the age of their users before allowing them to set up an account.

Companies that refuse will face fines of up to 4 per cent of their global turnover – £1.67billion in the case of Facebook.

The age checks are part of a tough new code being drawn up by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which is backed by existing laws and will come into force as early as the autumn.

. See also Internet safety: The era of tech self-regulation is ending

Experts claim it will have a “transformative” effect on social media sites, which have been accused of exposing young people to dangerous and illicit material, bullying and predators. It includes rules to help protect children from paedophiles online.

The code also aims to stop web firms bombarding children with harmful content, a problem highlighted by the case of Molly Russell, 14, who killed herself after Instagram allowed her to view self-harm images. Under the new code:

. Tech firms will be banned from building up a “profile” of children based on their search history, and then using it to send them suggestions for material such as pornography, hate speech and self-harm.

. Children’s privacy settings must automatically be set to the highest level.

. Geolocation services must be switched off by default, making it harder for trolls and paedophiles to target children based on their whereabouts.

. Tech firms will not be allowed to include features on children’s accounts designed to fuel addictive behaviour, including online videos that automatically start one after the other, notifications that arrive through the night, and prompts nudging children to lower their privacy settings.

Once the new rules are implemented, children should be asked to prove their age by uploading their passports or birth certificate to an independent verification firm. This would then give them a digital “fingerprint” which they could use to demonstrate their age on other websites.

Alternatively, the tech firms could ask children to get their parents’ consent, and have the parents prove their identity with a credit card.

If the web giants cannot guarantee the age of their users, they will have to assume they are all children – and dramatically limit the amount of information they collect on them, as set out in the code.

At present, a third of British children aged 11 and nearly half of those aged 12 have an account on Facebook, Twitter or another social network, OFCOM figures show.

Many youngsters are exposed to material or conversations they are too young to cope with as a result.

The Deputy Commissioner at the ICO, said: “We are going to be making it quite clear that there is a reasonable expectation that companies stick to their own published terms and policies, including what they say about age restrictions.”

A House of Lords amendment tabled by Baroness Beeban Kidron that ensures the new code will be drawn up and put into law, said: “I expect the code to say: ‘You may not, as a company, help children find things that are detrimental to their health and well-being.’ That is transformative. This is so radical because it goes into the engine room, into the mechanics of how businesses work and says you cannot exploit children.”

The rules will come into force by the end of the year, and will be policed by the ICO, which has the powers to hand out huge fines.

It will also use its powers to crack down on any web firm that does not have controls in place to enforce its own terms and conditions. Companies that say they ban pornography and hate speech online will have to show the watchdog they have reporting mechanisms in place, and that they quickly remove problem material.

Firms that demand children are aged 13 or above – as most web giants do – will also have to demonstrate that they strictly enforce this policy.

At the moment, web giants such as Facebook, simply ask children to confirm their age by entering their date of birth without demanding proof.

 

FOR far too long, social media giants have arrogantly refused to take responsibility for the filth swilling across their sites.

Many of these firms, cloistered in Silicon Valley ivory towers, are owned by tax-avoiding billionaires who are indifferent to the trauma inflicted on children using websites such as Facebook and Instagram.

At the click of a mouse, young children are at risk of exposure to paedophiles, self-harm images, online pornography and extremist propaganda.

Finally, however, these behemoths are being brought to heel by the Information Commissioner (ICO). They must ensure strict age checks and stop bombarding children with damaging content – or face multi-million-pound fines.

Such enforced regulation is very welcome and well overdue.

Standard
Britain, Government, Legal, Military

Criminal probe launched into bullying at military base

BRITAIN

Intro: 24 years after historic allegations of abuse at Deepcut military barracks, a criminal probe is launched by Surrey Police

POLICE have launched a criminal investigation into assault allegations surrounding the suicide of a young soldier at the notorious Deepcut barracks almost 24 years ago.

Private Sean Benton, 20, was the first of four British soldiers to die in shootings at the Princess Royal Barracks in Surrey between 1995 and 2002 amid claims of bullying from more senior soldiers and other recruits.

A fresh inquest into Private Benton’s 1995 death ruled last year that he killed himself after being subjected to physical and psychological abuse.

He was found with five bullet wounds to the chest days after being “punched and kicked” by an instructor, leading to calls for a criminal prosecution.

Now, having reviewed evidence from the inquest in Woking, police have opened a new probe into allegations of assault and misconduct in public office.

The investigation was launched in October and has emerged as a fresh inquest into the death of another private, Geoff Gray, was opened earlier this week. It will cover a period from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s.

A spokesperson said: “Surrey Police reviewed the findings [of] the coroner and the Benton family’s request for a new criminal investigation into allegations including assault and misconduct in public office.

“A criminal investigation is under way into a number of allegations.” Three other recruits – Private Cheryl James, 18, Private Gray, 17, and Private James Collinson, 17 – also died at the base between 1995 and 2002 amid claims of bullying and abuse.

Private Collinson, from Perth, was the fourth person to die at the barracks. He was found dead with a single gunshot wound through his chin on March 23, 2002. An inquest into his death in 2006 returned an open verdict.

The coroner at Private Benton’s inquest, Peter Rook QC, delivered a damning five-hour narrative verdict of suicide last June, describing the harsh treatment the soldier was subjected to at the barracks.

He said: “There was a toxic culture at Deepcut at which Sean was frequently the recipient of actions.” He added that Private Benton was often on the receiving end of punishments by senior officers.

The court heard that the recruit was ordered to carry out degrading exercises by one non-commissioned officer, Sergeant Andrew Gavaghan, who has repeatedly denied allegations of abusive behaviour.

This included Private Benton having to perform press-ups on top of a female lance corporal in front of other recruits.

The court heard how a week before the death in June 1995, Sergeant Gavaghan kicked the soldier as he did press-ups.

Mr Rook added: “At times he [Sergeant Gavaghan] did lose control of himself.”

The coroner noted that Private Benton was told he was due to be discharged from the Army after a series of disciplinary problems and his feelings of shame had contributed to his state of mind.

His original inquest was held a month after his death and recorded a verdict of suicide.

But Private Benton’s family wanted the fresh inquest after allegations of bullying and a cover-up emerged at Deepcut.

The coroner also described a litany of failures with the original “woefully inadequate” police inquiry. Shortly after the inquest began, the Army apologised and said there were “a number of things that could and should have been better”.

The second inquest into the death of Private Gray has been launched after a campaign by his parents.

Standard