Texas attorney general sues insulin makers and pharmacy middlemen over high costs
Adds OptumRx, Cigna and Sanofi responses in paragraphs 11-15
Oct 3 (Reuters) -The Texas attorney general has sued leading insulin manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), accusing them of collaborating to inflate the cost of insulin.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office said on Thursday it had sued insulin makers Eli Lilly LLY.N, Novo Nordisk NOVOb.CO and Sanofi SASY.PA.
The office had also sued PBMs, including CVS' CVS.N Caremark, Cigna's CI.N Express Scripts, and UnitedHealth's UNH.N OptumRx, who act as intermediaries in negotiating drug prices and coverage.
WHY IT'S IMPORTANT
The lawsuit targets both insulin manufacturers and PBMs. The previous action by U.S. antitrust regulators only targeted PBMs.
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission, in September, sued the same PBMs, accusing them of steering diabetes patients towards higher-priced insulin in order to secure millions of dollars in rebates from pharmaceutical companies.
At that time, the FTC had not sued the insulin manufacturers, but had criticized their role in what it called a broken system.
CONTEXT
In the Texas lawsuit, Paxton accused that manufacturers artificially raised the prices of insulin and then paid a significant, undisclosed portion back to the PBMs for preferential treatment in return.
The PBMs subsequently awarded preferred status to the manufacturer with the highest list prices, while excluding lower-priced drugs, the press release from the attorney general's office said.
KEY QUOTE
"Big Pharma insulin manufacturers and PBMs worked together to take advantage of diabetes patients and drive prices as high as they could," said Paxton.
"Allegations that we play any role in determining the prices charged by manufacturers for their products are false, and we intend to vigorously defend against this baseless suit," CVS said inan emailed statement.
"This lawsuit is without merit and ignores the reality of the current market," UnitedHealth's OptumRx said.
While Cigna did not provide a direct comment, the company redirected Reuters to its Sept. 20 statement , where it said the action filed by the FTC related to insulin pricing is demonstrably baseless.
"Novo Nordisk believes that the allegations in the lawsuit are meritless, and we intend to vigorously defend against these claims," a company spokesperson told Reuters.
"While we will not comment on the specifics of the allegations, Sanofi's pricing practices have always complied with the law," the French drugmaker said in an emailed statement.
Lilly did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Reporting by Puyaan Singh and Mariam Sunny in Bengaluru; Editing by Mohammed Safi Shamsi
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
