US FTC sues drug 'gatekeepers' over high insulin prices
Adds outside comment in paragraphs 6-7, drug company comment in paragraph 18, investor comment in paragraphs 21-22
By Jody Godoy and Ahmed Aboulenein
Sept 20 (Reuters) -The U.S. Federal Trade Commission sued the country's three largest pharmacy benefit managers on Friday, accusing them of steering diabetes patients towards higher priced insulin in order to reap millions of dollars in rebates from pharmaceutical companies.
The case accuses UnitedHealth Group Inc's UNH.N Optum unit, CVS Health Corp's CVS.N CVS Caremark and Cigna Corp's CI.N Express Scripts of unfairly excluding lower cost insulin products from lists of drugs covered by insurers.
Driving down drug prices has been a key goal for the Biden administration, and Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, has emphasized her work for patients, and in particular on lowering insulin prices, on the campaign trail.
The conduct hurt patients, such as those with coinsurance and deductibles, who were not eligible for the rebated price, the FTC said. The three companies together administer 80% of all prescriptions in the U.S., according to the case, which was filed in the FTC's in-house court.
The three companies said in statements that the suit was baseless and defended their business practices, saying that they had lowered insulin prices for businesses, unions and patients.
KFF health policy expert Larry Levitt described the FTC action as a "shot across the bow."
"Insulin is an extreme case of PBMs extracting bigger and bigger rebates from drug manufacturers and driving list prices up at the pharmacy counter, but this is a dynamic that plays out with many medications," he said.
CVS shares fell 1.4% in midday trading, while UnitedHealth and Cigna shares were flat.
The suit also named Zinc Health Services, Ascent Health Services, and Emisar Pharma Services, purchasing organizations created by the companies in recent years.
CVS spokesman David Whitrap said in an emailed statement that the company has worked to make insulin more affordable for Americans and described the FTC as being "simply wrong." It said it provided insulin at $25 through a reduced price program.
Cigna Chief Legal Officer Andrea Nelson said if the FTC were to succeed in forcing it and others to include drugs that have higher total net costs for health plans, drug prices would rise.
Optum Rx spokesperson Elizabeth Hoff said the company has lowered insulin costs for its health plan customers and members to an average of less than $18 per month.
'MEDICATION GATEKEEPERS'
Rahul Rao, Deputy Director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, said in a statement that the three pharmacy benefit managers are "medication gatekeepers" that have "extracted millions of dollars off the backs of patients who need life-saving medications."
"Millions of Americans with diabetes need insulin to survive, yet for many of these vulnerable patients, their insulin drug costs have skyrocketed over the past decade thanks in part to powerful PBMs and their greed," he said.
The case will be heard by one of the FTC's three administrative law judges.
The FTC did not sue the three major makers of insulin, Eli Lilly LLY.N, Sanofi SASY.PA, and Novo Nordisk NOVOb.CO, but it did criticise their role in what it called a broken system, and said it reserves the right to sue the pharmaceutical companies later.
The drugmakers' shares did not react on Friday afternoon.
Sanofi and Lilly said the FTC’s lawsuit addressed aspects of the U.S. healthcare system they had long advocated to reform and that they had programs to reduce the out-of-pocket cost of their insulins to $35.
CVS Caremark said in its statement that any attempt to curtail pharmacy benefit managers' ability to negotiate drug prices will only benefit pharmaceutical companies.
The three PBMs have criticised the FTC's approach to the industry, accusing it of bias. Express Scripts sued the FTC earlier this week seeking to force it to withdraw a report that said PBMs enrich themselves at the expense of smaller pharmacies.
James Harlow, Senior Vice President at Novare Capital Management said PBMs have withstood previous criticism.
"Despite intense scrutiny, negative headlines, and attempts to pass legislation targeting PBMs, this business continues to be sticky and generates solid growth and margins," he said. Novare owns UnitedHealth and CVS shares, regulatory filings show.
Reporting by Jody Godoy in New York and Ahmed Aboulenein in Washington; Additional reporting by Amina Niasse and Patrick Wingrove in New York and Bhanvi Satija and Sriparna Roy in Bengaluru; Editing by Aurora Ellis and Caroline Humer
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.
