Pennsylvania pharmacies seek to centralize GoodRx antitrust claims in Rhode Island
By Brendan Pierson
Nov 27 (Reuters) -Two independent pharmacies are seeking to centralize in Rhode Island federal court at least four proposed class action lawsuits accusing drug coupon aggregator GoodRx and pharmacy benefit managers, including CVS Caremark CVS.N and Cigna's CI.N Express Scripts, of attempting to push small pharmacies out of the market by depriving them of payments for generic drugs.
In a motion filed on Tuesday before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Pennsylvania-based Old Baltimore Pike Apothecary and Smith's Pharmacy said that the court in Providence was a convenient venue because CVS Caremark is headquartered there, and because it has a relatively light docket and is easily reachable by plane and train.
In a lawsuit filed in the Rhode Island court, the two pharmacies accused GoodRx, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts and privately held PBMs Navitus and MedImpact of working together to suppress reimbursements to small pharmacies for generic prescription drugs.
Three other similar lawsuits have been filed in federal court in Los Angeles, California, near GoodRx's Santa Monica headquarters. If the judicial panel grants Tuesday's motion, those cases would be transferred to a newly created multidistrict litigation in Rhode Island for pretrial proceedings.
The lawyers seeking the MDL also filed a new class action in the Rhode Island court on Tuesday on behalf of Hunnington Pharmacy in Alabama. That case is not included in the motion to centralize the cases.
"CVS Caremark generally reimburses independent pharmacies at higher levels than chain drugstores, including CVS pharmacies," CVS Caremark spokesperson Mike DeAngelis said in an email. "These lawsuits are entirely without merit, and we will vigorously defend against them."
Navitus declined to comment, as did a lawyer for one of the California plaintiffs. Other defendants and the other California plaintiffs' lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
PBMs negotiate prescription drug prices between insurers, pharmacies and drugmakers, and directly reimburse pharmacies for prescription drugs under the terms of the plans they have negotiated. They also offer discount cards that patients can use at their pharmacy networks, which were historically often used by people without insurance to pay for drugs out of pocket.
Until recently, according to the lawsuits, patients could choose to use a discount card instead of their insurance plan if it offered a lower price, but the payment would not be counted toward their deductible. GoodRx is a service that patients can use to check what discounts are available for a drug at a particular pharmacy.
The plaintiffs allege that, starting last year, the PBMs and GoodRx entered into agreements in which the PBMs would use GoodRx's software to compare all available discounts for all patients' generic drug prescriptions, and route each purchase through the PBM with the lowest price — even if it was different than the patient's PBM.
The pharmacy pays a fee, which under the new agreement is split between the patient's PBM and the PBM that handles the purchase. The PBMs do not reimburse pharmacies for these transactions, meaning the patients' cash payment represents the pharmacies' only revenue, and PBMs' profits increase, the lawsuits say.
Large pharmacies, including those directly affiliated with PBMs, such as CVS, can weather the lower reimbursements, but independent pharmacies cannot, the lawsuits say. They allege that the scheme aims to drive smaller pharmacies, which compete with larger PBM affiliates, out of the market, violating federal antitrust law.
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and court orders stopping the allegedly anticompetitive conduct.
The California plaintiffs are Minnesota-based Keaveny Drug, Michigan-based Community Care Pharmacy and Florida-based Ethos Wellness Pharmacy.
PBMs' business practices have drawn increasing scrutiny in recent years, including by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission accusing the three largest PBMs of driving up the cost of insulin drugs.
The case is In re: GoodRx and Pharmacy Benefit Manager Antitrust Litigation, U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, No. 74.
For Rhode Island plaintiffs: Gregory Asciolla of DiCello Levitt, Stephen Prignano of McIntyre Tate and Joshua Grabar of Grabar Law Office and others
For Keaveny Drug: Heidi Silton of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, Bobby Pouya of Pearson Warshaw and others
For Community Care Pharmacy: Halley Josephs of Susman Godfrey; Natasha Fernandez-Silber of Edelson and others
For Ethos Wellness: Mark Richards of the Clarkson Law Firm, Jason Sultzer of Sultzer & Lipari and others
For GoodRx: David Lender of Weil, Gotshal & Manges and others
For CVS Caremark: Robert Atkins of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and others
For MedImpact: Michelle Lowery of McDermott Will & Emery and others
For Navitus: Michael Jusczyk of Greenberg Traurig and others
For Express Scripts: Not available
Read more:
GoodRx, PBMs accused of suppressing reimbursements to independent pharmacies
Why are US pharmacy benefit managers under fire?
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.
