Roche Suit Seeks to Recover $87M From Fraudulent Sale of Diabetes Test Strips
Alliance is accused of illegally exploit the substantial difference in wholesale list price and insurance reimbursement rates for the strips.
March 21, 2019 at 04:51 PM
4 minute read
Roche Diagnostics claims in a new lawsuit that its glucose test strips for diabetes patients were at the center of an $87 million insurance fraud scheme carried out by a Utah company.
The suit filed in Newark federal court Tuesday names six former officers and directors of Alliance Medical Holdings as defendants, as well as a series of affiliate companies that allegedly financed Alliance's fraudulent activities—Hughes & Company Investment Partners and the Pritzker Group, both of Chicago, and Mercato Partners of Cottonwood Heights, Utah. Also named as a defendant is Zions Bancorporation of Salt Lake City. Those companies allegedly knew of and approved the fraudulent scheme, the suit claims.
The suit says Alliance ran an elaborate scheme to obtain blood glucose test strips that were manufactured and packaged by Roche for sale by mail-order insurance plans, but sold those strips to beneficiaries of insurance plans that cover test strips under a pharmacy benefit.
Alliance then submitted claims to pharmacy benefit plans, allowing it to illegally exploit the substantial difference in wholesale list price and insurance reimbursement rates between the two products, the suit claims. Roche said in the suit that it seeks “to obtain compensation for the damages caused by defendants' fraud and other wrongful acts.”
Alliance, based in South Jordan, Utah, is not a party in Roche's suit. It filed a Chapter 11 petition in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in 2017.
The suit said Alliance's fraudulent enterprise had a New Jersey arm at Peterson's Pharmacy in South Amboy, which the company purchased in 2016. Peterson's Pharmacy submitted false insurance claims for over 10 million Roche test strips between 2014 and 2017, and several of the individual defendants were personally involved in establishing, operating or managing Alliance's fraudulent activities in New Jersey through Peterson's Pharmacy, the suit said.
Alliance built a base of diabetes patients through websites that obtained valuable information about consumers by having them sign up for various services and discounts, Roche claims. Alliance employees in call centers phoned these people to convince them to buy test strips from Alliance.
Alliance acquired its low-cost Roche test strips from “diverters” or third parties, who obtain them from distributors willing to breach their contract with manufacturers and sell their strips on the secondary market, the suit claims.
Roche strips labeled for retail sale were sold to wholesalers at prices ranging from $51 to $78 for a vial containing 50 strips, the suit said. The wholesalers sell the strips to retailers at a markup from the wholesale price. A patient's insurance plan reimburses the pharmacy at an additional markup. Roche then pays a rebate to the insurance company, for an amount that was redacted from the public version of the complaint.
In comparison, Roche sells strips labeled “not for retail sale” to mail-order distributors for under $20 for a 50-strip vial, and insurance plans reimburse the mail-order distributor at a small markup on this price. Roche does not pay rebates to insurance plans for strips sold through mail order, the company says.
Roche brings claims under the federal and New Jersey versions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against all defendants other than Zions Bancorporation. Against all defendants, it brings claims for conspiracy to violate federal and New Jersey RICO laws; fraud; unjust enrichment; negligent misrepresentation; and tortious interference with prospective business relations.
Roche is represented by Geoffrey Potter, chairman of the anti-counterfeiting practice at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler in New York, who declined to comment.
Representatives of Hughes & Co., Pritzker Group, Mercato Partners and Zions Bancorporation did not respond to requests for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All$10 Million Settlement Reached for Baby Injured by Disconnected Ventilator
3 minute readJury Awards Horizon $2.4 Million for Fraudulent Billing Against 3 NJ Health Care Providers
2 minute readVirtua Drug Tests Pregnancy Patients Without Consent, NJ Attorney General Alleges in New Suit
3 minute readNJ Supreme Court Considers Ability to Add Nonparty Doctors to Med Mal Verdict Sheets
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250