McKesson Accused in New Filing of Skimming Excess Cancer Drugs for Profit
Pharmaceutical company McKesson Corp. and two of its subsidiaries engaged in a scheme to skim excess oncology drugs from prepackaged vials, a health care provider has alleged in a new complaint filed in Brooklyn federal court.
April 05, 2018 at 03:38 PM
4 minute read
McKesson headquarters in San Francisco. Photo Credit: David Tran Photo/Shutterstock.com
Pharmaceutical company McKesson Corp. and two of its subsidiaries engaged in a scheme to skim excess oncology drugs from prepackaged vials, a health care provider has alleged in a new complaint filed in Brooklyn federal court.
Omni Healthcare, a Florida-based health care provider, filed the qui tam suit on behalf of the federal government, 30 state governments, the city governments of Chicago and New York City and the District of Columbia.
Omni seeks a $10,000 civil penalty for each violation of the False Claims Act, as well as treble damages. The suit also names the Oncology Therapeutics Network, which McKesson acquired in 2007; and US Oncology, which McKesson acquired in 2010, as defendants.
Omni's allegations, filed on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, are contained in a second amended complaint for a lawsuit originally filed in 2012.
The federal government opted not to pursue the aspects of the case contained in the second amended complaint and other aspects of the case remain under seal, said George Carpinello of Boies Schiller Flexner, who represents Omni.
According to the new complaint, the United States Pharmacopeial Convention requires that the single-use vials of pharmaceutical drugs be slightly overfilled to permit withdrawal; many manufacturers overfill the vials, which are subject to approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, to ensure that patients receive proper dosages.
Additionally, the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has made it a rule not to reimburse medical providers for overfill.
But from roughly 2001 to 2010, Omni alleged, the defendants extracted the overfill from oncology drugs, repacked it and distributed it to medical providers who then applied with the government for reimbursement.
Omni claims that it spent $3 million on oncology drugs between 2007 and 2010.
Omni alleged that one of its principals personally witnessed the scheme at work in 2007 at an Oncology Therapeutics Network drug facility in Texas, where workers pooled overfill oncology drugs and repackaged them, sometimes with fake product codes and expiration dates.
The physicians would use the overfill and then pin the bill on the government.
“They set up a scheme to give medical providers an opportunity to charge Medicare and Medicaid for free drugs, which is illegal,” Carpinello said.
In addition to making profit from essentially free drugs, Omni alleged, the defendant put patient safety at risk by repackaging the oncology drugs in non-sterile syringes and in unclean facilities. Omni also alleged that, since the repackaged overfill was not computed in the average sale price for the drug, the government reimbursed medical providers at artificially inflated prices.
A spokesperson from San Francisco-based McKesson did not respond to a request for comment. The company told the trade publication Modern Healthcare, which first reported the new filing, that it is reviewing the complaint.
In addition to Carpinello, Omni's legal team includes Boies Schiller attorneys Courtney Rockett, Lisa Sokolowski and Teresa Monroe.
The new complaint comes at a time of heightened scrutiny of pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors over pricing issues and what role Big Pharma may have played in contributing to the opioid addiction epidemic that President Donald Trump has termed a national public health emergency.
As Omni noted in the complaint, its new filing comes several months after AmerisourceBergen Corp. pleaded guilty at the Eastern District courthouse in Brooklyn to taking part in an overfill resale scheme similar to that alleged in the complaint against McKesson.
According to a release from the U.S. Department of Justice, AmerisourceBergen agreed to pay a total of $260 million in criminal penalties and forfeiture and has also built up a $625 million reserve to settle civil claims, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
In September, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that a coalition of 41 state attorneys general served McKesson and competitors AmerisourceBergen and Cardinal Health—which together manage 90 percent of the opioid distribution in the United States—with subpoenas for information about their distribution practices.
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 AllEuropean, US Litigation Funding Experts Look for Commonalities at NYU Event
Trending 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