throbber

`
`
`
`
`Case 4:19-cv-04994 Document 68 Filed on 10/13/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 149
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`
`
`COUNTY OF HARRIS, TEXAS
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`ELI LILLY AND COMPANY; NOVO
`NORDISK INC.; SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S.
`LLC; EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING
`COMPANY; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.;
`ESI MAIL PHARMACY SERVICES, INC.;
`EXPRESS SCRIPTS PHARMACY, INC.;
`CVS HEALTH CORPORATION;
`CAREMARK RX, L.L.C.; CAREMARK PCS
`HEALTH, L.L.C.; CAREMARK, L.L.C.;
`CAREMARK TEXAS MAIL PHARMACY,
`LLC; OPTUM, INC.; OPTUMRX INC.;
`AETNA RX HOME DELIVERY, LLC AND
`AETNA PHARMACY MANAGEMENT
`SERVICES, LLC.
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 4:19-cv-04994
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-04994 Document 68 Filed on 10/13/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 149
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
`PARTIES ............................................................................................ 7
`Plaintiff .......................................................................................................... 7
`Manufacturer Defendants ............................................................................. 8
`PBM Defendants .......................................................................................... 12
`
`III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ............................................................ 21
`Subject Matter Jurisdiction ......................................................................... 21
`Personal Jurisdiction ................................................................................... 21
`Venue ........................................................................................................... 22
`
`IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ................................................................ 23
`Diabetes and Insulin Therapy ..................................................................... 23
`The Dramatic Rise in the Price of Diabetes Medications .......................... 30
`PBMs and the Pharmaceutical Payment and Supply Chain ....................... 39
`The Insulin Pricing Scheme ........................................................................ 46
`The Insulin Pricing Scheme Deceived and Harmed Harris County and the
`Insulin Market ............................................................................................. 58
`TOLLING OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ....................................... 73
`Discovery Rule Tolling ................................................................................ 73
`Fraudulent Concealment Tolling ................................................................ 74
`Estoppel ....................................................................................................... 75
`Continuing Violations .................................................................................. 75
`
`VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ....................................................................... 75
`1. Violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”),
`18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) .................................................................................................. 75
`2. Violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) ................................................................. 91
`3. Violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) ............................................................... 107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-04994 Document 68 Filed on 10/13/20 in TXSD Page 3 of 149
`
`4. Violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) ............................................................... 122
`5. Texas Deceptive Trades Practices-Consumer Protection Act .............................. 124
`6. Common Law Fraud ............................................................................................. 137
`7. Money Had and Received ..................................................................................... 139
`8. Unjust Enrichment ............................................................................................... 141
`9. Civil Conspiracy .................................................................................................... 142
`VII. APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
`
`142
`VIII. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT ............................................................. 143
`IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ..................................................................... 143
`X.
`JURY DEMAND .............................................................................. 144
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-04994 Document 68 Filed on 10/13/20 in TXSD Page 4 of 149
`
`Plaintiff, Harris County, Texas, by and through the undersigned attorneys
`
`(“Plaintiff” or “Harris County”) brings this lawsuit against Defendants: Eli Lilly and
`
`Company; Novo Nordisk Inc.; Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC; Express Scripts Holding
`
`Company; Express Scripts, Inc.; ESI Mail Pharmacy Service, Inc.; Express Scripts
`
`Pharmacy, Inc.; CVS Health Corporation; Caremark Rx, L.L.C.; Caremark PCS Health,
`
`L.L.C.; Caremark, L.L.C.; Caremark Texas Mail Pharmacy, LLC; Optum, Inc.; OptumRx
`
`Inc.; Aetna Rx Home Delivery, LLC and Aetna Pharmacy Management Services, LLC
`
`(collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges on information and belief as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Diabetes is an epidemic in the United States. The total estimated cost of
`
`diagnosed diabetes in 2017 was $327 billion, including $237 billion in direct medical costs
`
`and $90 billion in reduced productivity.1 In Houston, Texas alone, diabetes-related costs
`
`reached $4.1 billion in 2015.2 One in four health care dollars is spent caring for people with
`
`diabetes.3 In total, nearly thirty (30) million people, 9.3% of the country, live with this
`
`disease.4 Of this number, approximately six million people rely on daily insulin treatments
`
`to survive.5
`
`
`1 See American Diabetes Association, The Staggering Cost of Diabetes, March 2018, available at
`https://www.diabetes.org/resources/statistics/cost-diabetes.
`2 See Tom Dart, Houston’s Health Crisis: By 2040, One in Five Residents Will Be Diabetic, The
`Guardian, Feb. 11, 2016, available at https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/feb/11/houston-
`health-crisis-diabetes-sugar-cars-diabetic.
`3 Supra note 1.
`4 Supra note 1.
`5 Carolyn Y. Johnson, Why treating diabetes keeps getting more expensive, WASH. POST (Oct.
`31, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/31/why-insulin- prices-
`have-kept-rising-for-95-years/.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-04994 Document 68 Filed on 10/13/20 in TXSD Page 5 of 149
`
`2.
`
`Defendants Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi (collectively, “Manufacturer
`
`Defendants”) manufacture the vast majority of insulins and other diabetes medications
`
`currently on the market in the United States.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, OptumRx and Aetna Rx
`
`(collectively “PBM Defendants”) manage the pharmacy benefits for the vast majority of
`
`individuals in the United States. As part of this work, PBM Defendants establish national
`
`formularies that, among other things, set the baseline for which diabetes medications are
`
`covered by insurance and which are not.
`
`4.
`
`Over the course of the last fifteen years, Manufacturer Defendants have in
`
`lockstep raised the reported prices of their respective diabetes drugs in an astounding
`
`manner.
`
`5.
`
`Insulins that today cost Manufacturer Defendants just $5 to produce and
`
`that were originally priced at $20 when released in the late 1990s, now range between
`
`$300 and $700.6
`
`6.
`
`In the last decade alone, Manufacturer Defendants have in tandem increased
`
`the prices of their insulins up to 1000%, taking the same price increase down to the
`
`decimal point within a few days of each other.7
`
`7.
`
`Figure 1 illustrates the rate in which Defendant Eli Lilly raised the price of
`
`its analog insulin, Humalog, compared to the rate of inflation for select consumer goods
`
`from 1997-2018.
`
`
`6 See Dzintars Gotham, Melissa J. Barber, Andrew Hill, Production Costs And Potential Prices
`For Biosimilars Of Human Insulin And Insulin Analogues, BMJ Global Health, Vol. 3, Issue 5,
`available at https://gh.bmj.com/content/3/5/e000850; Table 1 of this Complaint.
`7 See Irl B. Hirsch, MD, Changing Cost of Insulin Therapy in the U.S. (Mar. 6, 2016),
`http://professional.diabetes.org/files/media/Changing_Cost_Insulin.pdf; Figure 1 of
`this
`Complaint.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-04994 Document 68 Filed on 10/13/20 in TXSD Page 6 of 149
`
`Figure 1: Price Increase of Insulin vs. Selected Consumer Goods
`from 1997-2018
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-04994 Document 68 Filed on 10/13/20 in TXSD Page 7 of 149
`
`8.
`
`Remarkably, nothing about these medications has changed during that time
`
`period; today’s $350 drug is the exact same one Defendants sold decades ago for $20.8
`
`9.
`
`The current exorbitant price stands in stark contrast to insulin’s origins: the
`
`discoverers sold the original patent for $1 to ensure that the medication would remain
`
`affordable. Today, insulin has become the poster child for pharmaceutical price gouging.
`
`10.
`
`It has now become apparent that the reason behind the lockstep price
`
`increases is a conspiracy between PBM and Manufacturer Defendants to create a secret
`
`spread between the reported price for diabetic treatments (on which Harris County’s
`
`payments are based) and the true net price of those same drugs.9
`
`11.
`
`This conspiracy between Manufacturer and PBM Defendants is at the root
`
`of the instant complaint and referred to herein as the “Insulin Pricing Scheme.”10
`
`12.
`
`Both Manufacturer and PBM Defendants play vital roles and profit
`
`immensely from the Insulin Pricing Scheme.
`
`13.
`
`Given their market power and role in formulary and plan design, PBM
`
`Defendants wield enormous control over drug purchasing behavior.
`
`
`8 Indianapolis Business Journal, Lilly Insulin Prices Under Microscope, The Republic, Sept. 2.
`2017, available at
`http://www.therepublic.com/2017/09/03/lilly_insulin_prices_under_microscope/#:~:targetT
`ext=Lilly%20launched%20Humalog%20in%201996,month's%20supply%20for%20many%20p
`atients.&targetText=Instead%2C%20the%20company%20said%2C%20they,negotiate%20drug
`%20prices%20for%20insurers; see also Table 1 of this Complaint.
`9 For the purposes of this Complaint, “net price” refers to Manufacturer Defendants’ reported
`price minus all payments made by Manufacturer Defendants to PBM Defendants.
`10 The diabetes medications at issue in this case are Eli Lilly’s Humulin N, Humulin R, Humalog,
`Trulicity and Basaglar; Sanofi’s Lantus, Toujeo, Soliqua and Apidra; and Novo Nordisk’s Novolin
`R, Novolin N, Novolog, Levemir, Tresiba, Victoza and Ozempic. All of these drugs are insulins,
`except Trulicity, Victoza and Ozempic, which are non-insulin medications used in conjunction
`with insulins to treat Type 2 diabetes. While these drugs are clinically different than insulins, the
`relevant facts in this Complaint regarding Defendants’ fraudulent pricing scheme apply equally to
`Trulicity, Victoza and Ozempic. For the purposes of this Complaint, the Insulin Pricing Scheme
`includes the non-insulin drugs Trulicity, Victoza and Ozempic.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-04994 Document 68 Filed on 10/13/20 in TXSD Page 8 of 149
`
`14.
`
`PBM Defendants represent both publicly and to their clients that they use
`
`their market power to drive down prices for diabetes medications by forcing
`
`manufacturers to compete on price for formulary placement.
`
`15.
`
` This representation is patently false. Instead, PBM Defendants exploit their
`
`market power to cause substantial increases in the price of diabetes medications in order
`
`to create massive profits for themselves and Manufacturer Defendants—entirely at the cost
`
`of consumers and employers, such as Harris County, who provide employee health
`
`benefits.
`
`16.
`
`To gain formulary access, Manufacturer Defendants artificially and willingly
`
`raise their reported prices, and then secretly refund a significant portion of that price back
`
`to PBM Defendants. These refunds are provided under a variety of labels—rebates,
`
`discounts, credits, concession fees, etc.11 But, however they are described, they are a quid
`
`pro quo for formulary inclusion.
`
`17.
`
`PBMs then grant formulary status based upon the highest inflated price and
`
`the largest refund amount.
`
`18.
`
`This Insulin Pricing Scheme creates a “best of both worlds” scenario for
`
`Defendants. Manufacturer Defendants are able to make these secret payments to buy
`
`preferred formulary position—which significantly increases their revenue—without
`
`sacrificing their profit margins. PBM Defendants profit from the inflated reported price
`
`by: (1) retaining a significant percentage of Manufacturer Defendants’ payments; (2)
`
`
`11 In the context of this Complaint, the terms “refunds” and “rebates” are defined as all payments
`or financial benefits of any kind conferred by the Manufacturer Defendants to PBM Defendants,
`either directly via contract or indirectly via Manufacturer-controlled intermediaries. By way of
`example, “refunds” and “rebates” includes rebates, administrative fees, volume discounts, price
`or margin guarantees and any other form of consideration exchanged.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-04994 Document 68 Filed on 10/13/20 in TXSD Page 9 of 149
`
`pocketing an additional pricing spread between what a payor pays the PBM for an insulin
`
`script based on this inflated price and a lower price that the PBM reimburses the pharmacy
`
`for the same drug (“Pharmacy Spread”); and (3) diverting sales to their profitable mail
`
`order pharmacies.
`
`19.
`
`The Insulin Pricing Scheme has resulted in record profits for Defendants at
`
`the expense of Plaintiff Harris County.
`
`20. Harris County now spends more money on diabetes medications than for
`
`medications related to any other disease.
`
`21.
`
`In 2015 alone, the amount that Harris County spent on diabetes medications
`
`increased over 60% from the previous year.
`
`22.
`
`Since 2013, Harris County has spent more than $27 million on the at issue
`
`diabetes medications.12
`
`23.
`
`A substantial portion of this $27 million is attributable to Defendants’
`
`inflated prices that did not arise from transparent market forces, but rather from the secret
`
`dealings between Manufacturer and PBM Defendants—the Insulin Pricing Scheme
`
`described herein.
`
`24.
`
`This action alleges that Defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced And
`
`Corrupt Organizations Act, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and various Texas
`
`common laws by engaging in the Insulin Pricing Scheme. This scheme directly and
`
`foreseeably caused and continues to cause harm to Harris County.
`
`
`12 See Appendix A attached hereto for a chart detailing Harris County’s spends on the at issue
`drugs from 2013-2018. To note, 2013-2018 is only a subset of the damages period alleged in this
`Complaint.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-04994 Document 68 Filed on 10/13/20 in TXSD Page 10 of 149
`
`25.
`
`This action seeks damages, damage multipliers, attorneys’ fees, costs and
`
`injunctive relief to address and abate the harm caused by the Insulin Pricing Scheme.
`
`26.
`
`The relevant period for damages alleged in this Complaint is from 2003
`
`continuing through the present.
`
`II. PARTIES
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff, Harris County, is a body corporate and politic under the laws
`
`of the State of Texas.
`
`28.
`
`The Harris County government serves its almost five (5) million residents by
`
`providing vital services throughout the County. As a large government employer, Harris
`
`County provides health benefits to approximately 38,000 employees, retirees and their
`
`dependents (“Beneficiaries”). One of the benefits that Harris County offers its Beneficiaries
`
`is subsidizing their purchases of the pharmaceutical drugs, including diabetes
`
`medications, they need to survive. Harris County also purchases diabetes medications to
`
`administer directly to inmates in Harris County jails.
`
`29. As detailed in Appendix A, Harris County spends millions of dollars every
`
`year on the at issue drugs.
`
`30. Any increase in spending can have a detrimental effect on Harris County’s
`
`overall budget and, in turn, negatively impact its ability to provide necessary services to
`
`the community.
`
`31.
`
`The Insulin Pricing Scheme has had such an effect.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-04994 Document 68 Filed on 10/13/20 in TXSD Page 11 of 149
`
`
`
` Manufacturer Defendants
`
`32. Defendant Eli Lilly and Company (“Eli Lilly) is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Indiana and has a principal place of
`
`business at Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, Indiana 46285.
`
`33.
`
`Eli Lilly may be served through its registered agent: National Registered
`
`Agents, Inc., 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`34.
`
`In Texas and nationally, Eli Lilly manufactures, promotes and distributes
`
`several diabetes medications paid for by Plaintiff and at issue in this case: Humulin N,
`
`Humulin R, Humalog, Trulicity and Basaglar.
`
`35.
`
`Eli Lilly’s global revenues in 2018 were $3.2 billion from Trulicity, $2.99
`
`billion from Humalog, $1.33 billion from Humulin and $801 million from Basaglar.13
`
`36.
`
`Eli Lilly’s global revenues in 2017 were $2.03 billion from Trulicity, $2.85
`
`billion from Humalog, $1.33 billion from Humulin and $432 million from Basaglar.14
`
`37.
`
`Eli Lilly transacts business in Texas, targeting the Harris County market for
`
`its products, including the diabetes medications at issue in this lawsuit.
`
`38.
`
`Eli Lilly employs sales representatives throughout Texas, including in Harris
`
`County, to promote and sell Humulin N, Humulin R, Humalog, Trulicity and Basaglar. For
`
`example, Eli Lilly recently advertised online that it was seeking sales representatives in its
`
`diabetes primary care division to service Houston, Texas and the surrounding
`
`communities.15
`
`
`13 Eli Lilly, Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Dec. 31, 2018).
`14 Id.
`15 See
`https://careers.lilly.com/business/custom_fields.multipleregion/north%20america/410/5.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-04994 Document 68 Filed on 10/13/20 in TXSD Page 12 of 149
`
`39.
`
`Eli Lilly also directs advertising and informational materials to Harris
`
`County physicians and potential users of Eli Lilly’s products.
`
`40. At all times relevant hereto, Eli Lilly published its reported prices of its
`
`diabetes medications at issue in this lawsuit throughout the United States and Texas,
`
`including in Harris County.
`
`41.
`
`Between 2013-2018 alone (a subset of the total damages period at issue),
`
`Harris County spent over $11.9 million on Eli Lilly’s at issue drugs.
`
`42. Defendant Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC (“Sanofi”) is a Delaware limited
`
`liability company with its principal place of business at 55 Corporate Drive, Bridgewater,
`
`New Jersey 08807.
`
`43.
`
`Sanofi may be served through its registered agent: Corporation Service
`
`Company DBS CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211 East 7th Street, Suite
`
`620, Austin, Texas 78701.
`
`44.
`
`Sanofi manufactures, promotes and distributes pharmaceutical drugs both
`
`in Texas and nationally, including insulins and diabetes medications paid for by Plaintiff
`
`and at issue in this case: Lantus, Toujeo, Soliqua and Apidra.
`
`45.
`
`Sanofi’s global revenues in 2018 were $3.9 billion from Lantus, $923 million
`
`from Toujeo, $389 million from Apidra and $79 million for Soliqua.16
`
`46.
`
`Sanofi’s global revenues in 2018 were $5.08 billion from Lantus and $896
`
`million from Toujeo, $414 million from Apidra and $28.5 million from Soliqua.17
`
`47.
`
`Sanofi transacts business in Texas, targeting the Harris County market for
`
`its products, including the diabetes medications at issue in this lawsuit.
`
`
`16 Sanofi, Annual Report (Form 20-F) (Dec. 31, 2018).
`17 Id.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-04994 Document 68 Filed on 10/13/20 in TXSD Page 13 of 149
`
`48.
`
`Sanofi employs sales representatives throughout Texas, including in Harris
`
`County, to promote and sell Lantus, Toujeo, Soliqua and Apidra. For example, Sanofi
`
`recently advertised online that it was seeking Diabetes Specialty Sales Representatives in
`
`Texas.18
`
`49.
`
`Sanofi also directs advertising and informational materials to Texas
`
`physicians and potential users of Sanofi’s products.
`
`50. At all times relevant hereto, Sanofi published its reported prices of its
`
`diabetes medications at issue in this lawsuit throughout the United States and Texas,
`
`including in Harris County.
`
`51.
`
`Between 2013-2018 alone (a subset of the total damages period at issue),
`
`Harris County spent over $6.6 million on Sanofi’s at issue drugs.
`
`52. Defendant Novo Nordisk Inc. (“Novo Nordisk”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation. Its headquarters are at 800 Scudders Mill Road, Plainsboro, New Jersey
`
`08536.
`
`53. Novo Nordisk may be served through its registered agent: CT Corporation
`
`System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`54. Novo Nordisk manufactures, promotes and distributes pharmaceutical
`
`drugs both in Texas and nationally, including insulins and diabetic medications paid for
`
`by Plaintiff and at issue in this case: Novolin R, Novolin N, Novolog, Levemir, Tresiba,
`
`Victoza and Ozempic.
`
`
`18 See https://jobs.sanofi.us/search-jobs/texas/Texas%2C%20US/507-18104/1/3/6252001-
`4736286/31x25044/-99x25061/50/2.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-04994 Document 68 Filed on 10/13/20 in TXSD Page 14 of 149
`
`55. Novo Nordisk’s global revenues in 2018 were $4.19 billion from Novolog,
`
`$1.66 billion from Levemir, $1.19 billion from Tresiba and $3.61 billion from Victoza.19
`
`56. Nordisk’s global revenues in 2017 were $1.65 billion from Novolog, $1.05
`
`billion from Levemir, $781.4 million from Tresiba and $2.68 billion from Victoza.20
`
`57. Novo Nordisk transacts business in Texas, targeting the Harris County
`
`market for its products, including the diabetes medications at issue in this lawsuit.
`
`58. Novo Nordisk employs sales representatives throughout Texas, including in
`
`Harris County, to promote and sell Novolin R, Novolin N, Novolog, Levemir, Tresiba,
`
`Victoza and Ozempic. For example, Novo Nordisk recently advertised online that it was
`
`seeking Pharma Field Sales—Diabetes Care Specialists in Texas.21
`
`59. Novo Nordisk also directs advertising and informational materials to Texas
`
`physicians and potential users of Novo Nordisk’s products.
`
`60. At all times relevant hereto, Novo Nordisk published its reported prices of
`
`its diabetes medications at issue in this lawsuit throughout the United States and Texas,
`
`including in Harris County.
`
`61.
`
`Between 2013-2018 alone (a subset of the total damages period at issue),
`
`Harris County spent over $8.9 million on Novo Nordisk’s at issue drugs.
`
`62.
`
`Collectively, Defendants Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi are referred to as
`
`“Manufacturer Defendants.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19 Novo Nordisk, Annual Report (Form 20-F) (Dec. 31, 2018).
`20 Novo Nordisk, Annual Report (Form 20-F) (Dec. 31, 2017).
`21 See https://www.novonordisk-
`jobs.com/search/?createNewAlert=false&q=&locationsearch=texas.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-04994 Document 68 Filed on 10/13/20 in TXSD Page 15 of 149
`
`
`
`PBM Defendants
`
`63. Defendant CVS Health Corporation (“CVS Health”) is a corporation
`
`organized under the laws of Delaware and headquartered at One CVS Drive, Woonsocket,
`
`Rhode Island 02895. CVS Health transacts business and has locations throughout the
`
`United States and Texas.
`
`64.
`
`CVS Health may be served through its registered agent: The Corporation
`
`Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801.
`
`65. Defendant Caremark Rx, L.L.C. is a Delaware limited liability company
`
`and an immediate or indirect parent of many subsidiaries, including pharmacy benefit
`
`management and mail order subsidiaries. Caremark Rx, L.L.C. is a subsidiary of Defendant
`
`CVS Health and its principal place of business is at the same location as CVS Health.
`
`66.
`
`Caremark Rx, L.L.C. may be served through its registered agent: The
`
`Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington,
`
`Delaware 19801.
`
`67. Defendant Caremark L.L.C. is a California limited liability company
`
`whose principal place of business is at the same location as CVS Health. Caremark, L.L.C.
`
`is a subsidiary of CVS Health. Caremark, L.L.C. is also the direct or indirect parent of
`
`dozens of limited liability companies all over the U.S. that provide mail-order pharmacy
`
`services in the U.S. and in Texas.
`
`68.
`
`Caremark L.L.C. may be served through its registered agent: CT Corporation
`
`System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-04994 Document 68 Filed on 10/13/20 in TXSD Page 16 of 149
`
`69. Defendant CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C. is a Delaware limited liability
`
`company whose principal place of business is at the same location as CVS Health. CVS
`
`Health is the direct or indirect parent company of CaremarkPCS Health LLC.
`
`70.
`
` CaremarkPCS Health LLC, doing business as CVS Caremark, provides
`
`pharmacy benefit management services and has been registered to do business in Texas
`
`since at least 2009.
`
`71.
`
`CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C. may be served through its registered agent: CT
`
`Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`72. Defendant Caremark Texas Mail Pharmacy, LLC, doing business as
`
`CVS Caremark, is a Texas limited liability company whose principal place of business is at
`
`the same location as CVS Health.
`
`73.
`
`Caremark Texas Mail Pharmacy, LLC may be served through its registered
`
`agent: CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`74.
`
`Caremark Texas Mail Pharmacy, LLC is licensed with the Texas Board of
`
`Pharmacy and is registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) to
`
`dispense controlled substances, including diabetes medications.
`
`75.
`
`Collectively, Defendants CVS Health Corporation, Caremark Rx, L.L.C.,
`
`Caremark, L.L.C., CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C and Caremark Texas Mail Pharmacy, LLC
`
`are referred to as “CVS Caremark.”
`
`76.
`
`CVS Caremark is named as a defendant in its capacities as a PBM and mail
`
`order pharmacy.
`
`77.
`
`In its capacity as a PBM, CVS Caremark negotiates on behalf of payors and
`
`insurers with Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Sanofi regarding the price of diabetes
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-04994 Document 68 Filed on 10/13/20 in TXSD Page 17 of 149
`
`medications, as well as for the placement of these firms’ diabetes medications on CVS
`
`Caremark’s drug formularies.
`
`78.
`
`CVS Caremark filled or managed approximately 1.9 billion prescriptions
`
`during the year ending December 31, 2018.22
`
`79.
`
`CVS Caremark has the largest PBM market share based on total prescription
`
`claims managed, representing 36% of the market.23 CVS Caremark’s pharmacy services
`
`segment, which includes PBM activities, but not its retail/long-term care segment,
`
`generated $120 billion in total revenues last year.24
`
`80. CVS Caremark describes its PBM business as follows:
`
`[CVS Caremark’s] formularies provide recommended products in numerous
`drug classes to help ensure member access to clinically appropriate drugs
`with alternatives within a class under the client’s pharmacy benefit plan,
`while helping to drive the lowest net cost for clients that select one
`of [CVS Caremark’s] formularies.25
`
`81.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, CVS Caremark derived substantial revenue
`
`providing pharmacy benefits in Texas, including in Harris County.
`
`82. At all times relevant hereto, CVS Caremark derived substantial revenue
`
`providing mail order pharmacy services in Texas, including in Harris County.
`
`83. At all times relevant hereto, CVS Caremark offered pharmacy benefit
`
`management services nationwide and maintained a national formulary or formularies that
`
`are used nationwide, including in Texas and Harris County. At all times relevant hereto,
`
`
`22 CVS Caremark Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Dec. 31, 2018).
`23 National Community Pharmacists Association, PBM Resources,
`http://www.ncpanet.org/advocacy/thetools/pbm-resources.
`24 Ed Kaplan & Wendy Pongracz, Negotiating and Drafting Pharmacy Benefit Manager
`Plans,
`Strafford
`(June
`21,
`2016),
`Contracts
`for
`Self-Insured
`http://media.straffordpub.com/products/negotiating-and-drafting-pharmacy-benefit-manager-
`contracts-for-self-funded-plans-2016-06-21/presentation.pdf.
`25 CVS Caremark, Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Dec. 31, 2018).
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-04994 Document 68 Filed on 10/13/20 in TXSD Page 18 of 149
`
`those formularies included diabetes medications, including those at issue in this
`
`Complaint.
`
`84.
`
` At all times relevant hereto, CVS Caremark dispensed diabetes medications,
`
`including diabetes medications at issue in this Complaint, nationwide and in Texas,
`
`including in Harris County, through its mail order pharmacies.
`
`85. Defendant Express Scripts Holding Company is a Delaware
`
`corporation. Its principal place of business is at 1 Express Way, St. Louis, Missouri 63121.
`
`86. Express Scripts Holding Company may be served through its registered
`
`agent: The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street,
`
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
`
`87. Defendant Express Scripts, Inc. is a corporation organized under the
`
`laws of Delaware and headquartered at 1 Express Way, St. Louis, Missouri 63121.
`
`88. Express Scripts,
`
`Inc. may be
`
`served
`
`through
`
`its
`
`registered
`
`agent: Corporation Service Company DBS CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service
`
`Company, 211 East 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701.
`
`89. Defendant ESI Mail Pharmacy Service, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
`
`with its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri.
`
`90. Defendant ESI Mail Pharmacy Service, Inc. may be served through its
`
`registered agent: Corporation Service Company, 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington,
`
`Delaware 19808.
`
`91.
`
`ESI Mail Pharmacy Services, Inc. is licensed as an out-of-state prescription
`
`drug distributor with the Texas Department of State Health Services.
`
`92. Defendant Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
`
`with its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-04994 Document 68 Filed on 10/13/20 in TXSD Page 19 of 149
`
`93. Defendant Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc. may be served through its
`
`registered agent: Corporation Service Company DBS CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service
`
`Company, 211 East 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701.
`
`94. Defendants Express Scripts, Inc., ESI Mail Pharmacy Service, Inc. and
`
`Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc. are subsidiaries of Defendant Express Scripts Holdings
`
`Company.
`
`95.
`
`Collectively, Defendant Express Scripts, Inc., Defendant Express Scripts
`
`Holding Company, Defendant ESI Mail Pharmacy Service, Inc. and Defendant Express
`
`Scripts Pharmacy, Inc. are referred to as “Express Scripts.”
`
`96.
`
`Express Scripts is named as a defendant in its capacities as a PBM and mail
`
`order pharmacy.
`
`97.
`
`In its capacity as a PBM, Express Scripts negotiates on behalf of payors and
`
`insurers with Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Sanofi regarding the purchase price of diabetes
`
`medications, as well as for the placement of these firms’ diabetes medications on the PBM’s
`
`drug formularies.
`
`98.
`
`Prior to merging with Cigna in 2019, Express Scripts was the largest
`
`independent PBM in the United States.26 During the relevant period of this Complaint,
`
`Express Scripts controlled 30% of the PBM market.27
`
`99.
`
`In 2017, annual revenue for Express Scripts was over $100 billion.28
`
`
`26 Express Scripts, Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Dec. 31, 2017).
`27 See supra note 23.
`28 See supra note 26.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-04994 Document 68 Filed on 10/13/20 in TXSD Page 20 of 149
`
`100. As of December 31, 2018, more than 68,000 retail pharmacies, representing
`
`over 98% of all retail pharmacies in the nation, participated in one or more of Express
`
`Scripts’ networks.29
`
`101. Express Scripts transacts business throughout the United States and Texas,
`
`including in Harris County.
`
`102. Express Scripts describes its PBM business as follows:
`
`Our core PBM services involve management of prescription drug utilization
`to drive high qualit

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket