Express Scripts Files Lawsuit Against FTC, Claims Drug Pricing Report Misleading
Pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) Express Scripts has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), challenging the agency’s recent report on drug pricing. According to Reuters, the company claims the report defames PBMs by concluding that they contribute to rising drug costs.
Express Scripts, owned by Cigna, filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in a federal court in St. Louis, Missouri, seeking a court order to remove the report from public circulation. The company also requests that FTC Chair Lina Khan be recused from any further actions related to the company.
The FTC’s report, published in July, argued that market consolidation within the PBM sector has created conflicts of interest. The regulator pointed to PBMs steering patients toward their own affiliated businesses, which harms independent pharmacies’ ability to compete. “The FTC stands by our study,” said FTC spokesperson Douglas Farrar, per Reuters. Farrar also highlighted that three major companies, including UnitedHealth Group’s Optum, CVS Health’s CVS Caremark and Express Scripts, control nearly 80% of the PBM market.
Related: Generics and Biosimilars: The Missing Piece in US Drug Price Negotiations
Express Scripts has strongly pushed back against the report, asserting that the FTC ignored significant evidence the PBMs provided and instead relied heavily on public comments. In its lawsuit, the company contends the report has sparked lawsuits and investigations from both state regulators and federal lawmakers.
Express Scripts also criticized the FTC’s approach, stating that the agency should be a neutral advocate for consumers and fair competition rather than being influenced by political interests. “The Commission was intended to be a bipartisan defender of consumers and fair competition, not an ideological pawn driven by political winds and special interests,” the company said in its filing.
Featured News
Veteran Lawyers Launch Boutique Antitrust Firm in NY and DC
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
EU’s Top Court Upholds Antitrust Veto on Thyssenkrupp-Tata Steel Deal
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Brazil’s Court Delays X’s Return Over Fine Payment Dispute
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Tencent and Guillemot Family Consider Potential Buyout of Ubisoft
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Second Price-Fixing Case Against Hotel-Casinos Dismissed by Federal Judge
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh