Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
BARCLAY DAMON LLP Brad M. Gallagher Linda J. Clark (pro hac vice) Brian M. Culnan (pro hac vice) 80 State Street, 6th Floor Albany, New York 12207 Telephone: (518) 429-4200 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Matrix Distributors, Inc., PriMed Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and Oak Drugs Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Matrix Distributors, Inc., PriMed Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and Oak Drugs, Inc.,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
National Association of Boards of Pharmacy and OptumRx, Inc.,
Defendants.
AMENDED COMPLAINT C.A. No. 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH
Plaintiffs Matrix Distributors, Inc., PriMed Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and Oak
Drugs, Inc., by and through their attorneys, Barclay Damon LLP, as and for their
Amended Complaint against Defendants, allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This action arises from the wrongful acts of Defendants, National
Association of Boards of Pharmacy ("NABP") and OptumRx, Inc. ("OptumRx”).
Acting in concert, Defendants have imposed upon OptumRx’s nationwide network
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 1 of 93 PageID: 7785
2 20022892.1
of pharmacies a requirement that they may only source pharmaceuticals from
wholesale distributors accredited under the Verified-Accredited Wholesale
Distributor (“VAWD”) program administered by NABP. In doing so, Defendants
jointly imposed upon the drug supply chain tracing and licensing requirements that
are more stringent than the carefully-crafted tracing and licensing requirements set
forth in the federal Drug Supply Chain Security Act (“DSCSA”). Because that
federal statute contains an express preemption provision (in order to facilitate the
statute's goal of creating a uniform national policy with respect to tracking and
tracing prescription drugs and the licensure of wholesale distributors), the
requirements imposed by Defendants are preempted under DSCSA and through the
Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
2. Although formally organized as a non-profit corporation, NABP is in
reality a state actor when it purports to regulate the conduct of wholesale distributors
through its VAWD program. NABP’s active membership is composed of solely
government actors, and at the time this action was commenced, its governing body
(Executive Committee) was comprised of nine current members/officers of State
boards of pharmacy, and three former members/officers of State boards of
pharmacy. The vast majority of its revenues are generated as a result of the
“services” NABP administers on behalf of the States and in which participation by
pharmacists and wholesalers is mandated by the States. NABP is financially
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 93 PageID: 7786
3 20022892.1
dependent upon the revenues generated by these State-mandated programs, and the
“resource-strapped” States depend upon NABP to assist them in regulating
pharmacists and wholesalers. As such, NABP is entwined with, and has a symbiotic
relationship with, the States that rely upon NABP to act as a cost-saving regulatory
agent.
3. NABP’s VAWD accreditation process is ill-defined, and its standards
and expectations are likewise opaque. By enforcing VAWD criteria that are more
stringent than the track and trace provisions of the DSCSA, NABP is effectively
disrupting the intended function of the drug supply chain, in violation of DSCSA’s
express preemption provisions. Furthermore, at no point in time have “cancelled”
VAWD applicants been afforded an opportunity to be heard, by way of a hearing, to
challenge either NABP's accreditation findings, or the very criteria upon which its
accreditation decisions are based. By applying impermissible criteria to deny some
of the accreditation applications submitted by Plaintiffs, NABP has acted in an
unlawful, arbitrary and capricious manner, and without any semblance of
meaningful due process.
4. OptumRx is one of the largest pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”)
in the nation. It administers the prescription drug benefit portion of the health
insurance provided by private employers, self-insured health plans, federal and state
employee health plans (including the plans for New Jersey state employees),
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 3 of 93 PageID: 7787
4 20022892.1
Medicare and Medicaid managed-care. OptumRx maintains a nationwide network
of approximately 67,000 pharmacies to dispense covered prescription services to the
members of those benefit plans for which OptumRx administers the prescription
drug benefit. OptumRx’s relationships with its network pharmacies are governed by,
among other things, provider contracts and manuals. In July 2016, OptumRx
announced to its network pharmacies that they could only source pharmaceuticals
from wholesalers who were VAWD-accredited (“the VAWD Requirement”), and
should they fail to abide by this requirement, they could face the prospect of audits,
recoupment, fines and assessments, and even termination from the OptumRx
network. In announcing and enforcing this requirement, OptumRx is willingly
collaborating with and abetting the improper State action of NABP.
5. Most independent pharmacies (i.e., pharmacies not affiliated with a
major corporation such as CVS or Walgreens) that purchase from Plaintiffs have at
least some patients whose prescription drug plans are administrated by OptumRx.
This poses a real dilemma for Plaintiffs because it is customary for pharmacies to
only order medication from wholesalers whose products can be dispensed to the
beneficiaries of many, if not all, insurance companies. Compounding the problem,
it is neither practical nor cost-effective for independent pharmacies to segregate
inventory from VAWD-accredited wholesalers from inventory purchased from non-
VAWD-accredited wholesalers. When OptumRx’s threats to pharmacies (warning
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 4 of 93 PageID: 7788
5 20022892.1
of the business dangers associated with dealing with non-VAWD-accredited
wholesalers) are coupled with the impracticality of segregating inventory from
VAWD-accredited wholesalers from inventories purchased from non-VAWD-
accredited wholesalers, independent pharmacies are effectively being forced to
purchase medications solely from VAWD-accredited wholesalers, even though there
is no State or Federal law requiring them to do so.
PARTIES
6. Plaintiff Matrix Distributors, Inc. (“Matrix”), is a corporation organized
under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with a principal place of business located
at 410-450 North Avenue East, Cranford, New Jersey. Matrix is duly licensed by the
State of New Jersey as a pharmaceutical wholesale distributor.
7. Established in 1999, Matrix is currently licensed in 35 states, selling
prescription drugs to approximately 2,500 independent pharmacies.
8. Matrix has grown over the past two decades from a 2,000 square foot
facility with one employee to a business that, at its peak, employed 78 persons at
three locations in three states.
9. Plaintiff PriMed Pharmaceuticals, LLC ("PriMed"), is a limited liability
company organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with a principal place
of business located at 34 Industrial Way East, Suite 1A, Eatontown, New Jersey.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 5 of 93 PageID: 7789
6 20022892.1
PriMed is duly licensed by the State of New Jersey as a pharmaceutical wholesale
distributor.
10. Established in 2013, PriMed is currently licensed as a wholesaler in 39
states. PriMed primarily distributes generic pharmaceuticals and other medical
supplies to approximately 2,000 independent pharmacies.
11. At its inception, PriMed employed three persons. At its peak, PriMed
employed 25 persons. As a result of business lost due to the impact of the VAWD
requirement, it currently employs 20 persons.
12. Plaintiff Oak Drugs Inc. (“Oak”) is a New York corporation authorized
to transact business within the State of New Jersey, with a principal place of business
located at 80 Red Schoolhouse Road, Building 2, Suite 20, Chestnut Ridge, New
York. Oak is duly licensed by the State of New Jersey as a pharmaceutical wholesale
distributor.
13. Oak is also licensed in New York and eighteen other states. Oak
primarily distributes generic pharmaceuticals, as well as some OTC medications and
diabetic supplies, to approximately 145 independent pharmacies in the twenty states
in which it is licensed to operate.
14. Upon information and belief, defendant National Association of Boards
of Pharmacy ("NABP") is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 6 of 93 PageID: 7790
7 20022892.1
State of Kentucky, with a principal place of business located at 1600 Freehanville
Drive, Mount Prospect, Illinois.
15. Upon information and belief, NABP's stated purpose is defined as
follows:
The purpose of the Association is to provide for interstate transfer in pharmacist licensure, based upon a uniform minimum standard of pharmacist education and uniform legislation; and to improve the standards of pharmacist education, licensure, and practice by cooperating with State, National and International Governmental Agencies and Associations having similar objectives. (NABP Constitution, Article II.)
16. Upon information and belief, defendant OptumRx, Inc. (“OptumRx"),
is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, with a principal
place of business located at 2300 Main Street, Irvine, California.
17. Upon information and belief, affiliated with United Healthcare,
OptumRx is one of the largest pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”) in the United
States. Like other PBMs, OptumRx contracts with both private and governmental
health plans to administer the prescription drug benefits afforded to participants in
those health plans. The plans administered by OptumRx cover a variety of health
insurance programs, including commercial (private) health plans, self-insured plans,
federal and state government employee health plans (including plans for New Jersey
state employees), Medicare and Medicaid managed-care.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 7 of 93 PageID: 7791
8 20022892.1
18. Upon information and belief, OptumRx maintains a nationwide
network of approximately 67,000 pharmacies, which is about the same as the total
number of pharmacies located in the United States.
19. Upon information and belief, OptumRx contracts with its network
pharmacies to dispense covered prescription services to members of the benefit plans
for which OptumRx administers the prescription drug benefit. OptumRx’s
relationships with its network pharmacies are governed by various contractual
documents, including a Pharmacy Network Agreement, a Provider Manual, and
numerous informal provider communications and Network Updates. Participating
pharmacies must accept these comprehensive terms and conditions to participate in
OptumRx’s network.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND JURISDICTION
20. This action was originally commenced on or about December 14, 2018,
when Plaintiffs filed their Verified Complaint in Superior Court of New Jersey,
Middlesex County.
21. Upon information and belief, on or about December 20, 2018,
Defendants removed Plaintiffs’ state court action to this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441, invoking this Court’s diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
22. Upon information and belief, because no Defendant is a citizen of the
same state as any Plaintiff, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, this
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 8 of 93 PageID: 7792
9 20022892.1
Court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332.
23. Upon information and belief, this Court may also exercise subject
matter jurisdiction over this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in that Plaintiffs
have asserted claims arising under the laws and Constitution of the United States,
including the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201), the Drug Supply Chain
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Supremacy and Due Process Clauses of the
United States Constitution.
24. Plaintiffs’ claims under New Jersey and New York law, as well as the
common law of those States, arise from the same set of facts and circumstances and
from part of the same case or controversy which give rise to their Federal claims.
Therefore, Plaintiffs invoke this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367.
25. Upon information and belief, because each Defendant transacts
business and has availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within
the State of New Jersey, and committed acts and omissions that have principally
caused injury within the State of New Jersey, this Court may exercise personal
jurisdiction over Defendants.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 9 of 93 PageID: 7793
10 20022892.1
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
I. Role of the Parties in the Drug Supply Chain
A. Synopsis of the Drug Supply Chain
26. Upon information and belief, a typical drug distribution chain has three
elements: (1) a manufacturer, which creates and sells prescription drugs to (2) a
wholesale distributor, which then sells the drug to (3) a hospital or pharmacy, which
dispenses it to patients.
27. Upon information and belief, wholesale distributors predominantly buy
pharmaceuticals from the manufacturers and distribute them directly to health care
providers such as hospitals and pharmacies.
28. Upon information and belief, the primary wholesale drug market is
dominated by three large players: AmerisourceBergen Corporation, Cardinal Health,
Inc., and McKesson Corporation (collectively “the Big Three”). Together, the Big
Three account for more than 92% of the U.S. drug distribution market.
29. Upon information and belief, in addition to the Big Three, there are
additional, large wholesale distributors such as Morris & Dickson, Smith Drug,
Anda Distribution and several cooperative wholesaler groups. Along with the Big
Three, these wholesalers constitute the “primary” distributors in the drug supply
chain.
30. Upon information and belief, in addition to the primary wholesalers,
the wholesale distribution market also includes smaller wholesalers, such as
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 10 of 93 PageID: 7794
11 20022892.1
Plaintiffs, that help service independent pharmacies that are unable to meet the
minimum purchasing requirements of the primary wholesalers to obtain drug
inventory.
31. Upon information and belief, the smaller secondary wholesalers can
also offer pharmacies lower pricing, more attractive purchasing terms, and improved
access to certain specific types of drugs that are in short supply or have shortages in
the distribution chain.
B. The Importance of Secondary Wholesale Distributors to Independent Pharmacies and Their Patients
32. Upon information and belief, secondary wholesale distributors play an
important role by serving as an alternative supply source to pharmacies who may not
use the primary wholesalers for their usual and anticipated day-to-day operations.
33. Upon information and belief, most, if not all, independent retail
pharmacies utilize a single, primary wholesaler. However, most, if not all,
independent retail pharmacies also utilize at least one and, more typically multiple,
secondary wholesale distributors. These secondary distributors play a critical role
for the independent pharmacy.
34. Upon information and belief, and by way of example, the primary
wholesalers utilize large, regional distribution centers to service their customers
within specific geographic regions. These regional distribution centers are often out
of stock in many items, or have a limited supply and, therefore, limit the quantity of
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 11 of 93 PageID: 7795
12 20022892.1
certain items that any one customer may purchase. The primary wholesalers also
regularly change which brands of generic drugs they stock, and will typically stock
no more than one or two brands of any particular generic drug. However, patients
are often very hesitant to switch brands; many patients like their medications to have
a consistent appearance (shape, size and color), or prefer one dosage form (pill,
capsule, liquid, etc.) over another. Independent retail pharmacies strive to make sure
they always have the brand and dosage form their patients want. This is one of the
important ways that small, neighborhood pharmacies can distinguish themselves
from the large chains like Walgreens and CVS. While primary wholesalers typically
deliver product to their customers once per week at most, secondary wholesalers
typically deliver products to their customers via next day delivery.
35. Upon information and belief, if the pharmacy’s primary wholesale
distributor’s regional distribution center is out-of-stock of a certain product, has
discontinued the brand or dosage form the pharmacy’s patients want, or is not
scheduled to make a delivery when the pharmacy needs it, the pharmacy must source
the product from a secondary wholesaler.
36. Upon information and belief, secondary wholesalers also support their
customers in many ways that the large, primary wholesalers do not. For example,
secondary wholesalers often provide their customers with extended payment terms
allowing them to pay in 30 or 60 days rather than the 7-day payment terms typically
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 12 of 93 PageID: 7796
13 20022892.1
enforced (via weekly automatic bank transfers) by the large primary wholesalers.
This cash flow is essential to many small pharmacies.
37. Upon information and belief, the secondary wholesalers often offer
products at much lower prices than primary wholesalers. Independent pharmacies
do not have the buying power of the large, chain pharmacies and, therefore, rely on
secondary wholesalers to achieve better margins. Because of the low reimbursement
rates provided by insurers (whose plans are administered by PBMs like OptumRx),
many pharmacies receive less in reimbursement than they pay for a product; that is,
they sell products at a negative margin. Independent pharmacies utilize secondary
wholesalers, and their lower prices, to try to avoid negative margins on items they
need to service their customers.
38. Upon information and belief, secondary wholesalers typically use call
centers staffed with telephone sales representatives that are in constant
communication with their customers. Based on these daily communications, the
sales representatives possess a wealth of information that is critical to the drug
supply chain, including knowledge of out-of-stock products, price increases on
drugs, availability of new generics, etc. Pharmacies rely on the information that they
get from their sales representatives to make smart buying decisions. The sales
representatives of the primary wholesalers visit their customers typically no more
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 13 of 93 PageID: 7797
14 20022892.1
than once every few months, and they provide none of the market intelligence
provided by the secondary distributor.
39. Upon information and belief, during a shortage for a particular
medication, it is relatively common for independent pharmacies to purchase
necessary life-sustaining prescription drugs from secondary wholesalers such as
Plaintiffs, because larger wholesalers often exhaust their inventory selling to
national, large-scale pharmacies.
40. Upon information and belief, the availability of smaller distributors like
Plaintiffs is critical to the viability of the independent pharmacies, and their
elimination from the marketplace could lead to adverse impacts on patient health,
safety, and welfare.
41. In short, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated secondary wholesalers
perform an important market function by minimizing drug waste, facilitating
discounted consumer prices, improving access to drugs, and ultimately reducing
health care costs.
C. The Role of the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Increases As Consolidation Occurs in That Industry
42. Upon information and belief, the PBM industry has seen dramatic
changes in recent years. More than 80% of the PBM marketplace (or 80% of the
covered lives in the United States) is now administered by one of the following four
PBMs: (1) Express Scripts, (2) CVS/Caremark, (3) OptumRx, and (4) Prime
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 14 of 93 PageID: 7798
15 20022892.1
Therapeutics. In December 2019, the market consolidated further, with Express
Scripts and Prime Therapeutics entering into a partnership.
43. Upon information and belief, the consolidation of power in the PBM
sector stems, in large part, from a series of mergers, and integrations. In addition to
these consolidations among PBMs, there has also been integration between
insurance companies and PBMs.
44. Upon information and belief, OptumRx is wholly owned by
UnitedHealth Group, Inc., the parent company of the nation’s largest insurance
company, United HealthCare Services, Inc.
45. As noted previously, as one of the largest PBMs, OptumRx is a major
player in the delivery of health care in the United States, acting as a “gatekeeper” in
administering prescription drug benefits for millions of citizens.
46. Upon information and belief, pharmacies can service a variety of
patients, but the patient benefits are administered and paid predominantly by one of
the four national PBMs previously identified. As such, these four PBMs are
essentially the only “Payors” of pharmacy benefits. Most pharmacies must maintain
agreements with all of the four national PBMs in order to ensure survival of their
business.
47. Upon information and belief, PBMs dictate the terms of participation
in their networks through Pharmacy Network Agreements and Provider Manuals,
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 15 of 93 PageID: 7799
16 20022892.1
and set forth the manner in which participating providers can carry out pharmacy
performance.
48. Upon information and belief, a pharmacy that is unwilling to abide by
the terms and conditions established by the PBM for participation in the PBM’s
network would be forced to discontinue servicing patients in the PBM’s network.
II. NABP and the VAWD Accreditation Program
A. NABP Structure
49. Upon information and belief, NABP's membership is comprised of “the
boards of pharmacy (or similar pharmacy licensing agency) of the individual States,
the District of Columbia, the Territories and Commonwealths of the United States,
the individual provinces of the Dominion of Canada, and such other jurisdictions
that apply to join the Association and are approved, from time to time, by the
Executive Committee.” NABP Const., Art. III, § 1(a).
50. Upon information and belief, NABP’s “active” membership consists of
only U.S. State Boards of Pharmacy, which for governance purposes are organized
into eight districts. For example, the member boards grouped into NABP’s District
2 are the pharmacy boards of the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia (all active members), as well as the
boards for the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Prince Edward Island (associate
members). See NABP Bylaws, Article IV.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 16 of 93 PageID: 7800
17 20022892.1
51. Upon information and belief, only NABP’s active members have voting
power, and each active State Board of Pharmacy member appoints a voting delegate
who represents that State Board with respect to any matter presented at an Annual
Meeting or a District Meeting.
52. Upon information and belief, the “business, property, and affairs” of
NABP are managed and conducted by NABP’s Executive Committee.
53. Upon information and belief, the Executive Committee also sets the
“terms, conditions, and standards” for NABP’s Executive Director.
54. Upon information and belief, NABP acts principally through its
Executive Director and staff, under the direction of the Executive Committee.
NABP’s day-to-day operations are overseen by the Executive Director.
55. Upon information and belief, NABP’s Executive Committee is
comprised of 12 individuals. Four of the 12 are officers: the immediate Past
President, President, President-elect, and Treasurer. The other eight people are
Executive Committee Members who have been elected by the delegates to represent
each of the eight districts in which NABP groups its member boards. NABP’s
Executive Director serves as the Executive Committee’s Secretary and as an ex
officio member of the committee.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 17 of 93 PageID: 7801
18 20022892.1
56. Upon information and belief, candidates seeking an Executive
Committee officer or member position must serve as a member or executive director
of an active member board of pharmacy at the time of election.
57. Upon information and belief, at the time that this lawsuit was
commenced, the President of NABP was a member of the New York State Board of
Pharmacy.
58. Upon information and belief, at the time that this lawsuit was
commenced, the President-Elect of NABP was the Executive Director of the North
Carolina Board of Pharmacy.
59. Upon information and belief, at the time that this lawsuit was
commenced, the Treasurer of NABP was a member of the Massachusetts Board of
Pharmacy.
60. Upon information and belief, at the time that this lawsuit was
commenced, the Chair of the Executive Committee was a former member of the
Texas State Board of Pharmacy.
61. Upon information and belief, at the time that this lawsuit was
commenced, among the eight non-officer members of NABP's Executive Committee
were the Vice President of the Maine Board of Pharmacy, the Executive Director of
the Virginia Board of Pharmacy, the Executive Director of the Tennessee Board of
Pharmacy, a member of the Arkansas State Board of Pharmacy, the chair of the
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 18 of 93 PageID: 7802
19 20022892.1
Idaho State Board of Pharmacy, and the Chair of the New Mexico Board of
Pharmacy. The other two non-officer members of NABP's Executive Committee
were a former member of the Illinois State Board of Pharmacy and a former member
of the North Dakota State Board of Pharmacy.
62. By reason of the foregoing, each of the members of NABP is a “State
actor."
63. By reason of the foregoing, each of the members of NABP's governing
body (Executive Committee) is a “State actor."
B. NABP’s Entwinement and Symbiotic Relationship with the States
64. Upon information and belief, NABP provides a number of services to
the States. For instance, all “active” NABP members must participate in the NABP
Clearinghouse, which is a national database of educational, competence, licensure,
and disciplinary information on pharmacists practicing in NABP’s member States
and jurisdictions. NABP members must report all disciplinary actions taken in their
State to the NABP Clearinghouse. States must participate in the NABP
Clearinghouse in order to be considered an “active” member of NABP.
65. Upon information and belief, NABP administers the North American
Pharmacist Licensure Exam (“NAPLEX”), which assesses an individual’s
competence and qualification to become a pharmacist. All 50 United States require
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 19 of 93 PageID: 7803
20 20022892.1
individuals seeking licensure as a pharmacist to pass the NAPLEX before they may
obtain a pharmacist license from any State.
66. Upon information and belief, NABP administers the Multi-State
Pharmacy Jurisprudence Exam (“MPJE”), which “tests the applicant’s knowledge
of federal and state pharmacy law” and is used by the States as part of the licensure
process. All States (except Arkansas, California and Idaho) require that prospective
pharmacists pass the MPJE.
67. Upon information and belief, NABP administers the Foreign Pharmacy
Graduate Examination, which most States utilize and require that graduates of
unaccredited pharmacy programs pass before they are eligible to apply for licensure
as a pharmacist.
68. Upon information and belief, NABP maintains a data-sharing platform
that “connects all the prescription monitoring programs in 47 States and the
Department of Defense to share prescription monitoring information.”
69. Upon information and belief, NABP maintains the E-Profile Connect
database, an electronic system where “[p]harmacists can obtain an electronic
profile” which “is used to connect pharmacists to various NABP programs.” All 50
States have personnel or staff authorized to access this system.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 20 of 93 PageID: 7804
21 20022892.1
70. Upon information and belief, sixteen States participate in NABP’s
Multistate Blueprint Pharmacy Program, through which NABP inspects sterile
pharmacies for the participating States.
71. Upon information and belief, NABP serves for 32 States as the agent to
report disciplinary action to the National Practitioner Data Bank (“NPDB”). The
NPDB is a federal program that requires all providers, including pharmacists,
dentists, doctors, and nurses, as well as individual State licensing agencies, to supply
to NPDB information pertaining to any discipline to which the provider was
subjected.
72. Upon information and belief, NABP administers the Verified Pharmacy
Program (“VPP”), through which NABP inspects pharmacies for States, in some
cases to help the States make licensure determinations. Forty-nine States and the
District of Columbia have requested that NABP provide access to VPP to their staff
and personnel.
73. Upon information and belief, NABP produces a state newsletter for 35
States, for which NABP’s Executive Director also serves as the National News
Editor.
74. Upon information and belief, NABP has developed the Model State
Pharmacy Act and Model Rules of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy
(“the Model Act”). The Model Act, updated every August and supplemented as
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 21 of 93 PageID: 7805
22 20022892.1
necessary, provides NABP’s member State boards with model language that can be
used when developing State laws or board rules. As relevant to this action, the Model
Act contains Model Rules for the licensure of, among others, wholesale distributors
(“the Model Rules”).
75. Upon information and belief, among the Model Rules for wholesale
distributors, NABP recommends:
The State Board shall have the authority to recognize a third party to inspect and accredit wholesale distributors;
The State Board may license by reciprocity a wholesale distributor that is licensed by the laws of another state, if the applicant is accredited by a third party recognized by the State Board; and
The State Board may waive requirements pertaining to the licensure of wholesale distributors for wholesalers that have obtained and maintained a Board-approved accreditation.
Model Rules, § 14. NABP’s VAWD program has been the only third-party
accreditation program of wholesale distributors that has been sanctioned/recognized
by any State.
76. Upon information and belief, at the time that this lawsuit was
commenced (and now), Carmen Catizone served as NABP’s Executive Director. Mr.
Catizone has held that position for the past thirty (30) years.
77. Upon information and belief, when Mr. Catizone joined NABP in 1985,
it employed seven persons and administered three programs. NABP now employs
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 22 of 93 PageID: 7806
23 20022892.1
150 persons, administers over a dozen programs, and generates over $35 million in
annual revenues.
78. Upon information and belief, NABP derives substantial revenue from
the examinations and accreditations that are required by the States and
provided/administered by NABP.
79. Upon information and belief, NABP generates approximately $22
million in fees from the examinations and assessments it administers, accounting for
66% of NABP’s annual revenues.
80. Upon information and belief, NABP generates another $5.9 million in
annual revenues through the accreditation programs that it provides, which amounts
to another 17% of NABP’s annual revenues. NABP further generates $4.3 million
annually, through the licensure-transfer fees that NABP receives, accounting for
12% of NABP’s revenues.
81. By reason of the foregoing, NABP is financially dependent upon the
revenues generated by its State-mandated programs, and the States are dependent
upon NABP to assist them in regulating pharmacists and wholesalers.
82. By reason of the foregoing, NABP is entwined with the State’s policies.
83. By reason of the foregoing, the States are entwined in NABP’s
management and control.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 23 of 93 PageID: 7807
24 20022892.1
84. By reason of the foregoing, the public might reasonably conclude from
NABP’s relationships with its member State Boards that the government has lent its
support to NABP’s actions.
85. By reason of the foregoing, NABP has a “symbiotic relationship” with
the States.
86. By reason of the foregoing, NABP is a “State actor.”
C. NABP’s VAWD Accreditation Program
1. NABP Created the VAWD Program Under the Direction of the State Boards of Pharmacy
87. Upon information and belief, NABP established the VAWD
accreditation program for wholesale distributors in 2004.
88. Upon information and belief, in a white paper that he authorized, Mr.
Catizone wrote in 2006 that NABP developed the VAWD program “under the
direction of the state boards of pharmacy,” and that the VAWD program gives States
“a mechanism for inspecting and regulating wholesale distributors.” Carmen
Catizone, Counterfeit Drugs and States’ Efforts to Combat the Problem, Journal of
Pharmacy Practice (2006).
89. Upon information and belief, in a 2011 article, Mr. Catizone described
NABP’s relationship to the States through its programs, including the VAWD
program, as follows: “we [i.e., NABP] accredit internet pharmacies and wholesalers
on behalf of the states. . . . We also manage the Association of State Boards and as
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 24 of 93 PageID: 7808
25 20022892.1
well as accreditation programs for the states.” Carmen Catizone, Pharmacy Security
Breach, Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy (2011 Spring Forum)
(emphasis added).
2. States’ Use of the VAWD Program
90. Upon information and belief, four States (Indiana, Iowa, Wyoming, and
North Dakota) require VAWD accreditation as a condition to obtaining a license for
wholesale distribution within those States.
91. Upon information and belief, twenty-two States “recognize” VAWD
accreditation, meaning that those States provide regulatory relief (for example,
waiving State licensing bonds) or otherwise waive duplicative licensing processes
for VAWD-accredited facilities.
92. Upon information and belief, while 26 States formally utilize the
VAWD program in some fashion, NABP provides all State Boards of Pharmacy with
information concerning wholesalers and the status of their VAWD applications,
including whether an application has been cancelled or whether a facility withdrew
its accreditation. NABP provided information to the States regarding the VAWD
application status of Matrix and PriMed.
93. Upon information and belief, a single state that requires VAWD
accreditation has a tremendous impact on the drug supply claim. During
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 25 of 93 PageID: 7809
26 20022892.1
congressional testimony in 2006, Mr. Catizone commented “from the State
perspective” as follows:
NABP will accredit all wholesale distributors, licensed or seeking licensure in the State of Indiana. And since an overwhelming majority of wholesale distributors conduct business in multiple States, that accreditation system required by Indiana [i.e., the VAWD program] is fast becoming a uniform and national standard.
Statement of Carmen Catizone, July 11, 2006, U.S. House of Representatives
hearing on “Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Security.”
3. The VAWD Accreditation Process
94. To obtain VAWD-accreditation, a wholesaler undergoes a compliance
review, which includes an assessment of the wholesaler’s operating policies and
procedures, licensure verification, survey of its facility and operations, background
checks and personnel reviews, and recordkeeping and screening procedures for
authentication and verification of drug sources. VAWD-accredited facilities are
reviewed annually and undergo a site survey every three years.
95. Upon information and belief, VAWD is a facility-specific
accreditation, meaning that VAWD accreditation cannot be transferred if an
applicant changes locations.
96. Upon information and belief, the VAWD application process begins
with the applicant’s completion of a pre-application questionnaire. The VAWD pre-
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 26 of 93 PageID: 7810
27 20022892.1
application questionnaire requires an applicant to agree with various statements,
including the following:
The facility must meet Section 582 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the DSCSA; and
The facility is prohibited from distributing drugs that were at any time purchased by or from a pharmacy or practitioner. 97. Upon information and belief, after an applicant completes the pre-
application questionnaire, it can begin to submit a VAWD application for each
specific location for which the applicant seeks accreditation.
98. Upon information and belief, the application process requires the
applicant to submit various documents related to the operation of the facility. These
documents include the facility’s policies and procedures (“P&Ps”), documents
evidencing the applicant’s business organization, ownership and officers, the types
of products distributed, customers, and drug sources (vendors).
99. Upon information and belief, after a facility submits a VAWD
application containing the requisite documentation, NABP personnel review the
application and supporting documentation. If NABP personnel have questions about
an application or require additional information from the applicant, NABP will
submit these requests to the applicant in the form of “Application Review Reports.”
100. Upon information and belief, during this process, if NABP identifies
supply chain issues that it views as being inconsistent with the VAWD criteria,
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 27 of 93 PageID: 7811
28 20022892.1
NABP will not identify for the applicant the specific problematic transactions that
led NABP to that conclusion.
101. Upon information and belief, if the questions and requests posed of the
applicant in the Application Review Reports are answered to the satisfaction of
NABP’s accreditation personnel, then the facility’s P&Ps will be substantively
reviewed.
102. Upon information and belief, once an applicant adequately
demonstrates that its documentation, including its P&Ps, meets or substantially
meets the VAWD criteria, NABP conducts an on-site survey of the facility.
103. Upon information and belief, decisions to approve or deny an
application for VAWD accreditation are made by NABP’s Accreditation
Committee, which is comprised of the NABP accreditation team and Mr. Catizone.
Decisions to cancel a VAWD application are made by members of the Accreditation
Committee.
104. Upon information and belief, the ultimate reason(s) for cancellation of
a VAWD application are stated in the cancellation notice.
105. Upon information and belief, if a VAWD application is “cancelled,”
NABP does not afford the applicant the right to a hearing or an opportunity to
otherwise “appeal” the NABP decision or to challenge the criteria upon which
NABP’s decision may have been based.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 28 of 93 PageID: 7812
29 20022892.1
106. Upon information and belief, the only recourse available to a facility
whose VAWD application was “cancelled” is to re-apply for accreditation.
Depending upon the reasons for cancellation, the facility may be required to wait
180 days before it can reapply for accreditation.
107. Upon information and belief, only when the Accreditation Committee
“denies” a facility’s application does the facility have a right to appeal the denial.
108. Upon information and belief, from January 2013 through January 2019,
the average time in process for the application of an accredited facility was 274 days,
while the average time in process for the application of a cancelled facility was 247
days.
4. The Relevant VAWD Criteria
109. Upon information and belief, to obtain VAWD accreditation,
wholesale distributors must satisfy the various VAWD criteria established by
NABP.
110. Upon information and belief, and as relevant to this action, the VAWD
criteria contain a Licensure Criterion No. 7 (“Criterion No. 7”) that provides:
The wholesale distributor does not engage in the wholesale distribution of prescription drugs that are purchased or received from pharmacies or practitioners, or from wholesale distributors that obtained them from pharmacies or practitioners. The wholesale distributor may receive prescription drugs returned from pharmacies or practitioners that were distributed by the wholesale distributor. A wholesale distributor that operates solely as
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 29 of 93 PageID: 7813
30 20022892.1
a reverse distributor may receive drugs from pharmacies and practitioners regardless of where they were obtained for destruction in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Or, the drugs may be returned to the manufacturer or agent authorized by the manufacturer to accept returns on the manufacturer’s behalf. (emphasis added.)
111. Upon information and belief, although NABP refers to Criterion No. 7
as a licensing requirement, it is related to the sourcing and tracing of prescription
drugs in the supply chain, not licensing of wholesale distributors.
112. Upon information and belief, NABP interprets and applies Criterion
No. 7 to prohibit a wholesaler from distributing drugs that were ever purchased by
or from a pharmacy.
113. Upon information and belief, NABP’s prohibition against having a
pharmacy in the supply chain is an extension of its preference for so-called “one
step” supply chains, where purchases are made directly from manufacturers.
114. Upon information and belief, the VAWD criteria also contain a Facility
Criterion No. 5 (“Criterion No. 5”) that addresses co-located facilities. These
facilities can be described as two facilities, where one is a wholesale distributor and
the other a pharmacy, under common ownership but with separate licenses and
separate businesses.
115. Upon information and belief, Criterion No. 5 provides in pertinent part:
Wholesale distributor facilities co-located with another business shall maintain processes and systems for
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 30 of 93 PageID: 7814
31 20022892.1
separating and securing all aspects of the operation. Co-location with another business authorized to purchase prescription drugs shall comply with Federal and State licensing requirements, and the records of wholesale distribution must provide a clear audit trail that distinguishes all purchases and distributions of the wholesale distributor from any other entity.
116. Upon information and belief, NABP interprets and applies Criterion
No. 7 to create a structural impediment to wholesalers that buy prescription drugs
that have, at any time, been owned by “co-located facilities.”
117. Upon information and belief, the VAWD criteria utilized by NABP can
be unilaterally changed by NABP.
118. Upon information and belief, NABP has not revised Criterion No. 7
since 2013.
119. Upon information and belief, NABP revised the VAWD criteria in 2015
to purportedly make them consistent with the DSCSA.
120. Upon information and belief, when NABP revised the VAWD criteria
in 2015, the criteria were revised to remove various pedigree requirements from the
criteria.
121. Upon information and belief, when NABP revised the VAWD criteria
in 2015, it did not revise or remove Criterion No. 7 from the VAWD criteria.
122. Upon information and belief, when NABP revised the VAWD criteria
in 2015, it did not revise NABP’s requirement that prohibited wholesalers from
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 31 of 93 PageID: 7815
32 20022892.1
engaging in transactions involving drugs that had been purchased by or obtained
from a pharmacy.
III. Interplay Between the VAWD-Accreditation Program and Federal Law
A. The DSCSA Established a Uniform National Policy For Drug Tracing and Wholesale Distributor Licensing
123. Upon information and belief, wholesale distributors are regulated by a
myriad of Federal and State laws and regulations that govern their licensing and
conduct.
124. Upon information and belief, these laws are designed to ensure legal
safeguards for prescription drug distribution and protect the market from the sale of
counterfeit, adulterated, misbranded, subpotent, and expired prescription drugs.
125. Upon information and belief, and by way of example, the Prescription
Drug Marketing Act of 1987 (“PDMA”), amended by the Prescription Drug
Amendments of 1992 (“PDA”), sets the baseline for wholesale distribution
regulations. It requires that every wholesale distributor who engages in wholesale
distribution of prescription drugs in interstate commerce must be licensed by the
State licensing authority before engaging in the wholesale distribution of
prescription drugs. It also required that certain wholesalers provide a statement
(known as a pedigree) prior to the wholesaler’s distribution of prescription drugs.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 32 of 93 PageID: 7816
33 20022892.1
126. Upon information and belief, there are no prohibitions in the PDMA
against a wholesale distributor purchasing from a pharmacy, a dual-licensed
wholesale distributor or a non-VAWD wholesaler.
127. Upon information and belief, additional Federal action regarding the
drug supply chain was taken in 2013 when Congress passed the Drug Quality and
Security Act (“DQSA”), which amended the Federal Food Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(“FDCA”), and outlined new requirements that would enhance drug supply chain
security by 2023.
128. Upon information and belief, the DQSA included the Drug Supply
Chain Security Act (“DSCSA”), which was intended to create a uniform national
policy with respect to drug tracing requirements and the licensure of wholesale
distributors. DSCSA was a carefully-crafted compromise between a variety of
competing interests. Ultimately, it sought to strengthen patient protections while
encouraging competition and recognizing and preserving the roles played by smaller
participants in the drug supply chain.
129. Upon information and belief, in support of the DSCSA’s goal to create
a uniform national system for the sourcing and tracking of prescription drugs from
manufacturers to dispensers, the DSCSA contains an express preemption provision
that prohibits all States from establishing or continuing to enforce any standards,
requirements or regulations with respect to drug tracing or wholesale distributor
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 33 of 93 PageID: 7817
34 20022892.1
licensure that are more stringent than, inconsistent with, directly related to, or
covered by the tracing and licensing standards and requirements of the DSCSA.
130. Upon information and belief, upon enactment, the DSCSA preempted
State product tracing requirements. Federal pedigree requirements remained in effect
until January 1, 2015. During that time period, States were prohibited from
regulating tracing in any way that was inconsistent with, more stringent than, or in
addition to the now-defunct pedigree requirements of the FDCA.
131. Upon information and belief, after January 1, 2015, the federal tracing
requirements established under the DSCSA took effect. States were thereafter
prohibited from regulating product tracing in any way that was inconsistent with,
more stringent than, or in addition to the new requirements established under the
DSCSA. The DSCSA’s requirements for wholesale distributors and other applicable
trading partners to provide and receive the transaction information, transaction
history, and a transaction statement for each transaction involving a pharmaceutical
supplanted the pedigree requirements that had existed since 1988 under the PDMA.
132. Upon information and belief, to enhance uniformity and eliminate
confusing and conflicting State laws, the DSCSA created new, nationally-
recognized standards for the documentation that must accompany nearly all drug
transactions. This “T3” documentation (which stands for Transaction Information,
Transaction History and Transaction Statement) replaced a patchwork of State rules
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 34 of 93 PageID: 7818
35 20022892.1
that required different “pedigrees” to accompany prescription drug transactions
depending on where the parties to the transaction were located. Although some
States were slow to recognize that their pedigree rules were preempted by the
DSCSA, the new uniform standard eventually supplanted the patchwork of pre-
existing State laws.
133. Upon information and belief, another key aspect of the DSCSA’s goal
of creating a national uniform system and policy for the sourcing and tracking of
prescription drugs is the law’s requirement that market participants deal only with
authorized trading partners. To be deemed an “authorized” trading partner under the
DSCSA and, thus, eligible to buy and sell prescription drugs, a wholesale distributor
must meet certain criteria.
134. Upon information and belief, a wholesale distributor that is properly
licensed as such and is registered with the FDA meets the DSCSA’s definition of an
“authorized” trading partner, even if it also holds a pharmacy license. Therefore, the
DSCSA allows “co-located facilities” to lawfully engage in prescription drug
transactions.
135. Upon information and belief, the DSCSA explicitly recognizes that
transfers of prescription drugs among affiliated entities or entities under common
control are permitted and are not considered a “transaction” that must be documented
on the T3 paperwork.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 35 of 93 PageID: 7819
36 20022892.1
B. The Interplay Between the VAWD Program and the DSCSA
136. Upon information and belief, it is quite common for a single entity, or
for entities under common ownership, to hold both pharmacy and wholesale
distribution licenses. These business models have existed and been an important part
of the drug supply chain for decades.
137. Upon information and belief, despite the fact that the DSCSA clearly
allows wholesale distributors to engage in prescription drug transactions with “co-
located” facilities, NABP requires the dual-licensed facilities to erect “firewalls”
when such transactions occur. In doing so, NABP effectively prevents (or at least
discourages) VAWD-accredited facilities from engaging in these legal transactions.
NABP’s objection to these sources is inconsistent with, and more restrictive than,
Federal law.
138. Upon information and belief, NABP subjects applications from, and
transactions with, wholesale distributors that are “co-located” with pharmacies to
“additional scrutiny.” For the wholesaler selling to such a facility, this additional
scrutiny means additional due diligence and the need to produce a litany of backup
paperwork not otherwise required under Federal or State laws. For the “co-located”
wholesale distributor, it must demonstrate, according to NABP’s website, that it
employs “separate account numbers to distinguish prescription drug purchases made
by” the pharmacy and the wholesaler. NABP’s website also provides that wholesale
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 36 of 93 PageID: 7820
37 20022892.1
distributors that “have a license issued in the same name and address as a pharmacy
cannot sell drugs purchased under the pharmacy account.” Finally, if the co-located
pharmacy is part of a group purchasing organization, it must “demonstrate that they
are not limited in the use of drugs purchased under these contracts.”
139. Upon information and belief, since the passage of the DSCSA, the Food
and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has issued guidance to supply chain participants
to help them identify “suspect” or “illegitimate” prescription drugs that must be
removed from the supply chain. Although the FDA identified many characteristics
and scenarios that could increase the risk of a suspect or illegitimate products
entering the supply chain, it did not identify the drug’s ownership by a “co-located”
facility as one such scenario. In other words, neither Congress nor the FDA has
deemed transactions involving co-located facilities as problematic or potentially
harmful to the supply chain or the public. Only NABP has sought to eliminate these
types of transactions from the industry and create barriers to the flow of products
between authorized trading partners.
140. Upon information and belief, the DSCSA neither considers drugs that
have at any time been owned by a co-located facility to be “suspect” nor does it
require that transactions involving them be “verified” any differently than any other
transaction with a trading partner.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 37 of 93 PageID: 7821
38 20022892.1
141. Upon information and belief, the VAWD criteria that subject
transactions involving co-located facilities to heightened scrutiny exceed the clear
requirements of the DSCSA in a way that is exclusionary to wholesalers who
properly purchase from wholesalers that also have a pharmacy license.
142. Upon information and belief, State and Federal laws do not subject “co-
located” facilities to “additional scrutiny.”
143. Upon information and belief, none of the additional conditions imposed
by NABP in its VAWD criteria are recognized in any law or regulation.
144. By reason of the foregoing, the VAWD criteria, as interpreted by
NABP, are inconsistent with, and more stringent than, the DSCSA in that they
prevent VAWD-accredited wholesalers engaging in legal transactions with certain
authorized trading partners, specifically those wholesalers that are also licensed as,
or “co-located” with, pharmacies. This inconsistency significantly undermines the
DSCSA’s goal of creating a uniform national policy relating to the source and
tracking of prescription drugs in the supply chain.
IV. OptumRx Announces That Its Network Pharmacies May Only Source Pharmaceuticals From VAWD-Accredited Wholesalers
A. The VAWD Accreditation Requirement
145. Upon information and belief, as early as April 2016, OptumRx explored
ways to utilize more restrictive contractual requirements to address concerns about
its network pharmacies’ sourcing of medications.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 38 of 93 PageID: 7822
39 20022892.1
146. Upon information and belief, one of the methods explored by OptumRx
personnel to address concerns about its network pharmacies’ sourcing of
medications was “partnering with an accreditation” provider to have wholesale
distributors meet OptumRx guidelines and the standards of the accrediting agency.
147. Upon information and belief, at the time that OptumRx was considering
the adoption of a requirement requiring its network pharmacies to source
medications from an accredited wholesaler, only one such third-party accreditation
program for wholesalers was identified – the VAWD Program administered by
NABP.
148. Upon information and belief, OptumRx decided during the second
quarter of 2016 that OptumRx would require its network pharmacies to source
medications dispensed to OptumRx members from only VAWD-accredited
wholesalers.
149. Upon information and belief, OptumRx first announced the VAWD
Requirement in a July 2016 announcement sent to its network pharmacies.
150. Upon information and belief, in the announcement sent to its 67,000
network pharmacies, OptumRx notified the pharmacies that the terms and conditions
of their agreements with OptumRx were being amended:
Effective October 1, 2016, changes will be made to the provider manual stating that your pharmacy MUST purchase ALL medications dispensed for claims being dispensed to OptumRx
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 39 of 93 PageID: 7823
40 20022892.1
participants from a Verified-Accredited-Wholesale Distributor (VAWD).
151. Upon information and belief, on or about October 1, 2016, OptumRx
implemented the VAWD Requirement through an update to its pharmacy network’s
Provider Manual.
152. Upon information and belief, OptumRx has advised its network
pharmacies that failure to comply with the VAWD Requirement could result in
penalties and fines and potentially termination from the OptumRx pharmacy
network. For example, OptumRx’s 2018 Provider Manual stated:
If Network Pharmacy Provider fails to promptly provide such requested documents or the wholesaler is not NABP, VAWD (Verified-Accredited Wholesaler Distributor), Administrator may immediately offset 100% of the amount for any of the paid claims in question and impose additional fines or penalties.
153. Upon information and belief, the potential consequences of failing to
comply with the VAWD Requirement are well known to pharmacies that participate
in OptumRx’s network. For example, OptumRx distributed a Provider Manual
update to its network pharmacies that stated:
Failure to comply with the Agreement and manual may result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination from all pharmacy networks. Network Pharmacy Providers should routinely consult the Manual to ensure compliance.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 40 of 93 PageID: 7824
41 20022892.1
154. Upon information and belief, prior to implementing the VAWD
Requirement, OptumRx personnel knew that forcing pharmacies to only purchase
products from VAWD-accredited wholesalers could result in higher costs.
155. Upon information and belief, because the VAWD Requirement makes
it operationally and financially impractical and extraordinarily risky for pharmacies
to purchase product from non-VAWD wholesalers, the VAWD Requirement is a de
facto prohibition against a network pharmacy exercising its otherwise legal right to
purchase from any non-VAWD wholesale distributor.
156. Upon information and belief, beginning on or around the initial October
1, 2016 implementation date and continuing through the summer of 2018, OptumRx
provided a series of extension letters to those wholesalers who were actively in the
VAWD accreditation process that they could share with their pharmacy customers
in the OptumRx network.
157. Upon information and belief, as a result of OptumRx’s decision to
implement the VAWD Requirement, NABP experienced a temporary increase or
“surge” in VAWD applications. NABP’s average of about 36 applications per year
rose to about 100 applications right after OptumRx’s announcement of the VAWD
Requirement.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 41 of 93 PageID: 7825
42 20022892.1
158. Upon information and belief, in July 2018, OptumRx decided that it
would no longer provide additional extensions to wholesalers whose VAWD
applications had not been approved by NABP.
159. Upon information and belief, OptumRx notified its pharmacy network
via an announcement that effective July 1, 2018, OptumRx would not grant any
additional extensions for those wholesalers who had applied for VAWD
accreditation prior to July 1, 2017. For those wholesalers who applied for VAWD
accreditation after July 1, 2017, OptumRx would provide an extension to provide
the wholesalers with one full year from the date of application to obtain VAWD
accreditation.
160. Upon information and belief, in late August 2018, in connection with
the resolution of a lawsuit challenging the VAWD Requirement, OptumRx extended
one final time the VAWD accredited wholesaler deadline to December 31, 2018.
161. Upon information and belief, in or about November 2018, OptumRx
announced that the VAWD Requirement was going to be fully implemented as of
January 1, 2019.
B. OptumRx Provided Exemptions to the VAWD Requirement that Favored Large Wholesalers
162. Upon information and belief, following OptumRx’s announcement of
the VAWD Requirement, a number of large wholesale distributors contacted
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 42 of 93 PageID: 7826
43 20022892.1
OptumRx to raise concerns about the effect that the VAWD Requirement would
have on their respective businesses.
163. Upon information and belief, these large wholesalers were concerned
about the impact of the VAWD Requirement because not all of their distribution
facilities were VAWD-accredited, and VAWD is a facility-specific accreditation.
164. Upon information and belief, because VAWD is a facility-specific
accreditation, if a wholesaler (regardless of size) has more than one distribution
facility, each facility is subject to separate compliance and policy review, inspection,
and accreditation.
165. Upon information and belief, even though VAWD is a facility-specific
accreditation, OptumRx applied a “common ownership” exemption to the VAWD
Requirement for the large wholesalers. Under this exemption, if the parent company
was a primary wholesaler and at least one of its distribution centers was VAWD-
accredited, then all of its distribution centers would be deemed compliant with the
VAWD Requirement “as long as they are working towards VAWD accreditation.”
166. Upon information and belief, and by way of example,
AmerisourceBergen had three separate facilities that had pending applications for
VAWD accreditation. As of January 23, 2019, these applications had been pending
for 1048, 1048, and 1050 days, respectively. Because these applications were
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 43 of 93 PageID: 7827
44 20022892.1
“pending,” these AmerisourceBergen facilities were not subject to the VAWD
Requirement—even though the VAWD program is facility specific.
C. OptumRx’s Enforcement of the VAWD Requirement
167. Upon information and belief, between July 2016 and December 31,
2018, OptumRx routinely sent notices to its network pharmacies that purchasing
products from non-VAWD accredited wholesalers was prohibited.
168. Upon information and belief, OptumRx conducts both routine and
exhaustive in-depth audits of its network pharmacies. The OptumRx Provider
Agreement sets forth comprehensive information and document expectations that a
pharmacy is required to provide to OptumRx when it is being audited.
169. Upon information and belief, the VAWD Requirement is enforced by
OptumRx’s audit team.
170. Upon information and belief, OptumRx performs four types of audits
of its network pharmacies. Those audits are: real-time; desktop; on-site; and
investigative.
171. Upon information and belief, OptumRx only audits its network
pharmacies for compliance with the VAWD Requirement as part of an investigative
audit. An investigative audit is triggered by tips, referrals or internal analytics that
show “suspicious activity” by the pharmacy. During an investigative audit,
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 44 of 93 PageID: 7828
45 20022892.1
OptumRx reviews the claims submitted by the pharmacy, as well as the pharmacy’s
product purchases.
172. Upon information and belief, OptumRx performs between 500 to 600
investigative audits annually. All of these audits are of independent pharmacies.
173. Upon information and belief, as part of the investigative audit,
OptumRx requests that the pharmacy have its wholesalers directly send to OptumRx
invoices or an Excel spreadsheet supporting the purchases by the network pharmacy.
174. Upon information and belief, the VAWD Requirement requires
OptumRx to make assumptions about dispensed products. Indeed, OptumRx
personnel have testified that there is no way for OptumRx to definitely determine
whether the pharmaceuticals that a pharmacy dispenses to its members were sourced
from a VAWD-accredited wholesaler.
175. Upon information and belief, notwithstanding the foregoing,
OptumRx’s Provider Manual states that OptumRx will require its network
pharmacies to prove that they have dispensed a product purchased from a VAWD-
accredited wholesaler to the OptumRx member.
176. Upon information and belief, prior to January 1, 2019, if OptumRx
auditors determined that a pharmacy was not purchasing from VAWD-accredited
wholesalers, the pharmacy received a warning letter reminding the pharmacy of the
VAWD Requirement and that it needed to comply.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 45 of 93 PageID: 7829
46 20022892.1
177. Upon information and belief, after January 1, 2019, OptumRx began
issuing cease and desist letters (rather than warning letters) to pharmacies that were
in violation of the VAWD Requirement, and threatened termination and penalties.
178. Upon information and belief, as of May 22, 2019, OptumRx had not
recouped any payments made to a pharmacy solely due to non-compliance with the
VAWD Requirement.
179. Upon information and belief, as of May 22, 2019, OptumRx had not
assessed any fines or penalties against a pharmacy solely due to non-compliance
with the VAWD Requirement.
180. Upon information and belief, as of May 22, 2019, OptumRx had not
terminated the provider contract of a pharmacy solely due to non-compliance with
the VAWD Requirement.
V. Plaintiffs’ Efforts to Obtain VAWD-Accreditation
181. Upon information and belief, prior to October 1, 2016, participation in
the VAWD program was voluntary, and there was no perceived economic benefit to
wholesalers in obtaining VAWD accreditation.
182. Upon information and belief, prior to October 1, 2016, no pharmacies
or vendor suppliers required wholesalers to be VAWD-accredited to conduct
business.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 46 of 93 PageID: 7830
47 20022892.1
183. Upon information and belief, once OptumRx implemented the VAWD
Requirement, participation in the VAWD program effectively became mandatory.
184. But for OptumRx’s implementation of the VAWD Requirement in
2016, none of the Plaintiffs would have sought VAWD accreditation.
A. Matrix’s Efforts to Obtain VAWD-Accreditation
185. Since September 2016, Matrix has attempted to obtain VAWD
accreditation from NABP. However, despite being fully compliant with Federal and
State law, and using its best efforts to comply with NABP’s more stringent tracing
requirements, NABP has not granted accreditation to Matrix.
186. On September 20, 2016, Matrix submitted to NABP a completed
application for VAWD accreditation, along with the payment of fees totaling
$5,675.00.
187. Upon information and belief, on or about April 24, 2017, Matrix
received an e-mail from NABP that its VAWD Application had been “cancelled”
because, among other reasons, Matrix “is the participant in a supply chain which
includes the sale and distribution of prescription product by a pharmacy.”
188. After receiving the Cancellation Notice from NABP, Matrix’s Chief
Compliance Officer asked NABP to identify what NABP perceived to be
problematic sources. NABP refused to do so, believing that providing the requested
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 47 of 93 PageID: 7831
48 20022892.1
information would effectively help Matrix “write itself into compliance” with the
VAWD criteria.
189. On April 28, 2017, through its counsel, Matrix advised NABP that it
“is committed to obtaining VAWD accreditation and seeks a stay of the
‘cancellation’ while it is in the process of providing the additional information and
documents that NABP has requested of it and the parties work in good faith to correct
any perceived or actual issues with [the VAWD Application].” Matrix also requested
a consultation with NABP to discuss the cancellation and the specific instances of
alleged non-compliance identified by NABP.
190. Upon information and belief, on May 10, 2017, NABP issued the
following ultimatum to Matrix:
Matrix needs to make a choice: change its business model and operations to comply with VAWD accreditation criteria, or continue to conduct business as is without accreditation. If Matrix is willing to modify its business model and is committed to complying with VAWD accreditation criteria, the NABP accreditation team is willing to work directly with Matrix throughout the accreditation process.
191. Upon information and belief, also on May 10, 2017, a conference call
between Matrix and NABP’s Co-Executive Director and Senior Managing Director
was held. NABP advised Matrix to submit a root-cause analysis and revised P&Ps
relating to Matrix’s supply chain sources.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 48 of 93 PageID: 7832
49 20022892.1
192. In order to satisfy NABP’s request, Matrix retained a law firm well-
versed in pharmacy law to perform the requested root-cause analysis and assist
Matrix in revising its P&Ps.
193. On June 9, 2017, Matrix’s attorneys transmitted to NABP the root-
cause analysis and revised P&Ps. The root-cause analysis continued a Corrective
Action Plan to address concerns regarding products that may have been purchased
by or obtained from a pharmacy. Matrix advised NABP that it would no longer
purchase inventory directly from any pharmacies, and it further stated that it was
willing to make any reasonable modifications to its procedures to ensure VAWD
accreditation.
194. Although there are no State or Federal laws or regulations prohibiting
transactions with a pharmacy in the supply chain, or with co-located facilities,
Matrix offered to modify its business practices and cease engaging in transactions
with such facilities.
195. Upon information and belief, on August 23, 2017, without any notice,
NABP cancelled Matrix’s renewed VAWD application, claiming Matrix was not
compliant with the VAWD criteria. NABP advised Matrix that it had to wait a
period of six months before it reapply for VAWD accreditation.
196. Upon information and belief, NABP did not afford Matrix with a
hearing or an opportunity to otherwise “appeal” the NABP decision to “cancel” the
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 49 of 93 PageID: 7833
50 20022892.1
Matrix VAWD Application or challenge the criteria upon which NABP’s decision
was based.
197. On March 30, 2018, Matrix reapplied for VAWD accreditation.
198. As noted previously, VAWD accreditation is location specific. In
September 2018, Matrix withdrew its application for VAWD accreditation because
Matrix had to move to a different facility location for reasons unrelated to this action.
199. Upon information and belief, on or about December 13, 2018, Matrix
submitted another application for VAWD accreditation.
200. Upon information and belief, through its counsel, Matrix requested that
NABP provide Matrix with provisional or conditional accreditation or an expedited
review of its application in light of the January 1, 2019 implementation date set by
OptumRx for the VAWD Requirement. NABP refused that request.
201. Upon information and belief, the VAWD application that Matrix
submitted to NABP on or about December 13, 2018, remains pending at this time.
B. PriMed’s Efforts to Obtain VAWD-Accreditation
202. Since September 2016, PriMed has attempted to obtain VAWD
accreditation from NABP. However, despite being fully compliant with Federal and
State law, and using its best efforts to comply with NABP’s more stringent tracing
requirements, it was not until November 20, 2019, that PriMed achieved
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 50 of 93 PageID: 7834
51 20022892.1
accreditation. NABP’s “cancellations” of PriMed’s first two VAWD applications
were arbitrary and without meaningful due process.
203. Upon information and belief, PriMed first applied for VAWD
accreditation on or about September 8, 2016.
204. Upon information and belief, on or about April 26, 2017, NABP
“cancelled” PriMed’s VAWD application, among other reasons, because NABP
determined that PriMed had pharmacies in its supply chain.
205. Thereafter, PriMed made the business decision, to its financial
detriment, to stop making pharmaceutical purchases from both pharmacies and co-
located facilities, because obtaining VAWD accreditation was necessary for PriMed
to maintain its business of selling to pharmacies in the OptumRx network.
206. Upon information and belief, after cancelling PriMed’s first VAWD
application, NABP did not afford PriMed with a hearing or an opportunity to
otherwise “appeal” NABP’s decision to “cancel” the VAWD application or
challenge the criteria upon which NABP’s decision was based.
207. On or about March 2, 2018, PriMed submitted to NABP a second
application for VAWD accreditation.
208. Upon information and belief, on or about May 31, 2018, NABP
requested additional documentation from PriMed. Among other things, NABP
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 51 of 93 PageID: 7835
52 20022892.1
requested that PriMed produce wholly revised P&Ps within 90 days (i.e., August 29,
2018).
209. Upon information and belief, NABP also requested certain transaction
histories. However, of the 30 vendors for whom transaction histories were requested,
the vast majority were pharmacy vendors that were cited in PriMed’s application
source list as vendors from whom PriMed had ceased purchasing.
210. On or about June 29, 2018, PriMed submitted all of the transaction
documents requested, and provided clarification on certain questions raised by
NABP. PriMed continued to revise its P&Ps, which were not due to NABP until
August 29, 2018.
211. On or about August 23, 2018, NABP advised PriMed that it was
“cancelling” its VAWD application (ahead of the August 29, 2018 deadline for
PriMed to submit revised P&Ps) because, among other reasons, PriMed had “sources
that are dually-licensed as a wholesale distributor and a pharmacy and/or co-located
with a pharmacy.”
212. Upon information and belief, when PriMed asked NABP to identify
what NABP perceived to be problematic sources, NABP refused to identify those
sources for PriMed.
213. Notwithstanding the “early” cancellation of its VAWD application,
PriMed submitted its revised P&Ps to NABP on August 27, 2018, via email and by
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 52 of 93 PageID: 7836
53 20022892.1
sending a flash drive via overnight mail. Due to purported technical issues, PriMed
again submitted its P&Ps by email at 2:00 p.m. on August 29, 2018.
214. Upon information and belief, on August 29, 2018, at 5:51 p.m, only a
few hours after PriMed submitted its P&Ps by email, NABP advised PriMed that its
P&Ps were not compliant with the VAWD criteria. NABP provided PriMed an
opportunity to reapply for VAWD accreditation before the expiration of the 180-day
waiting period by submitting additional documents and information.
215. Upon information and belief, NABP cancelled PriMed’s second
VAWD application based on sourcing practices that PriMed had discontinued prior
to submitting its second VAWD application and which were addressed in its revised
P&Ps.
216. On September 28, 2018, PriMed submitted to NABP the additional
information that NABP had requested of PriMed. In the materials, PriMed stated
that, over the past year, PriMed had adjusted its business practices and drafted
policies to protect against suspect products being introduced into its inventory (to
ensure full compliance with FDA’s March 2018 Draft Guidance on the topic). With
respect to NABP’s concern about sourcing from dual-licensed wholesale distributors
or pharmacies, PriMed provided NABP with the specific procedures that PriMed
already employed to eliminate such transactions from its business model. PriMed
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 53 of 93 PageID: 7837
54 20022892.1
further advised, “If additional steps are required by NABP, we are more than willing
to revise our procedures to satisfy any deficiency.”
217. Upon information and belief, on or about October 22, 2018, NABP
again rejected PriMed’s submission as being not VAWD-compliant. NABP
prohibited PriMed from reapplying for accreditation for 180 days (i.e., until April
20, 2019).
218. PriMed believed that, rather than judging PriMed based on its current
business practices, NABP arbitrarily denied PriMed’s VAWD application, relying
on past business practices that are legal but which NABP does not approve.
219. At no point during the process associated with PriMed’s second VAWD
application did NABP afford PriMed with a hearing or an opportunity to otherwise
“appeal” NABP’s decision to “cancel” the VAWD application or challenge the
criteria upon which NABP’s decision was based.
220. Because of OptumRx’s announcement that, as of January 1, 2019, the
VAWD Requirement was going to be fully implemented, on November 29, 2018,
PriMed requested that NABP waive the 180-day waiting period for resubmitting a
VAWD application and that NABP permit PriMed to re-apply immediately. NABP
denied PriMed’s request on December 3, 2018.
221. Upon information and belief, through its counsel, PriMed requested
that NABP provide PriMed with provisional or conditional accreditation or an
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 54 of 93 PageID: 7838
55 20022892.1
expedited review of PriMed’s accreditation status in light of the January 1, 2019
implementation date for the VAWD Requirement. NABP also refused that request.
222. Upon information and belief, on or about April 1, 2019, PriMed
submitted a third application for VAWD accreditation.
223. From PriMed’s perspective, NABP’s processing of its third VAWD
application (while this action was pending) was markedly different; that is, NABP
was far more collaborative and cooperative than during the processing of its first two
(pre-litigation) applications.
224. Upon information and belief, on or about November 20, 2019, NABP
granted PriMed’s third application for VAWD accreditation.
C. Oak’s Efforts to Obtain VAWD-Accreditation
225. Despite Oak being fully compliant with Federal and State law, and
using its best efforts to comply with NABP’s more stringent tracing requirements,
NABP did not accredit Oak until NABP granted Oak’s second application for
VAWD accreditation on or about October 22, 2019. NABP’s “cancellation” of
Oak’s first VAWD application was arbitrary and without meaningful due process.
226. Oak began operations as a wholesale distributor in February 2018, and
obtained its first wholesale distributor license, from the State of New York, in May
2018.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 55 of 93 PageID: 7839
56 20022892.1
227. Upon information and belief, on or about May 21, 2018, Oak submitted
to NABP a completed application for VAWD accreditation, along with the payment
of fees totaling $5,500.00.
228. Upon information and belief, on or about June 26, 2018, NABP
requested additional information from Oak. Among other things, NABP required
that Oak produce P&Ps within 90 days.
229. Upon information and belief, on or about July 16, 2018, Oak submitted
all of the documents requested, and provided clarification on certain questions raised
by NABP. In addition, Oak advised NABP that it was modifying its business model
and going forward would only purchase from VAWD-accredited wholesalers and
drug manufacturers. This change was not required of Oak, but it thought that the
change would illustrate to NABP Oak’s commitment to the VAWD process. Since
July 2018, Oak has only sourced pharmaceuticals from VAWD-accredited
wholesalers, and has not purchased pharmaceuticals from any non-VAWD
accredited sources.
230. Upon information and belief, on multiple occasions, NABP sought
information concerning the relationship between Oak’s equity owners and certain
independent pharmacies. For example, NABP once requested information
concerning all of Oak’s “affiliates involved in the sale, distribution, or dispensing of
prescription drugs and/or prescription devices.”
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 56 of 93 PageID: 7840
57 20022892.1
231. Oak provided to NABP the requested information and identified fifteen
(15) different pharmacies in which Oak’s owners also had an ownership interest.
Oak also identified each of those pharmacies’ equity holders by name and
percentage.
232. Upon information and belief, none of the 15 pharmacies identified by
Oak fell within the definition of an “affiliate,” as set forth in the DSCSA. See 21
U.S.C. § 360eee(1).
233. Oak is a completely separate entity from the 15 pharmacies identified
by NABP, and they do not share any warehousing or other facilities with Oak. The
only relationship between Oak and these pharmacies are that they are Oak
customers. Oak does not purchase any pharmaceuticals from these or any other
pharmacy.
234. Upon information and belief, and notwithstanding the foregoing, on
or about December 6, 2018, NABP “cancelled” Oak’s VAWD application. In
the vague words of NABP, Oak’s application had been “cancelled” because its
P&Ps were “inconsistent and, as written, will not secure the drug supply chain.”
No further detail for the reasons why Oak’s application was cancelled were
provided.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 57 of 93 PageID: 7841
58 20022892.1
235. Upon information and belief, the real reason that NABP cancelled
Oak’s VAWD application was its equity holders’ separate and distinct
ownership interests in independent pharmacies.
236. At no point in the process in connection with Oak’s first VAWD
Application was Oak afforded a hearing or an opportunity to “appeal” NABP’s
decision to “cancel” its VAWD application or challenge the basis for NABP’s
decision.
237. Upon information and belief, NABP’s adverse decision on Oak’s first
VAWD application prevented Oak from securing wholesale distributor licenses in
those States where VAWD accreditation is a condition to licensure.
238. On or about February 4, 2019, Oak submitted its second application for
VAWD accreditation.
239. From Oak’s perspective, NABP’s processing of Oak’s second VAWD
application (while this action was pending), was markedly different; that is, NABP
was far more collaborative and cooperative than during the processing of its first
(pre-litigation) application.
240. Upon information and belief, on or about October 22, 2019, NABP
granted Oak’s second application for VAWD accreditation.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 58 of 93 PageID: 7842
59 20022892.1
VI. OptumRx’s Willing Partnership and Collaboration with NABP Makes It a “State Actor”
241. Upon information and belief, in various internal announcements about
the VAWD Requirement, OptumRx characterized its relationship with NABP as a
“partnership.”
242. Upon information and belief, in an internal email with a member of
OptumRx’s communications team, the OptumRx Vice President who decided to
adopt the VAWD Requirement explained that OptumRx laid “the groundwork to
establish requirements on purchasing from VAWD distributors only through
partnership with the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy.”
243. Upon information and belief, when the VAWD Requirement was
announced to the OptumRx executive leadership team, the OptumRx Vice President
who decided to adopt the VAWD Requirement wrote: “Optum partnered with NABP
to ensure the accreditation program would ensure a review of the wholesalers to meet
and exceed the federal DQSA (Drug Quality and Security Act) / DSCSA (Drug
Supply Chain Security Act).”
244. Upon information and belief, in response to questions posed by
OptumRx’s executive leadership team concerning the VAWD Requirement, the
OptumRx Vice President who decided to adopt the VAWD Requirement wrote:
“The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy has been a key partner in the
development of this approach.”
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 59 of 93 PageID: 7843
60 20022892.1
245. Upon information and belief, after OptumRx announced the VAWD
Requirement, OptumRx and NABP leadership worked closely together with respect
to implementation of the VAWD Requirement.
246. Upon information and belief, and by way of example, shortly after the
VAWD Requirement was announced, NABP’s Associate Executive Director
provided OptumRx with an “interim communications plan.”
247. Upon information and belief, OptumRx also communicated with
NABP with respect to specific wholesalers and their progress in the VAWD
accreditation process for the specific purpose of determining whether to grant the
wholesaler an extension of the VAWD Requirement.
248. Upon information and belief, OptumRx also coordinated with NABP
when responding to certain industry stakeholders who were concerned about the
impact the VAWD Requirement would have on the wholesale distribution industry
and its pharmacy customers.
249. Upon information and belief, and by way of example, on or about
September 21, 2016, OptumRx received a letter from the American Pharmacists
Association (“APhA”) and the National Alliance of State Pharmacy Associations
(“NASPA”), in which those organizations raised concerns about the VAWD
Requirement. APhA and NASPA further explained to OptumRx that the VAWD
Requirement “is in conflict with the intent of DSCSA’s uniform licensure standards,
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 60 of 93 PageID: 7844
61 20022892.1
as OptumRx wholesalers will be required to adhere to VAWD standards and
requirements, which are more stringent than most state laws.”
250. Upon information and belief, as a result of the concerns raised by
various industry stakeholders, OptumRx held a meeting with those stakeholders on
October 4, 2016, to discuss the VAWD Requirement. To prepare for this meeting,
NABP provided OptumRx with background information and materials to defend the
VAWD program and Optum’s decision to implement the VAWD Requirement.
Specifically, on September 26, 2016—approximately one week before OptumRx’s
meeting with industry stakeholders—NABP’s Senior Compliance Manager sent 11
documents to OptumRx, including documents titled “talking points” and “Diversion
case summaries for Optum” to use at the meeting.
251. Upon information and belief, NABP viewed OptumRx’s adoption of
the VAWD Requirement as the vehicle by which the national standards that NABP
sought to have imposed on the drug supply chain could be achieved.
252. Upon information and belief, NABP has viewed secondary wholesale
distributors as supply chain “menaces” who exploit gaps in Federal and State laws
and regulation to their benefit. NABP has targeted some of their otherwise legal
practices of which NABP does not approve.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 61 of 93 PageID: 7845
62 20022892.1
253. Upon information and belief, OptumRx has sought to shrink the
number of independent pharmacies in its network, to benefit other United Healthcare
affiliates.
254. Upon information and belief, as a way to shrink the number of
independent pharmacies with whom it contracts, OptumRx is considering ways to
require additional accreditations in order for pharmacies to participate in the
OptumRx networks, including working with NABP to develop such accreditation
programs.
255. Upon information and belief, while their goals may be different, the
willing collaboration and partnership between NABP and OptumRx with respect to
the VAWD Requirement has the collective impact of harming the intended targets
of NABP and OptumRx; that is, secondary wholesalers and independent pharmacies.
256. Upon information and belief, as a willing partner and collaborator with
NABP in implementing the VAWD Requirement, OptumRx is a “State actor” for
the purposes of this action.
VII. Injury to the Plaintiffs Caused By the VAWD Requirement
257. Upon information and belief, most of the independent pharmacies that
have been customers of Plaintiffs have some patients whose prescription drug
benefits are managed by OptumRx.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 62 of 93 PageID: 7846
63 20022892.1
258. Upon information and belief, approximately 90% of each Plaintiff’s
customer base consists of pharmacies in the OptumRx pharmacy network.
259. Upon information and belief, it is customary for pharmacies to only
order medications from wholesalers that can be dispensed to beneficiaries of
healthcare plans.
260. Plaintiffs have been informed by pharmacy customers that the
pharmacies have ceased ordering medications and supplies from Plaintiffs due to the
VAWD Requirement. This is because OptumRx has threatened pharmacies in its
network with audits, recoupment, fines and assessments, and possible termination
from OptumRx’s network if they fail to abide by the VAWD-accreditation
requirement. Given OptumRx’s status as one of the nation’s largest PBMs, most
pharmacies are not willing to risk the consequences of dealing with a non-VAWD-
accredited wholesale distributor, especially given the impracticality of segregating
inventory as having been purchased from VAWD and non-VAWD-accredited
sources.
261. Upon information and belief, many pharmacy customers of Plaintiffs
have discontinued doing business with Plaintiffs and have advised them that they
will only recommence doing business with Plaintiffs if they can provide proof of
VAWD-accreditation.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 63 of 93 PageID: 7847
64 20022892.1
262. Upon information and belief, as of March 11, 2019, Matrix identified
more than 200 lost customers that expressly indicated to Matrix that they will no
longer source pharmaceuticals from Matrix due to the VAWD Requirement.
263. Upon information and belief, as of March 11, 2019, PriMed identified
81 lost customers that expressly indicated to PriMed that they will no longer source
pharmaceuticals from PriMed due to the VAWD Requirement.
264. Upon information and belief, as of March 11, 2019, Oak identified at
least 22 lost customers as a result of the VAWD Requirement.
265. Upon information and belief, the relatively few pharmacies that are not
in the OptumRx pharmacy network are insufficient to make up for the volume of
customers and sales lost by Plaintiffs as a result of the VAWD Requirement.
266. Upon information and belief, the impact of these lost customer
relationships upon each of the Plaintiffs’ respective businesses is substantial. For
example, Matrix’s business was steadily growing during the four years prior to the
August 2016 announcement of the VAWD Requirement. After the VAWD
Requirement was announced in 2016, Matrix experienced a substantial reversal in
its business trajectory. Matrix saw a decrease in sales in 2017, and its losses escalated
in 2018. Matrix serviced roughly 600 less pharmacies in 2018 compared to 2017,
and its sales decreased significantly. These losses have continued into 2019 and
2020.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 64 of 93 PageID: 7848
65 20022892.1
267. Upon information and belief, the VAWD Requirement has prevented
Plaintiffs from developing relationships with new customers.
268. Upon information and belief, the VAWD Requirement has adversely
impacted Plaintiffs’ relationships with certain drug manufacturers and prevented
them from cultivating new relationships with manufacturers.
269. Upon information and belief, the VAWD Requirement has adversely
impacted Plaintiffs’ relationships with certain wholesale distributor customers who
have stopped purchasing from non-VAWD accredited wholesalers such as Plaintiffs,
in support of those wholesalers’ own attempts to achieve VAWD accreditation.
270. As a result of the adverse impact to their respective businesses, Matrix
and PriMed have both reduced their workforce, and a number of key employees have
departed because of the difficulty in selling drugs to independent pharmacies in the
face of the VAWD Requirement. The loss of key sales personnel is significant for
sales-based companies like Plaintiffs. Secondary wholesalers’ business relationships
with independent pharmacies are marked by developing personal relationships and
trust.
VIII. Nature of Harm to Pharmacies and Patients
271. Upon information and belief, not only have Plaintiffs been harmed by
the VAWD Requirement, but independent pharmacies and patients are also
adversely impacted.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 65 of 93 PageID: 7849
66 20022892.1
272. Upon information and belief, when pharmacies’ access to secondary
wholesalers are diminished as a result of the VAWD Requirement, there are adverse
consequences for patients, providers, and the drug marketplace in general. This
includes, but is not limited to: increased waste of drug inventory, including short-
dated supplies, and increased average wholesale pricing and/or wholesale
acquisition costs.
273. Upon information and belief, there are numerous independent
pharmacies that rely on Plaintiffs (and similarly situated secondary wholesalers) to
obtain life-saving medications for their patients.
274. Upon information and belief, these independent pharmacies are often
unable to obtain these medications from the primary wholesalers because they fail
to meet the larger wholesalers’ minimum purchasing requirements or the larger
wholesalers cannot provide the medications as quickly as needed by the patient.
275. Upon information and belief, without the ability to purchase
medications from Plaintiffs (and other similarly situated secondary wholesalers),
many independent pharmacies have encountered difficulty obtaining the
medications necessary to service their patients.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 66 of 93 PageID: 7850
67 20022892.1
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Judgment and Injunction for Violation of Federal Law and
United States Constitution (Against NABP)
276. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 275 of this
Amended Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
277. Upon information and belief, in the interest of establishing a national
uniform policy for drug tracing and licensing requirements for pharmaceutical
wholesale distributors, Congress expressly preempted in the DSCSA attempts by
State actors to regulate in this area of law.
278. Upon information and belief, NABP's VAWD-accreditation program,
created and administered by a State actor, imposes standards for drug tracing and
licensing wholesale distributors that are more stringent than, or directly related to,
the standards established by Congress in the DSCSA.
279. Upon information and belief, the VAWD criteria, as written and applied
by NABP, prohibit wholesale distributors from distributing drugs that were at any
time purchased by or from a pharmacy or practitioners. As such, they impose
standards for drug tracing that are more stringent than, or directly related to, the
standards established by Congress in the DSCSA.
280. Upon information and belief, the VAWD criteria, as written and applied
by NABP, require the erection of “firewalls” when wholesale distributors engage in
prescription drug transactions with dual-licensed facilities. As such, they impose
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 67 of 93 PageID: 7851
68 20022892.1
standards for drug tracing that are more stringent than, or directly related to, the
standards established by Congress in the DSCSA.
281. Upon information and belief, the VAWD criteria, as written and applied
by NABP, subject applications from, and transactions with, wholesale distributors
that are co-located with pharmacies to “additional scrutiny.” As such, they impose
standards for drug tracing and wholesaler licensure that are more stringent than, or
directly related to, the standards established by Congress in the DSCSA.
282. Upon information and belief, the VAWD criteria, as written and applied
by NABP, treat drugs that had been purchased by or obtained from a pharmacy, or
a co-located facility, as “suspect” prescription drugs. As such, they impose standards
for drug tracing that are more stringent than, or directly related to, the standards
established by Congress in the DSCSA.
283. Upon information and belief, because the VAWD criteria that prohibit
wholesale distributors from distributing drugs that were at any time purchased by or
from a pharmacy or practitioners are more stringent than, or directly related to, the
tracing standards established by Congress in the DSCSA, they are preempted under
the DSCSA and through the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
284. Upon information and belief, because the VAWD criteria that require
the erection of “firewalls” when wholesale distributors engage in prescription drug
transactions with dual-licensed facilities are more stringent than, or directly related
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 68 of 93 PageID: 7852
69 20022892.1
to, the tracing standards established by Congress in the DSCSA, they are preempted
under the DSCSA and through the Supremacy Clause of the United States
Constitution.
285. Upon information and belief, because the VAWD criteria that subject
applications from, and transactions with, wholesale distributors that are co-located
with pharmacies to “additional scrutiny” are more stringent than, or directly related
to, the tracing and wholesaler licensure standards established by Congress in the
DSCSA, they are preempted under the DSCSA and through the Supremacy Clause
of the United States Constitution.
286. Upon information and belief, because the VAWD criteria that treat
drugs purchased by or obtained from by a pharmacy, or a co-located facility, as
“suspect” prescription drugs are more stringent than, or directly related to, the
tracing standards established by Congress in the DSCSA, they are preempted under
the DSCSA and through the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
287. By reason of the foregoing, the aforementioned VAWD criteria are
preempted under the DSCSA and through the Supremacy Clause of the United States
Constitution and should be declared null and void by this Court.
288. Upon information and belief, the VAWD applications of Matrix have
been cancelled/delayed, in part, for alleged failure to satisfy VAWD criteria that are
preempted under the DSCSA.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 69 of 93 PageID: 7853
70 20022892.1
289. By reason of the foregoing, this Court should issue an Order, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaring that the aforementioned VAWD criteria are
preempted under the DSCSA and through the Supremacy Clause of the United States
Constitution and are null and void.
290. Upon information and belief, the OptumRx official who adopted and
implemented the VAWD Requirement knew that the VAWD criteria “exceeded” the
tracing and licensing standards established in the DSCSA.
291. By reason of the foregoing, this Court should issue an Order, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaring that, because the VAWD applications of Matrix have
been cancelled/delayed, in part, for alleged failure to satisfy VAWD criteria that are
preempted under the DSCSA, those cancellations/delays have been arbitrary,
capricious and based on an error of law, and that OptumRx may not prohibit Matrix
from selling pharmaceuticals to its network pharmacies.
292. By reason of the foregoing, this Court should issue a permanent
injunction prohibiting NABP from enforcing the aforementioned VAWD criteria
that are preempted under the DSCSA and through the Supremacy Clause of the
United States Constitution.
293. By reason of the foregoing, this Court should issue a permanent
injunction prohibiting OptumRx from excluding Matrix from selling
pharmaceuticals to OptumRx network pharmacies.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 70 of 93 PageID: 7854
71 20022892.1
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Judgment and Injunction For Violation of
New York Public Health Law § 280-c (Against OptumRx)
294. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 293 of this
Amended Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
295. Upon information and belief, sales to pharmacy customers within the
State of New York account for approximately 33%, 30%, and 67% of the overall
sales of Matrix, PriMed, and Oak, respectively.
296. Upon information and belief, New York Public Health Law § 280-c
provides that, when conducting an audit of a pharmacy’s records, a PBM such as
OptumRx shall “accept as validation invoices from any wholesaler registered with
the department of education from which the pharmacy has purchased prescription
drugs.” See N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 280-c(2)(i).
297. Upon information and belief, Public Health Law § 280-c permits all
New York pharmacies to utilize products from any wholesaler distributor, so long
as that wholesaler is licensed by the State of New York. The law prohibits PBMs,
including OptumRx, from taking adverse action against pharmacies that source
inventory from wholesale distributors that are duly licensed as such by the State of
New York, including Plaintiffs.
298. Each of the Plaintiffs are duly licensed as wholesale distributors by the
State of New York.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 71 of 93 PageID: 7855
72 20022892.1
299. There is no requirement in the State of New York that a wholesale
distributor must obtain VAWD-accreditation.
300. By reason of the foregoing, the VAWD Requirement violates New
York Public Health Law § 280-c by requiring OptumRx network pharmacies in New
York to only source products from VAWD-accredited wholesaler distributors.
301. By reason of the foregoing, this Court should issue an Order declaring
that the VAWD Requirement violates New York Public Health Law § 280-c and
that, as a result thereof, the VAWD Requirement may not be enforced by OptumRx
within the State of New York.
302. By reason of the foregoing, this Court should also issue a permanent
injunction removing any restriction on Plaintiff Matrix from selling pharmaceuticals
to OptumRx pharmacies located within the State of New York.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Against Defendants)
303. Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through
302 of this Amended Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth
herein.
304. Upon information and belief, at the time that OptumRx adopted the
VAWD Requirement, the VAWD program was the only available accreditation
program for wholesale distributors.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 72 of 93 PageID: 7856
73 20022892.1
305. Upon information and belief, in or about September 2019, the National
Coalition for Drug Quality and Security launched the Quality and Security (“QAS”)
Accreditation program for wholesale distributors.
306. Upon information and belief, one or more QAS-accredited wholesalers
have requested that OptumRx waive the VAWD Requirement as to them, in light of
their status as a QAS-accredited wholesale distributor.
307. Upon information and belief, OptumRx denied the request that the
VAWD Requirement be waived as to QAS-accredited wholesale distributors.
308. Upon information and belief, OptumRx is a “willing participant” in
NABP’s administration of the VAWD program, which is “State action.” OptumRx
has not simply adopted NABP’s VAWD program as a preferred accreditation with
which its pharmacies should do business. To the contrary, OptumRx has mandated
that its pharmacies source pharmaceuticals only through VAWD-accredited
wholesalers.
309. Upon information and belief, OptumRx’s decision to partner,
coordinate, and collaborate with NABP in connection with its implementation and
application of the VAWD Requirement makes OptumRx a “willing participant” in
NABP’s conduct.
310. By reason of the foregoing, OptumRx is a “State actor” with regard to
the implementation and application of the VAWD Requirement.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 73 of 93 PageID: 7857
74 20022892.1
311. Upon information and belief, the VAWD applications of Matrix have
been cancelled or held up as a result of NABP’s application of VAWD criteria
preempted under the DSCSA and through the Supremacy Clause of the United States
Constitution.
312. Upon information and belief, the first two VAWD applications of
PriMed were cancelled as a result of NABP’s application of VAWD criteria
preempted under the DSCSA and through the Supremacy Clause of the United States
Constitution.
313. Upon information and belief, the first VAWD application of Oak was
cancelled as a result of NABP’s application of VAWD criteria preempted under the
DSCSA and through the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
314. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have jointly engaged in action
under color of State law that is preempted under the DSCSA and through the
Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
315. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ rights have been violated under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result thereof.
316. Upon information and belief, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for the damages that Plaintiffs have suffered as a result
of Defendants’ impermissible State action, in an amount to be determined by the
trier of fact.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 74 of 93 PageID: 7858
75 20022892.1
317. Because of Defendants’ liability to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Defendants are also liable to Plaintiffs for their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
AS AND FOR A FOURTHCAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Constitutional And Statutory Due Process Rights
(Against Defendants)
318. Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through
317 of this Amended Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth
herein.
319. As “State actors” with respect to the VAWD Program and the VAWD
Requirement, Defendants must comply with the procedural due process
requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.
320. As “State actors” with respect to the VAWD Program and the VAWD
Requirement, Defendants must comply with the procedural due process
requirements established under the laws of the State of New Jersey.
321. Upon information and belief, Matrix is licensed as a pharmaceutical
wholesale distributor in the State of New Jersey, and holds licenses in 34 other
States.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 75 of 93 PageID: 7859
76 20022892.1
322. Upon information and belief, PriMed is licensed as a pharmaceutical
wholesale distributor in the State of New Jersey, and holds licenses in 38 other
States.
323. Upon information and belief, Oak is licensed as a pharmaceutical
wholesale distributor in the State of New Jersey, and holds licenses in 19 other
States.
324. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs have a protectable property
interest in their State licenses to conduct business as pharmaceutical wholesale
distributors.
325. Upon information and belief, Defendants have engaged, and are
engaging in, impermissible State action that will significantly diminish, and has
diminished, the value of the State licenses in which Plaintiffs have a protectable
interest.
326. Upon information and belief, Defendants have not adequately detailed
the reasons for the cancellation of Plaintiffs’ VAWD applications and/or cancelled
their applications based upon VAWD criteria that are preempted under the DSCSA
and through the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
327. Upon information and belief, NABP has not afforded Plaintiffs with a
hearing before a neutral decision-maker or an opportunity to “appeal” the
cancellations of the Plaintiffs’ respective VAWD applications or to challenge the
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 76 of 93 PageID: 7860
77 20022892.1
criteria upon which NABP’s decisions were based, prior to Defendants engaging in
State action that will significantly diminish the value of the State licenses in which
Plaintiffs have a protectable interest.
328. Upon information and belief, OptumRx has not afforded Plaintiffs with
a hearing before a neutral decision-maker, in order that they could “appeal”
OptumRx’s refusal to permit them to sell to pharmacies within the OptumRx
network, prior to Defendants engaging in State action that would significantly
diminish the value of the State licenses in which Plaintiffs have a protectable interest.
329. Upon information and belief, Defendants have jointly engaged in action
under color of State law that has violated Plaintiffs’ right to procedural due process
under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
330. Upon information and belief, Defendants have jointly engaged in action
under color of State law that has violated Plaintiffs’ rights to procedural due process
under the laws of the State of New Jersey.
331. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs rights have been violated under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result thereof.
332. Upon information and belief, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for the damages that Plaintiffs have suffered as a result
of Defendants’ impermissible State action, in an amount to be determined by the
trier of fact.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 77 of 93 PageID: 7861
78 20022892.1
333. Because of Defendants’ liability to Plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Defendants are also liable to Plaintiffs for their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION In The Alternative, For Violation Of Common Law
Right To Due Process (Against NABP)
334. Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through
333 of this Amended Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth
herein.
335. This cause of action is pled in the alternative.
336. Even if NABP is not a “State actor” for Constitutional purposes, it is a
quasi-public accrediting agency that must employ fair procedures when making its
accreditation decisions.
337. Upon information and belief, until September 2019, when the QAS
accreditation program was established, NABP had enjoyed monopoly power with
respect to pharmaceutical wholesale distributor accreditation.
338. By reason of the foregoing, NABP's conduct with respect to its
wholesale distributor accreditation decisions is subject to heightened scrutiny.
339. Upon information and belief, NABP has not afforded any Plaintiff, as
to any of their “cancelled” VAWD applications, with a hearing or an opportunity to
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 78 of 93 PageID: 7862
79 20022892.1
otherwise “appeal” NABP’s decisions to “cancel” their respective applications or
challenge the criteria upon which NABP’s respective decisions were based.
340. Upon information and belief, NABP's handling of Plaintiffs’
“cancelled” VAWD-accreditation applications has been arbitrary and capricious,
based on legally invalid criteria, and lacking in any meaningful due process.
341. By reason of the foregoing, NABP has violated Plaintiffs’ common-law
right to due process, and Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result thereof.
342. By reason of the foregoing, NABP is liable to Plaintiffs for the damages
that they have suffered as a result of NABP’s breach of Plaintiffs’ common-law right
to due process, in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Tortious Interference With Contract
(Against OptumRx)
343. Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through
342 of this Amended Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth
herein.
344. Plaintiffs have existing business relations with independent and
community pharmacy customers, who purchase pharmaceuticals from Plaintiffs in
order to fill prescriptions for their patients.
345. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs had a valid and reasonable
business expectancy in their relationships with their pharmacy customers.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 79 of 93 PageID: 7863
80 20022892.1
346. Upon information and belief, the economic relationships with their
pharmacy customers were of substantial benefit to Plaintiffs.
347. Plaintiffs have received millions of dollars in revenues from sales of
pharmaceuticals to their customers, many of which are members of the OptumRx
pharmacy network. Plaintiffs have an expectation of economic advantage arising
from these relationships, which constitute a protectable interest under New Jersey
law.
348. Upon information and belief, as one of the largest PBM in the United
States, OptumRx either knew or should have known of the relationships between its
network pharmacies and the wholesale distributors with whom those pharmacies
engaged in business, including Plaintiffs.
349. Upon information and belief, as a result of its product validation and
audit processes, OptumRx either knew or should have known of the relationships
between its network pharmacies and the wholesale distributors with whom those
pharmacies engaged in business, including Plaintiffs.
350. Upon information and belief, when it decided to adopt and implement
the VAWD Requirement, OptumRx either knew or should have known that the
VAWD Requirement was likely to interfere with the relationships between its
network pharmacies and the wholesale distributors with whom those pharmacies
engaged in business, including Plaintiffs.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 80 of 93 PageID: 7864
81 20022892.1
351. Upon information and belief, OptumRx knew or should have known
that its actions would disrupt the relationships between its network pharmacies and
the wholesale distributors with whom those pharmacies engaged in business, if
OptumRx failed to act with reasonable care in the adoption and implementation of
the VAWD Requirement.
352. Upon information and belief, the harm that OptumRx has caused to
Plaintiffs’ relationships with their pharmacy customers has been caused by wrongful
means and with reckless disregard and indifference to Plaintiffs’ valid and
protectable business relationships.
Intimidation of OptumRx Network Pharmacies
353. Plaintiffs’ customers must follow the terms and conditions imposed by
OptumRx in their agreements, including the VAWD Requirement that prohibits
network pharmacies from sourcing pharmaceuticals from wholesaler distributors
such as Plaintiffs that are licensed, but not VAWD-accredited. If Plaintiffs’
customers do not agree with or follow OptumRx’s terms and conditions, OptumRx
has threatened these customers that they will face 100% recoupment, fines,
administrative fees and termination from the OptumRx network. Should that happen,
these pharmacies stand to lose a substantial portion of their business and revenue, as
they will no longer be able to provide prescription medications to OptumRx patients.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 81 of 93 PageID: 7865
82 20022892.1
354. As a result of the VAWD Requirement, and threats made by OptumRx
should pharmacies fail to comply with the VAWD Requirement, many of Plaintiffs’
customers ceased doing business with Plaintiffs.
355. Upon information and belief, between July 2016 and December 31,
2018, OptumRx routinely sent notices to its network pharmacies that purchasing
products from non-VAWD accredited wholesalers was prohibited.
356. Upon information and belief, between July 2016 and December 31,
2018, OptumRx routinely sent notices to its network pharmacies warning of severe
penalties, including recoupment, audits, fines and penalties, and even termination
from the OptumRx network, if a pharmacy sourced pharmaceuticals from a non-
VAWD accredited wholesaler.
357. Upon information and belief, OptumRx’s threats of severe
consequences should a pharmacy fail to comply with the VAWD Requirement were
misleading and intimidated its network pharmacies into complying with the VAWD
Requirement.
358. Upon information and belief, OptumRx conveyed these threats of
severe consequences to its network pharmacies, even though compliance with the
VAWD Requirement was only audited when its audit team was conducting an
investigative audit.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 82 of 93 PageID: 7866
83 20022892.1
359. Upon information and belief, OptumRx conveyed these threats of
severe consequences should a pharmacy fail to comply with the VAWD
Requirement, even though OptumRx has not recouped any payments made to a
pharmacy solely due to non-compliance with the VAWD Requirement.
360. Upon information and belief, OptumRx conveyed these threats of
severe consequences should a pharmacy fail to comply with the VAWD
Requirement, even though OptumRx has not assessed any fines against a pharmacy
solely due to non-compliance with the VAWD Requirement.
361. Upon information and belief, OptumRx has conveyed threats of severe
consequences should a pharmacy fail to comply with the VAWD Requirement, even
though OptumRx has not terminated the provider contract of any pharmacy solely
due to non-compliance with the VAWD Requirement.
362. Upon information and belief, OptumRx conveyed these threats of
severe consequences to its network pharmacies, even though OptumRx had only
issued warning letters or cease and desist letters to pharmacies that had failed to
comply with the VAWD Requirement.
Anti-Competitive Impacts
363. Upon information and belief, when OptumRx officials were
considering the adoption of the VAWD Requirement, they expressed concerns about
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 83 of 93 PageID: 7867
84 20022892.1
the anti-competitive effects of requiring OptumRx network pharmacies to only
source prescriptions from VAWD-accredited wholesalers.
364. Upon information and belief, OptumRx nevertheless chose to adopt the
VAWD Requirement.
365. Upon information and belief, the VAWD requirement does not function
to increase competition or yield lower prices. To the contrary, the VAWD
requirement’s immediate effect is to eliminate competition in the wholesale
pharmaceutical distribution market. By eliminating smaller wholesalers, such as
Plaintiffs, pharmacy customers will have fewer choices from which to purchase
pharmaceuticals.
366. Upon information and belief, while OptumRx is foreclosing smaller
wholesalers from the wholesale market for pharmaceuticals and reducing
competition, OptumRx is doing so to benefit from the anticompetitive effect that its
VAWD requirement will have on the supply chain. Specifically, OptumRx obtains
rebates from drug manufacturers, which increase based on the volume billed by
OptumRx’s clients directly to drug manufacturers (i.e., a pharmacy fills a member’s
prescription, and then the drug manufacturer is charged). Accordingly, the more
pharmacies that bill directly to the manufacturer, the higher the rebate that OptumRx
will earn.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 84 of 93 PageID: 7868
85 20022892.1
367. Upon information and belief, by eliminating secondary wholesalers
through the VAWD Requirement, OptumRx is seeking to force its network
pharmacies to increase their purchasing from the primary wholesalers. OptumRx is
doing so for the sole purpose of maximizing its own profit margins in negotiating
rebates with the primary wholesalers.
368. Upon information and belief, with fewer secondary wholesalers
available, independent pharmacies are, in turn, harmed by the impacts of the VAWD
Requirement. A decrease in the number of independent pharmacies decreases
competition, to the benefit of other United Healthcare affiliates.
Violation of Public Health Law § 280-c
369. OptumRx admits that it must comply with all Federal and State laws,
including those that relate to pharmacy audits.
370. Upon information and belief, neither in its Provider Manual nor its
notices to its pharmacy network has OptumRx advised its network pharmacies that
the VAWD Requirement is subject to State pharmacy audit laws.
371. Upon information and belief, OptumRx does not notify its network
pharmacies that certain provisions in their agreements or Provider Manual are not
applicable to them based on applicable Federal or State laws.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 85 of 93 PageID: 7869
86 20022892.1
372. Upon information and belief OptumRx enforces its VAWD
Requirement in New York.
373. Upon information and belief, OptumRx is aware that New York has a
pharmacy audit law (Public Health Law § 280-c) that limits the scope of pharmacy
audits conducted by PBMs such as OptumRx.
374. Upon information and belief, notwithstanding the existence of New
York Public Health Law § 280-c, OptumRx continues to enforce the VAWD
Requirement against its network pharmacies in New York.
375. By reason of the foregoing, OptumRx has intentionally and willfully
misled its New York network pharmacies about the (non-)applicability of the
VAWD Requirement within that State.
376. Upon information and belief, in light of its scant enforcement of the
VAWD Requirement, OptumRx cannot offer a reasonable purpose to justify its
otherwise intentionally intimidating, misleading and/or illegal conduct.
377. By reason of the foregoing, OptumRx has wrongfully and intentionally
interfered with the business relationships between its network pharmacies and
Plaintiffs.
378. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have suffered economic harm.
379. By reason of the foregoing, OptumRx is liable to Plaintiffs in an amount
to be determined by the trier of fact.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 86 of 93 PageID: 7870
87 20022892.1
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Tortious Interference with
Prospective Economic Advantage (Against OptumRx)
380. Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through
379 of this Amended Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth
herein.
381. Upon information and belief, NABP and OptumRx knew that
Plaintiffs’ operation of their businesses was compliant with State and Federal law
governing pharmaceutical wholesale distributors.
382. As described at length herein, OptumRx’s implementation of its
VAWD Requirement, accomplished in concert with NABP, has disrupted the
Plaintiffs’ ability to engage in economic relationships with prospective pharmacy
customers who, because of the VAWD Requirement, have declined to enter into
economic relationships with Plaintiffs.
383. OptumRx’s implementation of the VAWD Requirement constitutes an
unfair trade practice within the meaning of New Jersey Business and Professional
Code § 17200.
384. As a proximate result of OptumRx’s conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered,
and will continue to suffer, significant damages, including, but not limited to, lost
revenue and lost profits caused by the substantial disruption in the Plaintiffs’ ability
to engage in economic relationships with prospective pharmacy customers.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 87 of 93 PageID: 7871
88 20022892.1
385. By reason of the foregoing, OptumRx is liable to Plaintiffs for the harm
to Plaintiffs’ prospective economic relationships that has been caused by the VAWD
Requirement, in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact.
AS AND FOR A EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Tortious Interference With Plaintiffs’ Wholesale Licenses
(Against OptumRx)
386. Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through
385 of this Amended Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth
herein.
387. Plaintiffs are licensed wholesale distributors and are fully compliant
with all State and Federal laws, rules and regulations.
388. As a result thereof, Plaintiffs are lawfully permitted to transact business
and provide services to pharmacies, including the distribution of pharmaceuticals.
389. Plaintiffs have incurred significant capital expenditures in order to
establish their businesses, obtain licenses, develop customer lists and incur other
costs associated with their operation as licensed wholesaler distributors.
390. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs not only have a protectable
interest in maintaining their wholesaler licenses, but also have a reasonable
expectation of protecting their economic interests in enjoying the use of those
licenses.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 88 of 93 PageID: 7872
89 20022892.1
391. Upon information and belief, OptumRx has actual knowledge that
Plaintiffs are licensed wholesale distributors that have business relationships with
pharmacies throughout the United States.
392. Upon information and belief, OptumRx has actual knowledge that its
actions in relation to the administration and implementation of the VAWD
Requirement have prevented certain licensed wholesalers, including Plaintiffs, from
conducting otherwise lawful business with pharmacies.
393. Upon information and belief, OptumRx has acted maliciously and/or
unjustifiably, using illegitimate and/or inappropriate means, to interfere with
Plaintiffs’ wholesale distributor licenses.
394. Upon information and belief, OptumRx knew that, through the
administration and implementation of the VAWD Requirement, that it would cause
damage to Plaintiffs’ wholesale distributor licenses.
395. Upon information and belief, through OptumRx’s actions, it has caused
Plaintiffs’ wholesale distributor licenses to be significantly diminished in value.
396. By reason of the foregoing, OptumRx is liable to Plaintiffs for the
damages that they have suffered as a result of OptumRx’s interference with
Plaintiffs’ use of their wholesale distributor licenses, in an amount to be determined
by the trier of fact.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 89 of 93 PageID: 7873
90 20022892.1
AS AND FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION In the Alternative, New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. § 56:8-2.1
Operating In A Manner Simulating Government Agency (Against Defendant NABP)
397. Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate the allegations in paragraphs 1 through
396 above as if more fully set forth herein.
398. This cause of action is pled in the alternative.
399. In the event that this Court does not conclude that NABP is a State
actor, as alleged previously in this Amended Complaint, NABP’s representations
wrongfully implied a capacity to Plaintiffs and other wholesale distributors that it is
a governmental agency, acting with the sanction of, among others, the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, and
State Boards of Pharmacy, in violation of N.J.S.A. § 56:8-2.1.
400. N.J.S.A. § 56:8-2.1 provides:
It to be an unlawful practice for any person to operate … in a manner which wrongfully implies that the person is … associated with any department or agency of the Federal Government or of this State or any of its political subdivisions ….
401. Upon information and belief, NABP’s membership consists of entirely
governmental agencies. These governmental actors have become entwined and
engrained in NABP’s operation, management and control.
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 90 of 93 PageID: 7874
91 20022892.1
402. Upon information and belief, NABP has made representations to the
consumers, including Plaintiffs, that:
The VAWD program is a necessary component of regulating the nation’s wholesale drug and device distribution system and . . . .
403. Upon information and belief, NABP’s governing body and its
representation that it “regulates” the nation’s wholesale drug and device distribution
system had the capacity to and did cause Plaintiffs to reasonably believe that NABP
is authorized by a government agency to oversee the enforcement of the drug supply
chain, including licensing and distribution.
404. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs suffered significant and
ascertainable losses as a result of NABP’s wrongful acts and/or omissions.
405. By reason of the foregoing, NABP is liable to Plaintiffs, in an amount
to be determined by the trier of fact.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Matrix Distributors, Inc., PriMed
Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and Oak Drugs Inc., demand judgment against defendants as
follows:
a. on the first cause of action, declaring and nullifying those VAWD criteria that are preempted under § 585 of DSCSA and through the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, and enjoining defendant NABP from enforcing those impermissible VAWD criteria;
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 91 of 93 PageID: 7875
92 20022892.1
b. on the first cause of action, declaring that, because the VAWD applications of Matrix have been cancelled/delayed for impermissible reasons, OptumRx may not prohibit Matrix from selling pharmaceuticals to OptumRx network pharmacies, and enjoining OptumRx from excluding Matrix from selling to its network pharmacies;
c. on the second cause of action, declaring that the VAWD Requirement violates New York Public Health Law § 280-c and requiring OptumRx to permit Plaintiff Matrix to sell pharmaceuticals to its network pharmacies within the State of New York;
d. on the third cause of action, awarding to Plaintiffs such damages as the trier of fact may deem just and proper;
e. on the fourth cause of action, awarding to Plaintiffs such damages as the trier of fact may deem just and proper;
f. on the fifth cause of action, awarding to Plaintiffs such damages as the trier of fact may deem just and proper;
g. on the sixth cause of action, awarding to Plaintiffs such damages as the finder of fact may deem just and proper;
h. on the seventh cause of action, awarding to Plaintiffs such damages as the finder of fact may deem just and proper;
i. on the eighth cause of action, awarding to plaintiffs such damages as the trier of fact may deem just and proper;
j. on the ninth cause of action, awarding to Plaintiffs such damages as the trier of fact may deem just and proper;
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 92 of 93 PageID: 7876
93
20022892.1
k. awarding to Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, as permitted by 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
l. awarding to Plaintiffs interest as permitted by law; and
m. awarding to Plaintiffs such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated: February 18, 2020 BARCLAY DAMON LLP
s/ Brad M. GallagherBrad M. Gallagher, Esq. 80 State Street, 6th Floor Albany, New York 12207 Telephone: (518) 429-4200 Facsimile: (518) 429-4201 [email protected]@[email protected]
CERTIFICATION OF NO OTHER ACTIONS
I certify that the dispute about which I am suing is not the subject of any other action pending in any other court or a pending arbitration proceeding to the best of my knowledge and belief. Also, to the best of my knowledge and belief, no other action or arbitration proceeding is contemplated. Further, other than the parties set forth in this Complaint, I know of no other parties that should be made a part of this lawsuit. In addition, I recognize my continuing obligation to file and serve on all parties and the court an amended certification if there is a change in the facts stated in this original certification.
Dated: February 18, 2020 s/ Brad M. Gallagher Brad M. Gallagher
Case 2:18-cv-17462-KM-MAH Document 158 Filed 02/18/20 Page 93 of 93 PageID: 7877