Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita filed a lawsuit Thursday morning in Marion Superior Court against pharmaceutical companies for allegedly jacking up EpiPen prices while blocking competition.
“Pharmaceutical companies have prioritized profits over patients,” Rokita said in a press release. “Many Indiana residents rely on these medications to stay alive. Hoosiers deserve to know that the prices they pay for epinephrine arise from free and fair competition.”
The 107-page lawsuit claims Mylan and Pfizer conspired to increase EpiPen’s price by more than 600% in order to continue to profit from prescriptions and prevent similar products from coming to market.
EpiPens are used for emergency treatment of severe allergic reactions to insect bites, medicines, foods, or other substances.
“For these companies to add to the pain by scheming against people with medical conditions is absolutely unethical,” Rokita said in written remarks.
Pfizer denied the allegations. Mylan did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“Pfizer denies any wrongdoing and is confident that its actions were appropriate,” Pfizer said in a statement. “Protecting our intellectual property is vital to our ability to develop new medicines that save or enhance patient lives, and we will vigorously defend against these allegations which relate to a product no longer manufactured by the company.”
The lawsuit alleges the companies and their subsidiaries have violated the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, Indiana Antitrust Act, and the Medicaid False Claims Act by continually increasing the price of EpiPens and providing payments to pharmacy benefit managers to exclude competition.
The complaint also asserts the companies have paid doctors to endorse their decision to launch a 2-pack of the EpiPen and claim it is medically necessary — allowing the companies to cease selling individual EpiPens.
The complaint is seeking to enjoin the defendants from engaging in activities that violate existing laws and and manipulating prices.
It also asks the trial court to order the defendants to pay restitution to the state.
The case is State of Indiana v. Viatris Inc., etc., 49D04-2501-PL-002558.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.