On October 5, 2017, the State of New Jersey sued Insys Therapeutics, Inc. (Insys), alleging that the company improperly marketed and promoted the opioid-fentanyl painkiller drug, Subsys. The civil complaint (Complaint) follows a series of federal indictments (and in some cases guilty pleas), of several Insys employees and executives, as well as lawsuits and ongoing investigations being conducted by several states.

Like many other suits against drug manufacturers for improper marketing and promotion, the Complaint alleges violations of state consumer protection law (here, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act). However, representative of a growing trend among the states, especially in the context of the country’s opioid epidemic, the Complaint also alleges a violation of state False Claims Acts (here, New Jersey’s False Claims Act). Manufacturers, physicians, pharmacies and others should closely review their compliance practices to anticipate such claims in light of the increased assertion of False Claims Act violations at the state level.

Echoing the allegations in other complaints against the company, the New Jersey complaint alleges that Insys improperly marketed Subsys in several ways. The Complaint alleges that, although the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Subsys only for the “single use of managing breakthrough cancer pain in patients who are tolerant to around-the-clock opioid therapy,” Insys directed its sales force to “peddle” Subsys to a broader patient population. For example, the Complaint alleges that Insys provided its sales force with “target lists ranking by deciles healthcare providers, including dentists and podiatrists, who could write prescriptions for controlled dangerous substances.” The Complaint alleges that: oncologists appeared at the bottom of these target lists, that a small percentage of the sales force was “oncology-specific,” and that the small group was disbanded shortly after Insys created it.

The Complaint also alleges that Insys “pushed” prescribers to prescribe Subsys on an inappropriate starting dosage above the FDA-mandated starting dose. For example, the Complaint alleges that: Insys’ tactics included emails from Insys executives requesting that members of the sales force explain lower-dose prescriptions, implementation of a “Switch” program designed to convert patients on high levels of competing products to the same high dosage of Subsys, a “Super Voucher” program to provide free Subsys prescriptions to prescribers, and “bribes” to prescribers alleged to be in the form of “speaker fees.”

In addition to three counts of violations of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, the Complaint alleges that Insys’ conduct violated the False Claims Act. The Complaint alleges that Insys caused the submission of false claims for reimbursement of Subsys to several New Jersey state-run programs, including New Jersey’s State Health Benefits Program, School Employees’ Health Benefits Program and State Workers’ Compensation Program. The Complaint alleges that these submissions included allegedly false expressed and/or implied certification of compliance with federal and State law and medical necessity.

The case is Porrino v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Middlesex Vicinage.

A hospital system in Missouri recently agreed to settle with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) for $34 million to resolve claims related to alleged violations of the Stark Law. On May 18, 2017, DOJ announced a settlement agreement with Mercy Hospital Springfield (Hospital) and its affiliate, Mercy Clinic Springfield Communities (Clinic). The Hospital and Clinic are both located in Springfield, Missouri. The relator’s complaint was filed in the Western District of Missouri’s Southern Division on June 30, 2015.

The complaint’s allegations center on compensation arrangements with physicians who provided services in an infusion center. According to the complaint, until 2009 the infusion center was operated as part of the Clinic, and the physicians who practiced at the infusion center shared in its profits under a collection compensation model. In 2009, ownership of the infusion center was transferred to Mercy Hospital so that it could participate in the 340B drug pricing program, substantially reducing the cost of chemotherapy drugs. The complaint alleges that the physicians “expressed concern about losing a substantial portion of the income they had received under the collection compensation model as a result of the loss of ownership of the Infusion Center.” In response, the Hospital allegedly assured them that they would be “made whole” for any such losses. While it doesn’t provide precise details, the complaint alleges that the Hospital addressed the shortfall by establishing a new work Relative Value Unit (wRVU) for drug administration in the infusion center, which now operated as part of the Hospital. The value of this new wRVU was allegedly calculated by “solving for” the amount of the physician’s loss and “working backwards from a desired level of overall compensation.” Physicians were able to earn the wRVU for the patients they referred to the infusion center. The complaint alleges that the drug administration wRVU rate was 500 percent of the comparable wRVU for in-clinic work. In its announcement of the settlement agreement, DOJ characterized the compensation arrangement as being “based in part on a formula that improperly took into account the value of [the physicians’] referrals of patients to the infusion center operated by [the Hospital].” Continue Reading Physician Compensation Scrutiny Continues in Recent FCA Settlement