CHICAGO ACCUSES TOP THREE DISTRIBUTORS OF OPIOIDS OF ‘ RAMPANT OVER- PRESCRIBING’
Chicago filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday accusing the top three distributors of opioids of “placing profits over public health” and fueling a public health crisis blamed on “rampant overprescribing and abuse” of pharmaceutical opioids.
Four years ago, Chicago blazed a legal trial with a lawsuit accusing leading opioid manufacturers of knowingly misrepresenting the benefits of opioids, concealing serious addiction risks and targeting the elderly and veterans by making bogus medical claims.
Two years later, Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced an agreement that called for Pfizer Inc. to adhere to strict standards for the marketing of prescription opioids.
On Tuesday, the mayor escalated the city’s ongoing legal battle in response to the burgeoning drug epidemic.
The city filed a lawsuit in U. S. District Court targeting AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp., Cardinal Health Inc. and McKesson Corp. for what City Hall claimed was their “unfettered and unlawful distribution of opioids” in Chicago. The three companies could not be reached for comment.
According to City Hall, those “Big Three” companies account for roughly 90 percent of all revenues from prescription drug distribution nationwide. They also dominate the wholesale drug distribution market in Chicago and took full advantage of that position.
“Defendants flooded many communities with opioids without conducting the due diligence required by law to prevent the diversion of opioids to an illicit market in these drugs that predictably developed and the defendants helped create, expand and maintain,” the lawsuit states.
The three pharmaceutical giants are in a position of “special trust and responsibility” as registered distributors of controlled substances, the suit contends. They are also “paid to securely deliver opioids” and are the “closest link to pharmacies” across the country.
Because of their direct relationship with pharmacies in the supply chain, the “Big Three” companies are “uniquely capable of determining whether a pharmacy is facilitating the diversion of prescription opioids.” And they are legally obligated to “report and reject suspicious orders” that “exceed reasonable volume” or have an “unusual frequency” or “raise other red flags,” the suit states.
“Yet defendants shipped orders they knew or should have known were being diverted or used other than for legitimate medical purposes . . . deepening the crisis of opioid abuse addiction and death in the city,” the suit alleges.
“Defendants had financial incentives to continue to supply opioids to pill mills, doctors clinics or pharmacies that prescribe or dispense opioids inappropriately or for non- medical reasons because they may entitle them to volume- based rebates and discounts . . .”
The Healthcare Distribution Alliance, a national trade association representing wholesale distributors, said the “misuse and abuse” of prescription opioids is a “complex public health challenge that requires a collaborative and systemic response that engages all stakeholders.”
“Given our role, the idea that distributors are responsible for the number of opioid prescriptions written defies common sense and lacks understanding of how the pharmaceutical supply chain actually works and is regulated,” the group’s senior vice president John Parker was quoted in an emailed statement.
“Those bringing lawsuits would be better served addressing the root causes, rather than trying to redirect blame through litigation.”