Apr 262022

Recently Unsealed Complaint Reinforces Potential Liability of Private Equity Investors in the Healthcare Industry

Jaime L.M. Jones, Brenna E. Jenny and Megan Coggeshall
, ,

Recently, a court in the Central District of California unsealed a qui tam complaint against several specialty pharmacies and their private equity fund owners. See United States ex rel. Webster v. BioMatrix Holdings, LLC, 2:18-cv-09333-PSG-PLA (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2018). Relator, a former Vice President for Managed Care at BioMatrix Specialty Pharmacy, alleged that the specialty pharmacy defendants (collectively “BioMatrix”), with the knowledge of their private equity owners, employed a kickback scheme to increase the number and value of prescriptions for hemophilia medications filled through their pharmacies.

Relator alleged that BioMatrix, through a related entity, Pacific Health Group (“PHG”), hired individuals with hemophilia as Regional Care Coordinators (“RCCs”).  PHG supposedly created the RCC position to recruit patients with hemophilia to use BioMatrix’s specialty pharmacy services. PHG paid RCCs $150,000 to $300,000 annually, with compensation allegedly tied to the number of patients each RCC referred back to BioMatrix and the amount of hemophilia factor each referred patient filled through BioMatrix. BioMatrix also paid RCCs to attend meetings of hemophilia patient organizations as a way to solicit new patients to switch to BioMatrix pharmacies. In addition, RCCs received commercial health insurance with coverage for hemophilia medications that could be filled through BioMatrix pharmacies. Finally, relator alleged that RCCs were terminated if they did not generate sufficient referrals.

With regard to the private equity fund defendants, relator alleged that BioMatrix’s two private equity owners had knowledge of the unlawful referral scheme. While relator’s allegations related to the private equity fund defendants are brief, relator noted that the private equity funds purchased BioMatrix in late 2016 and regularly participated in BioMatrix’s monthly board meetings thereafter. In one December 2016 board meeting that the relator and representatives from the private equity funds attended, the relator alleged that BioMatrix and its investors discussed potential pharmacy acquisitions. A slide in the presentation from that meeting allegedly mentioned “Referral Source Relationships” as a way to achieve success, which according to relator, all participants understood to refer to RCCs who were recruiting hemophilia patients. Relator also claimed that the meeting participants knew that the purpose of acquiring more pharmacies was to expand the unlawful BioMatrix/PHG referral scheme.

Although DOJ declined to intervene in this case, it did so only after three and a half years of investigation, suggesting that the government took the allegations seriously. Relator’s complaint reinforces the AKS risks for manufacturers and pharmacies around patient relationships. As discussed in prior posts (here and here), this case also demonstrates continued interest by the government and the whistleblower’s bar in holding private equity investors in the healthcare and life sciences industries liable under the FCA when their portfolio companies engage in fraudulent conduct. However, the fact that the private equity owners in this case were not alleged to have actively managed the work of the defendant portfolio companies may have diminished DOJ’s interest.

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.

Jaime L.M. Jones

Chicago

jaimejones@sidley.com

Brenna E. Jenny

Washington, D.C.

bjenny@sidley.com

Megan Coggeshall

You might also like
DOJ Faces Pushback At First Circuit On Expansive Causation Standard for AKS-Based FCA Claims

On July 22, 2024, the First Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on what the appropriate standard of causation is for AKS-based FCA claims—specifically, whether a “claim” under the FCA “result[s] from” a kickback only if the claim would not have included the items or services but for the kickback. The District of Massachusetts certified this issue for appellate review after adopting the but-for causation standard in United States v. Regeneron Pharma., Inc., 2023 WL 6296393 (D. Mass. Sept. 27, 2023), as we previously reported here. The panel was made up of Judges O. Rogeriee Thompson, William Kayatta, and Lara Montecalvo, and their questioning suggests some optimism for those advocating for the but-for standard.

Seventh Circuit Rejects Constitutional Challenge to FCA Judgment, Recognizes Circuit Split on Causation Requirement for AKS-Based Claims

In a recent decision, the Seventh Circuit acknowledged—but declined to pick sides in—a circuit split regarding the degree of causation required to establish FCA claims premised on AKS violations.  In the same opinion, the Seventh Circuit rejected an Eighth Amendment challenge to the amount of an FCA judgment.

Court Cuts False Claims Act Jury Verdict in Half in Rare Constitutional Decision

On Thursday, a Minnesota district court judge more than halved a $490 million False Claims Act jury verdict against an ophthalmology distributor and its founder for Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) violations, to $217 million, holding the damages were “notably severe” and “grossly disproportional” to the offense, and thus improper under the Excessive Fines Clause.