November 18, 2024

CVS Caremark Settles Charges Over Prescription Prices

The settlement comes at a time of intensive government scrutiny of pharmacy benefit managers like CVS Caremark, which run prescription drug plans for employers and insurers. The F.T.C. is reviewing the proposed merger of the two main competitors to CVS Caremark: Medco Health and Express Scripts.

In the case of Medco and Express Scripts, regulators are examining whether the combination would create a player with too much market share.

With CVS Caremark, the agency looked into whether the merger of one of the largest drugstore chains with one of the largest pharmacy benefits managers had given the company an unfair market advantage in steering customers and obtaining information about competing pharmacies. CVS Caremark works with a network of about 65,000 pharmacies, including more than 7,300 of its own drugstores.

In 2009, some legislators, labor unions, pharmacies and consumer groups raised concerns about potentially anticompetitive and anticonsumer business practices by CVS Caremark. The F.T.C. opened an investigation early that year.

On Thursday, the agency dismissed the more serious allegations of anticompetitive behavior. The agency found only one violation — that one of the company’s Medicare drug plans, then called RxAmerica, misled some consumers about drug prices.

“After a thorough and comprehensive review of other consumer protection and competition issues in this matter, the F.T.C. issued a letter closing the investigation,” the agency said in a news release.

In a statement, CVS Caremark said that the settlement related only to the practices of RxAmerica, a subsidiary of Longs Drug Stores, that took place before CVS Caremark acquired Longs in October 2008. (While much of the incorrect pricing did occur before the purchase, the F.T.C. asserted that some continued after the acquisition.)

CVS Caremark said that the subsidiary had inadvertently posted inaccurate prices for certain generic drugs on a Web site maintained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and that the company had rectified the pricing problem upon learning of it.

“CVS Caremark is pleased to have reached an agreement with the F.T.C. that ends the investigation and enables us to continue our focus on offering unique, innovative products and services that differentiate us and benefit consumers,” said Larry Merlo, the chief executive of CVS Caremark, in the statement.

This is not CVS Caremark’s first instance of incorrect pricing. In 2010, the company notified the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that from October 2009 to January 2010, a computer error had caused it to provide incorrect prices — about 4 percent lower than the actual price — for brand-name prescription drugs available through its SilverScript Medicare drug plan. The company offered to refund the price difference to customers who had paid more than they had expected. It also offered to help them switch to another plan.

The F.T.C.’s decision in the current case removes a significant overhang for CVS Caremark. The company said it was currently in discussions with the attorneys general of 24 states and the District of Columbia to resolve a parallel multistate investigation.

In 2006, when CVS proposed to merge with Caremark, executives pledged that the new company would put up a firewall to keep the activities of its stores separate from the benefits manager, which processes prescriptions from competing pharmacies. Thomas M. Ryan, then CVS’s chief executive, said in a conference call with investors in 2006 that the merged company would “be agnostic to where the consumer fills their prescription.”

But pharmacies and consumer groups asserted in their complaints to regulators that the two divisions of the company had shared consumers’ records, steering people to the company’s retail stores and mail-order operations, which gave CVS Caremark an unfair advantage over competitors. At the time, some consumer advocates called for the merger to be dissolved.

The F.T.C. mounted a sweeping investigation, involving its bureau of consumer protection, bureau of economics and bureau of competition — an unusual effort by the agency. But it ultimately cited CVS Caremark for only the RxAmerica violation.

In the statement, Douglas A. Sgarro, the chief legal officer of CVS Caremark, said, “It is important to note that, at the conclusion of this comprehensive investigation, the F.T.C. made no allegations of antitrust law violations or anticompetitive behavior associated with any of our business practices, products or service offerings.”

Industry analysts said the settlement represented a victory for CVS Caremark and a repudiation of the merger’s critics.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=68ec1f9c07bfabfd2e76f74e4566f12d

AT&T and T-Mobile Chiefs Field Skeptical Questions on Capitol Hill

The two companies did not show up as rivals on Wednesday, however, at a Senate hearing on the proposed acquisition of T-Mobile by ATT.

Instead, the executives of ATT and T-Mobile, after standing with hands raised vowing to tell the truth, warned that without ATT buying T-Mobile, the growth potential of both companies was limited and their ability to meet customer demand for wireless Internet service was lacking.

Actually, the two companies said, they are not really competitors — an assertion that one senator finally found too much to bear.

“I mean, please,” said Senator Herb Kohl, the Wisconsin Democrat who is chairman of the judiciary subcommittee for antitrust and competition issues.

“You both sell the same service, cellphone service, on a national basis,” Mr. Kohl said, looking at Randall L. Stephenson, the chairman and chief executive of ATT. “Is it really credible to come up here and sit here and tell us that you and T-Mobile are not close competitors?

Mr. Stephenson replied: “They’re not our competitive focus. I can tell you that.”

While forecasting their misfortune as unmerged entities, the chief executives of the both companies parried skeptical questions from other Democrats and competing telecommunications executives.

The proposal, which faces a nearly yearlong review from the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission, would create a carrier that controls an estimated 43 percent of the cellular-phone market.

Together with Verizon, the two companies would control close to 80 percent of the national market.

Those who looked skeptically on that potential dominance included Daniel R. Hesse, chief executive of print Nextel, a company that T-Mobile and ATT say is, in fact, a competitor.

Mr. Hesse repeated the argument he has voiced almost since the day ATT announced its purchase of T-Mobile. If regulators approve the deal, he said, “the wireless industry would regress toward a 1980s style duopoly.”

Mr. Hesse said he believed that the combination of the two companies would reduce to three, from four, the number of major national wireless carriers, a group that also includes Verizon. That would be only a prelude to a further consolidation to two companies, as his own company would find it difficult to compete with the reach of ATT/T-Mobile and Verizon.

“I am not here to ask for a special break or to seek any conditions in connection with this takeover,” Mr. Hesse said. “I am here because Sprint believes in competition, which goes hand in hand with innovation.”

Mr. Stephenson and Philipp Humm, chief executive of T-Mobile USA, said that they also believed in competition, and that the merger of their companies would do nothing to ease the battle for mobile phone subscribers.

“We expect increased competition and lower prices for all customers,” Mr. Humm told the subcommittee.

Republicans on the subcommittee expressed support for the deal. “I favor market approaches rather than government funding and intervention to build a national wireless network,” said Senator Michael S. Lee of Utah.

Regulators, Mr. Lee added, “must be guided by what is best for consumers in prices, in service, in quality and ultimately in the range of choice” for customers.

Several subcommittee members from Iowa, Minnesota, Vermont and Wisconsin asked the executives to explain the effect of the acquisition on rural cellphone service.

Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, asked if it were true, as critics have said, that both companies had large blocks of unused spectrum — the airwaves on which mobile phone traffic travels — in rural areas, where there is often spotty service.

Mr. Stephenson replied that without the merger, his company would not be able to expand its wireless broadband service to rural areas.

Mr. Stephenson also made several references to President Obama’s goal of expanding wireless broadband service to as many Americans as possible in the next few years, saying that the combination of the two companies would allow his company to do just that.

“This is a private market solution for a public policy objective,” Mr. Stephenson said.

The president’s goal, he said, “could become a reality purely with private capital.”

Mr. Kohl, in turn, scoffed at Mr. Stephenson’s repeated appeals to public policy goals.

“You would almost argue to us today that what you are doing is in national interest,” Mr. Kohn said.

“This is a business deal to make your company more successful and more profitable.”

While Mr. Kohl said he did not have any problem with a profit-making company looking out for its own interest, “we should discuss it in that context, not as what is in the national interest.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=fe778ed5db02f536e134923164feb6d3