Amazon to Acquire Primary Health Care Provider

Amazon has decided to take another step forward in healthcare by acquiring One Medical.

According to the press release “One Medical is a human-centered, technology-powered national primary care organization on a mission to make quality care more affordable, accessible, and enjoyable through a seamless combination of in-person, digital, and virtual care services that are convenient to where people work, shop, and live.”

Amazon will acquire One Medical for $18 per share in an all-cash transaction valued at approximately $3.9 billion, including One Medical’s net debt.

We have been monitoring Amazon’s healthcare moves for a while. In 2017 we forecasted our thoughts in a blog post with Victor Morrison on whether the company would wade into healthcare. We posted when Amazon Launched its U.S. Pharmacy Business and followed their moves into biometrics. This is definitely not the last move the company will make in healthcare. The only issue is whether there will be antitrust scrutiny.

Lanton Law is a national boutique regulatory law and lobbying firm that focuses on healthcare/life science and technology. If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today.

Tech Companies to Testify At House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee on July 27th

The House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee has scheduled a July 27, 2020 hearing for the CEO’s of Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook (Big Tech) to testify regarding the Committee’s ongoing investigation of digital marketplace competition. The hearing is titled “Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 6: Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple.”  

The Committee’s press release has a joint statement from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Nadler (D-NY) and Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman Cicilline (D-RI) which states “Since last June, the Subcommittee has been investigating the dominance of a small number of digital platforms and the adequacy of existing antitrust laws and enforcement. Given the central role these corporations play in the lives of the American people, it is critical that their CEOs are forthcoming. As we have said from the start, their testimony is essential for us to complete this investigation.”

The Committee’s investigation launched its antitrust investigation last June. The Committee’s efforts are bipartisan and the Committee is attempting to address whether Congressional oversight is needed to pass tighter antitrust laws to ensure a more balanced marketplace. The Committee’s investigation will focus on documenting where competition is lacking in digital markets; exploring whether large companies are suppressing competition; and determining whether Congress and regulators need to do more to address Big Tech's dominance. If Congress decides that legislation is needed, it could lead to the first major policy revisions of U.S. antitrust law in decades.

Additional policy threats to technology companies remain besides Congress. In a mix of business and political reasons for determining whether a new class of start ups is being stifled by Big Tech, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) last year have announced joint efforts to investigate Big Tech. The FTC will have responsibility for investigating Amazon and Facebook while the DOJ will investigate Google and Facebook. It is looking as though some kind of regulatory action is coming by year end. Not to mention Big Tech has been receiving a lot of antitrust scrutiny from overseas. 

It is no secret that oversight over technology stakeholders is near. It’s best to look at your risks to determine whether you have the tools to protect your business and be nimble enough to navigate the changing policy currents. 

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and government affairs firm that focuses on technology and healthcare. If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today.   

Pending Antitrust Actions Could Change Biosimilar Dynamics

I have a new article that was published in the Centers for Biosimilars titled Pending Antitrust Actions Could Change Biosimilar Dynamics. If you have trouble accessing the link above we have provided the article text below:

There are 3 major antitrust actions on the biosimilar scene still pending. These have a long way to go before any court resolution, unless the parties involved settle before then. One is a class-action lawsuit attacking the use of patent thickets and pay-for-delay tactics. The other is a claim alleging anticompetitive contract practices to retain market share for an originator product. Related to the latter, an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) remains in progress.

Humira (adalimumab) antitrust litigation (1:19-cv-01873)
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1500 filed a class-action lawsuit against AbbVie, the holder of patents for its blockbuster drug Humira, claiming a monopoly had been created by AbbVie via its use of patent thickets and pay-for-delay tactics to block less-expensive biosimilars of adalimumab and raise prices for indirect purchasers. One of the main allegations is that AbbVie amassed more than 100 patents to prevent biosimilar versions of Humira from reaching market before 2023. Another main argument is that AbbVie colluded with biosimilar makers by using financial inducements to delay the launching of competitors in the United States while allowing them in Europe. AbbVie denies using these tactics to create a monopoly and contends that the lawsuit threatens to “upend the well-settled balancebetween the patent and antitrust laws.” This case is ongoing.

Pfizer versus Johnson & Johnson (J&J; 2:17-cv-04180) 
Pfizer, the maker of the biosimilar Inflectra (infliximab), has sued J&J for alleged anticompetitive sales practices in regard to the infliximab reference product (Remicade). J&J is accused of using exclusionary contracts to keep the biosimilar out of the market. These contracts allegedly “led to the near total foreclosure of Inflectra and other infliximab biosimilars.” Bundling Remicade with other drugs in these contracts for hospitals and infusion centers was also done in order to retain market control, Pfizer alleges. Rebate penalties for payers and providers are also alleged. This case is in the discovery phase and will be well into 2020.

Walgreens/Kroger versus Johnson & Johnson (2-18-cv-02357)
Walgreens and Kroger sued J&J in 2018 for antitrust regarding its contracts with wholesale distributers purchasing Remicade which inflated its price. The case was dismissed for lack of standing or insufficient connection to and harm from the action challenged. Walgreens and Kroger appealed to the Third Circuit stating that the lower court was wrong in dismissing the case because of anti-assignment provisions between the wholesaler and the plaintiffs. The Third Circuit overturned the lower court ruling stating that the case could go forward in spite of the clause because the claim arises out of federal anti-trust law and not the contract itself. This case will now go back to the lower courts and start over from scratch. More cases like this could arise as distribution contract anti-assignment clauses are common and may have prevented many from suing in the past.

FTC Civil Investigation 

The FTC issued a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to J&J regarding its contracting practices for Remicade, meaning it is investigating J&J’s contracting practices with respect to the reference product. Although the CID was issued in June 2019, J&J has yet to comment on the investigation. Because the inquiry is in its early phase, it remains unclear whether the FTC will lodge an antitrust suit against J&J. They would need to determine if bundling deals and the rebate practices involved constitute antitrust practices. 

All of this litigation may take years to resolve. If the court judgements do not come down in favor of the product originators, the cases could significantly change how biologics are priced, by either eliminating rebates or forcing payers to place both biosimilar and originator products on formularies