Pinellas officials prepare to sue over insulin prices

Pinellas County could join a growing list of local governments suing drug manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers for deliberately overpricing insulin.

County commissioners will vote on the measure at their Aug. 1 meeting. County Attorney Jewel White explained the motivation behind the litigation at Thursday’s work session.

White said the county would retain “largely the same” consortium of law firms it utilized to sue opioid manufacturers. Pinellas officials and their municipal partners will receive around $110 million in that settlement.

She noted that Senate hearings established collusion between drug manufacturers and pharmacies that exorbitantly increased insulin prices over the past 20 years. A background document noted that Pinellas government self-insures, and local officials and taxpayers have paid those costs through healthcare for employees, their dependents and United Personnel System retirees.

“So, we are recommending that we file suit and join in some of the litigation that is currently occurring regarding these manufacturers to recover costs,” White said. “These really are direct damages.”

White did not tell commissioners how much the county overspent on insulin. However, documents state that the consortium has filed several lawsuits representing self-insured counties after prices reached $400 to $1,000 per vial.

It adds that manufacturers “unilaterally” reduced vials to about $35 following the litigation.

In May, pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly agreed to pay $13.5 million to end a six-year class-action lawsuit alleging that it price-gouged diabetics. The company also agreed to cap monthly out-of-pocket costs at $35 for four years.

The county’s representation agreement states that the law firm would pursue “all civil remedies against the manufacturers of insulin and other diabetes medications, along with CVS Caremark, OptumRX and Express Scripts.” Pinellas officials will pay 25% of the monetary recovery, minus costs, and will owe no fees if the litigation is unsuccessful.

However, regardless of the outcome, the county government is on the hook for upfront expenses. The agreement also states that the attorneys solicited the “client.”

Pensacola-based Levin, Papantonio, Rafferty, Proctor, Buchanan, O’Brien, Barr and Mougey would serve as lead counsel. The firm’s website states that insulin prices have soared by over 1,000% since 2003.

It cites a Yale study showing that 14% of U.S. insulin users – about 1.2 million people – spend “catastrophic” amounts on the life-saving medication. The site highlights how the pharmaceutical companies in the lawsuit control 99% of the insulin market.

Eli Lilly’s $13.5 million settlement came about a month after the President called on Congress to cap monthly insulin costs at $35 for all diabetics. The Inflation Reduction Act, signed in 2022, established that limit for Medicare patients.

The American Diabetes Association shows that 24 states and Washington, D.C., have insulin copay caps. Florida does not have those safeguards.

“This is also one that we don’t see, currently, the AG (Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody) stepping in,” White told commissioners.

County Attorney Jewel White. Screengrab.

Commissioner Charlie Justice asked if Thursday’s discussion was the first regarding the lawsuit. White said it was, and it varied from the buildup to the opioid litigation as there is more of a “direct connection to the damages suffered” resulting from paying exorbitant insulin prices.

“Looking at this (insulin litigation), we feel this would require a lot less work on county staff,’ White added. “It’s pretty simple here – here’s what we paid, here’s what they charged and here’s what the price should have been.”

Justice also asked how successful litigation would affect long-standing relationships with companies in the suit. He said he receives a monthly package from one of the listed defendants.

White explained that county officials decide the best course on a case-by-case basis and said, “Certainly, we want to be doing business with folks that are not undertaking some of the actions that led to the findings here.”