We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
Accept
  • SKIP TO CONTENT
  • SKIP NAVIGATION
  • Drug News
    • Trending
    • Commercial Operations
    • GMPs
    • FDA Enforcement Actions
    • Inspections and Audits
    • Postmarket Safety
    • Quality
    • Regulatory Affairs
    • Research and Development
    • Submissions and Approvals
    • FDAnews Drug Weekly
    • FDAnews
  • Device News
    • Trending
    • Commercial Operations
    • FDA Enforcement Actions
    • Inspections and Audits
    • Postmarket Safety
    • Quality
    • Regulatory Affairs
    • Research and Development
    • Submissions and Approvals
    • FDAnews Device Weekly
    • FDAnews
  • Books
    • FDAnews Books Library
    • Drug Books
    • Device Books
  • Training/Events
    • Webinar Training Pass
    • Events
  • Resources
    • Form 483s Database
    • FDA Approved Drugs
    • White Papers
  • CenterWatch
  • About Us
    • The Company
    • FDAnews Editorial Board
    • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Home » Alabama Sues GSK, Novartis for $800 Million in AWP Case

Alabama Sues GSK, Novartis for $800 Million in AWP Case

June 25, 2008

The state of Alabama has begun its trial against Novartis and SmithKline Beecham, a subsidiary of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), for as much as $800 million for allegedly overcharging Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers by inflating the average wholesale price (AWP) of drugs.

The suit is the second brought by the state against approximately 76 drugmakers on overcharges to the state’s healthcare programs. The first case, State of Alabama v. AstraZeneca LP, ended in February with a jury verdict of $215 million against AstraZeneca. The company appealed to have the damages reduced or set aside. A judge later upheld the verdict but reduced it to $160 million.

The state is requesting that GSK and Novartis combined pay up to $200 million in compensatory damages and as much as $600 million in punitive damages (treble compensatory damages are allowed by state law). The monetary amounts are not mentioned in the complaint, but they were stated in an argument before the jury, according to Paul Lynn, one of the attorneys for the state.

“The defendants have engaged in false, misleading, wanton, unfair and deceptive acts and practices in the pricing and marketing of their prescription drug products,” the state’s complaint says. “The defendants’ fraudulent pricing and marketing of their prescription drugs have impacted elderly, disabled and poor Alabama citizens covered by the state’s Medicaid program … by causing the Alabama Medicaid Agency to pay grossly excessive prices for the defendants’ prescription drugs.”

A spokeswoman for GSK and Paul Lynn said the judge has imposed a gag order in the case forbidding them to comment on it.

    Upcoming Events

    • 28Sep

      The Cost of Counterfeiting: Why You Need a Plan to Secure Your Medical Device Supply Chain

    • 28Sep

      Calculating Sample Size to Satisfy FDA Expectations

    • 11Oct

      GMP Quality Management vSummit 2023: Where Quality Meets Risk

    • 16Oct

      MAGI@home Clinical Research Conference 2023

    • 26Oct

      FDA in 2024: What to Expect in an Election Year

    • 02Nov

      How UDI and UDI Data Can — and Must — Be Used for More Than Just Device Identification

    Featured Products

    • FDA, FTC and DOJ Enforcement of Medical Device Regulations

      FDA, FTC and DOJ Enforcement of Medical Device Regulations

    • Using Real-World Evidence in Drug and Device Submissions

      Using Real-World Evidence in Drug and Device Submissions

    Featured Stories

    • Expert Says FDA Under No Obligation to Educate Companies on Inspection Rights

    • FDA Deems Hamilton Ventilator Recall Class I for Software Issue Causing Device to Stop

    • Survey Shows Nearly All Pharm Techs Face Drug Shortages, Pfizer Plant Shortages Continue Until 2024

    • FDA Shares Premarket Requirements for Device Cybersecurity in Final Guidance

    The Revised ICH E8: A Guide to New Clinical Trial Requirements

    Learn More
    • Drug Products
      • Quality
      • Regulatory Affairs
      • GMPs
      • Inspections and Audits
      • Postmarket Safety
      • Submissions and Approvals
      • Research and Development
      • Commercial Operations
    • Device Products
      • Quality
      • Regulatory Affairs
      • QSR
      • Inspections and Audits
      • Postmarket Safety
      • Submissions and Approvals
      • Research and Development
      • Commercial Operations
    • Clinical Products
      • Trial Design
      • Data Integrity
      • GCP
      • Inspections and Audits
      • Transparency
    • Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell or Share My Data
    Footer Logo

    300 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA

    Phone 703.538.7600 – Toll free 888.838.5578

    Copyright © 2023. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing