By John Q. Hosedrinker 
CVS Health, UnitedHealth Group, and Cigna filed a lawsuit against the FTC, arguing the agency’s administrative court proceedings regarding insulin pricing violate their Fifth Amendment due process rights. The companies contend the FTC’s claims, alleging a “perverse” rebate system inflates insulin costs, should be litigated in federal court, not the agency’s internal process. They argue the FTC’s structure lacks democratic accountability, deeming the process fundamentally unfair. The FTC responded that the companies’ constitutional challenge is a distraction from accusations of harming patients through inflated insulin prices. This action follows earlier recusal requests based on alleged commissioner bias.
Read the original article here
CVS, UnitedHealth, and Cigna, three healthcare giants raking in billions in profit, have filed a lawsuit to block a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) case aimed at lowering insulin prices. This move directly contradicts the stated vision of at least one of these companies, CVS, which proclaims a commitment to helping people live longer, healthier, happier lives. The stark contrast between this aspirational statement and their actions in actively fighting against more affordable insulin highlights a deeply troubling disconnect.
The irony is sharp: the original discoverers of insulin sold their patent for a mere dollar, driven by the belief that this life-saving medicine should be accessible to everyone. Today, these same companies are prioritizing profit maximization over patient well-being, seemingly oblivious to the ethical implications of their actions. Billions in quarterly profits for these companies—CVS reporting $2.6 billion, UnitedHealth boasting $6 billion, and Cigna showcasing $2.1 billion and a 28% revenue increase—paint a picture of immense wealth built, in part, on the necessity of life-saving medication. For many, insulin is not a choice, but a life-or-death necessity, making these profits particularly egregious.
The lawsuit represents more than just a corporate defense; it’s a strategic maneuver to delay any regulatory changes until a new administration takes office. This delay tactic allows the status quo of high insulin prices to continue, further impacting those who struggle to afford this essential medication. The sheer audacity of suing to block lower prices for a life-saving drug raises fundamental questions about the moral compass of these corporations and the regulatory environment that allows such behavior.
The argument that the FTC is wrongly blaming these companies for high insulin costs ignores the broader context of pharmaceutical pricing and the role of Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) like those involved in this lawsuit. While the companies might not directly set the price of insulin itself, their influence on the overall cost structure is undeniable. They operate within a complex system where pricing is often manipulated through various channels, leading to inflated costs passed on to patients. This complex web of interactions obscures accountability and allows corporations to deflect blame while continuing to profit immensely.
The lawsuit also underscores the larger issues plaguing the American healthcare system. The for-profit nature of healthcare attracts greed and prioritizes profit over patient care, leading to systemic problems like unaffordable insulin. This system incentivizes lawsuits and regulatory battles, further increasing costs instead of driving innovation and efficiency. This is exemplified by the high profits reported by these companies, profits that could be significantly reduced through genuinely lowering medication prices. The fact that these companies are actively fighting against measures to lower prices showcases a clear prioritization of shareholder returns over public health.
Many are calling for a class-action lawsuit against these companies, comparing their actions to the morally reprehensible practices of Martin Shkreli, who infamously raised the price of a life-saving drug by over 5000%. The parallel is striking, highlighting the potential for exploitation and moral bankruptcy within the healthcare industry. The ethical concerns run deeper still when considering that even with insurance, many individuals struggle to afford their insulin, highlighting the systemic failures of the healthcare system. The sheer volume of profits reported by these corporations in the context of this ongoing struggle underscores the severity of the issue.
This case is not merely about the price of insulin; it is about the fundamental right to healthcare and the moral obligations of corporations operating in a sector that impacts human lives. The lawsuit represents a blatant attempt to protect immense profits at the expense of the well-being of countless individuals who rely on insulin to survive. The sheer scale of their profits, alongside their active resistance to lowering medication prices, clearly indicates a system deeply flawed, one that requires fundamental changes to prioritize patient care over corporate greed. The ongoing debate surrounding this lawsuit reflects a larger societal conversation about the ethics of profit-driven healthcare and the need for more effective regulation.