[U] We Will Watch This New Putative Antitrust Class Action Complaint Closely, Brought By Sugartown Pediatrics...

I think Law360 (subs. req.) may have something up on this -- but I'll provide the details, gratis, just the same. It is new, tonight -- and on topic.

We have been following the twistily complicated saga of Merck's pediatric combo vaccines since before 2010. The company has survived whistleblower complaints, False Claim Act allegaions and Qui Tam claims, on these vaccines. [Pro-tip: Just put each of those terms in our search box above if you are curious -- with the term "vaccines".]

But I think this one is a new wrinkle -- for a medical practice to allege a Sherman or Clayton Act violation, based on the bundling/pricing of pediatric vaccines -- as combos. Here is the full 50 page PDF of the complaint at law -- and a bit, below. But I seem to recall that Merck -- nope, it was Pfizer/Wyeth -- beat a Sherman Act claim by a pharmacy in San Francisco some nine years back. See that link. I'll search for that in my archives -- in the morning. Here's the bit:

. . . .The Merck Bundle substantially foreclosed the Rotavirus Vaccine Market to GSK. For GSK to sell Rotarix to any of Merck's customers who are subject to the bundled loyalty contracts, GSK would have to cut its prices substantially to all its customers, including those customers subject to Merck's bundled loyalty contracts, those customers subject to GSK's contracts, and those customers not subject to any vaccine buying contracts. This made it more profitable for GSK to instead adopt a high-price strategy, to maximize revenues in the unforeclosed portion of the market, and not attempt to compete with Merck for sales in the foreclosed portion. . . .

The result is that the Merck Bundle substantially forecloses competition by reducing GSK's incentive to compete based on price, thereby allowing Merck to maintain its monopoly share of the Rotavirus Vaccine Market, and, ultimately, to charge artificially-inflated prices for rotavirus vaccine. Thus, instead of decreasing the price of RotaTeq when GSK entered the market, as would normally be expected to result from competitive entry into a monopoly market, Merck has maintained and increased the price of RotaTeq. . . .

[I wonder if GSK encouraged this filing in any way.] I'll take no position on the merits of this notion -- but will follow it with an eagle's eye -- and I'll (as ever) be looking at the horizon -- to the south and east. G'night. . . .

नमस्ते