Opinion ID: 204019
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District Court's Liability Findings

Text: Analyzing these facts under the three-criteria approach to liability outlined above, the district court found that AstraZeneca acted unfairly and deceptively by causing the publication of false and inflated average wholesale prices for Zoladex which grossly exceeded actual physician acquisition costs by as much as 169% and then marketing these mega-spreads between the physician's acquisition costs and the AWP reimbursement benchmark in order to induce doctors to buy its drug based on the drug's profitability. In re Pharm., 491 F.Supp.2d at 31; see also id. at 102-03. Specifically, the district court found that the spreads for Zoladex exceeded the 30% speed limit every year from 1996 through 2002, showing that the extent and duration of the [inflated] spreads were significant. It further found that from 1996 through 1999, AstraZeneca raised both the WAC and the corresponding AWP for Zoladex despite decreasing the actual sales price, thus ensuring that beneficiaries' and TPPs' costs increased even though providers' costs dropped. The district court noted that AstraZeneca raised the AWP to counteract Medicare's reduced reimbursement rate in 1998, and finally, it found that AstraZeneca's efforts to promote the return to practice available to providers who prescribed Zoladex constituted active marketing of the drug based on profitability rather than therapeutic benefits. For these reasons, the district court easily found that AstraZeneca's actions were unfair to consumers and TPPs under Chapter 93A. Accordingly, [it found] liability for Zoladex during the years 1998-2002.