0 comments | Print

Despite lawsuit, CalPERS awards big drug contract to CVS Caremark

Published: Tuesday, Jun. 21, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 5B

Undaunted by allegations of fraud, CalPERS on Monday formally awarded a huge drug-benefit contract to CVS Caremark.

CalPERS chose Caremark even though the company is being sued by several former employees for allegedly defrauding the pension fund the last time it held the contract, nearly a decade ago.

The pension fund said it didn't consider the lawsuit a serious issue. Besides, it has instituted safeguards in the new contract, including quarterly evaluations, "performance guarantees and penalties for noncompliance," said Brad Pacheco, a spokesman for the California Public Employees' Retirement System.

Caremark got the deal only because Medco Health Solutions Inc., the incumbent carrier and CalPERS' No. 1 choice for a new contract, became entangled in the bribery scandal involving businessman and former CalPERS board member Alfred Villalobos.

In a brief statement, Caremark said it is "pleased" to have won the contract.

The contract is a big one, worth several hundred million dollars a year in revenue. Caremark, based in Woonsocket, R.I., will ship prescription drugs to nearly 350,000 members of CalPERS' PPO programs.

Caremark had the contract from 2003 to 2006. In a lawsuit pending in Los Angeles Superior Court, some former employees say Caremark falsified records, improperly switched patients to cheaper drugs and shipped drugs that had been returned to the warehouse.

The company has said it did nothing wrong. However, it has entered into settlement discussions with the former employees, said Caremark spokeswoman Christine Cramer in an email.

The case was supposed to go to trial in May but has been put off indefinitely.

CalPERS has long been aware of the allegations, but said its own audit of Caremark's performance under the earlier contract unearthed no major problems. Pacheco said several of the claims made in the lawsuit have been dropped, and the "lawsuit has been diminished in so many ways."

The lawsuit was kept sealed while the California attorney general investigated the allegations. The state, without giving a reason, chose not to join in the lawsuit, and it was unsealed in 2005. Even though the state isn't pursuing the case, it would collect damages if the lawsuit succeeds; the former employees would get a "whistle-blower's" share.

Medco won the contract away from Caremark in 2006 and finished first in the bidding for a new contract set to begin next January. But in March, allegations surfaced that Medco paid more than $4 million to Villalobos, the man accused of bribing pension fund officials to influence investment decisions.

An investigation commissioned by CalPERS concluded that Medco hired Villalobos to help it win the 2006 contract. Medco said it did nothing wrong and hired Villalobos to help clear up some old audit issues.

In any event, CalPERS called off discussions with Medco on the new contract and began negotiating with the runner-up, Caremark.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.


Call The Bee's Dale Kasler, (916) 321-1066.

Read more articles by Dale Kasler



About Comments

Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "Report Abuse" link below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.

What You Should Know About Comments on Sacbee.com

Sacbee.com is happy to provide a forum for reader interaction, discussion, feedback and reaction to our stories. However, we reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments or ban users who can't play nice. (See our full terms of service here.)

Here are some rules of the road:

• Keep your comments civil. Don't insult one another or the subjects of our articles. If you think a comment violates our guidelines click the "Report Abuse" link to notify the moderators. Responding to the comment will only encourage bad behavior.

• Don't use profanities, vulgarities or hate speech. This is a general interest news site. Sometimes, there are children present. Don't say anything in a way you wouldn't want your own child to hear.

• Do not attack other users; focus your comments on issues, not individuals.

• Stay on topic. Only post comments relevant to the article at hand.

• Do not copy and paste outside material into the comment box.

• Don't repeat the same comment over and over. We heard you the first time.

• Do not use the commenting system for advertising. That's spam and it isn't allowed.

• Don't use all capital letters. That's akin to yelling and not appreciated by the audience.

• Don't flag other users' comments just because you don't agree with their point of view. Please only flag comments that violate these guidelines.

You should also know that The Sacramento Bee does not screen comments before they are posted. You are more likely to see inappropriate comments before our staff does, so we ask that you click the "Report Abuse" link to submit those comments for moderator review. You also may notify us via email at feedback@sacbee.com. Note the headline on which the comment is made and tell us the profile name of the user who made the comment. Remember, comment moderation is subjective. You may find some material objectionable that we won't and vice versa.

If you submit a comment, the user name of your account will appear along with it. Users cannot remove their own comments once they have submitted them.

hide comments
Sacramento Bee Job listing powered by Careerbuilder.com
Quick Job Search
Buy
Used Cars
Dealer and private-party ads
Make:

Model:

Price Range:
to
Search within:
miles of ZIP

Advanced Search | 1982 & Older



Find 'n' Save Daily DealGet the Deal!

Local Deals