Palm Beach School Board approves retainer to pursue insulin-pricing litigation

The Palm Beach County School Board voted unanimously to approve a retainer agreement with the Farrar/Ferraro law firm and co-counsel Weisserota et al. to pursue claims that pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers artificially inflated the price of insulin, board Chairwoman Brill announced following the motion (motion by Mrs. Whitfield; second by Ms. Savallero).

Deputy general counsel Patricia Morales introduced outside counsel Natalia Salas and James Ferraro Jr., who told trustees the case is part of a multi-district litigation pending in the District of New Jersey and that the firm is seeking to represent self-funded public entities such as the district (presentation summarized by Salas). Salas described the allegation as coordinated conduct by manufacturers, rebate aggregators and PBMs that raised insulin prices for self-funded plans and consumers. She said the firm works on contingency and proposed a 25% fee structure with no upfront costs to the district.

Salas presented a conservative damage model that estimated a difference of roughly $5,000 per affected user per year and noted that, given the district’s size, that could translate into tens of millions in potential recoveries (outside counsel used preliminary district data and national sampling to model damages). She warned of statute-of-limitations timing and recommended signing now to preserve claims.

Trustees pressed for specifics. General counsel Sean Bernard and deputy counsel Patricia Morales said participating would require staff time—Morales would serve as the district liaison—and the district’s health and risk management staff could supply plan data. Counsel explained there are separate tracks for self-funded plan claims and consumer (employee) claims; employees who paid out of pocket can join consumer-track cases, which are handled differently and are not under the same January timing pressure. Counsel estimated multi-year litigation timelines common to MDLs.

Board members asked about risk. Outside counsel said the contingency model places most financial litigation risk on the firm but noted potential limited exposure in fee-shifting scenarios; counsel and staff said they had analyzed fee-coverage options and concluded the risk did not outweigh potential recoveries. Trustees also asked whether recoveries would flow back to employees or remain with the health plan; counsel said the tracks and allocations vary depending on the claims and that information about consumer-track counsel is publicly available for employees interested in joining.

By unanimous vote the board authorized the chair, superintendent and general counsel to finalize the retainer and related documents. The board did not record a roll-call vote; seven members were present at roll call earlier in the meeting.