SmartScripts Faces Ozempic Lawsuit Amid Counterfeit Drug Distribution Controversy

An Iowa-based pharmacy, SmartScripts, has recently been caught in the middle of a legal and regulatory maelstrom over the distribution of counterfeit Ozempic, a popular weight loss medication. Facing both a lawsuit and state-imposed sanctions, the pharmacy finds its practices under intense scrutiny. The Iowa Board of Pharmacy, which has connections to former Iowa Board of Regents President Bruce Rastetter, has imposed a fine on SmartScripts for distributing the counterfeit drug but allowed the company to retain its license under probationary conditions for five years.

The controversy began in November 2023 when SmartScripts placed an order with Pharma Pac, a wholesale supplier, for a single case of 1,260 Ozempic pens, each delivering 4 milligrams of the drug. Contrary to the order, 15 cases were delivered on November 28, 2023. SmartScripts then shipped the surplus to Central Pharmacy Management (CPM) in Lansing, Michigan, which further distributed the product. The situation escalated when Todd Thompson, SmartScripts' owner, was contacted by Pharma Pac for payment of all 15 cases on December 18, 2023. This prompted Thompson to quarantine the remaining Ozempic supply and halt further sales, though the Iowa Board alleges Thompson did not disclose the counterfeit nature of these drugs until July 2024.

SmartScripts is currently facing a legal battle with CPM, which accuses the pharmacy of either knowingly distributing counterfeit drugs or acting negligently. The dispute hinges on the timeline and awareness of the counterfeit nature of the drugs. While Thompson asserts he informed CPM immediately once notified by the FDA that the drugs were counterfeit, CPM contests this, claiming they were the ones to alert SmartScripts after FDA confirmation on December 27, 2023. The trial is slated for September 16, 2025.

The Iowa Board of Pharmacy has charged SmartScripts with a range of violations, including making misleading or untrue representations, negligence, fraud, inaccurate record-keeping, and holding drugs without legal authorization. The board's decision also resulted in a $25,000 civil penalty. Thompson contests the board's version of events, citing cooperative efforts with the FDA in an ongoing investigation and asserting that no counterfeit products reached patients. Thompson claims the error occurred due to selling to another pharmacy, not aware of the restrictions on such a large volume sale.

Amidst these challenges, SmartScripts denies any intentional wrongdoing and remains committed to defending its position. The controversy highlights significant issues in pharmaceutical supply chains and regulatory compliance, raising questions about the mechanisms for verifying drug authenticity and the responsibilities of pharmacies throughout the distribution process. As legal proceedings advance, the story of SmartScripts offers a stark lesson in the critical need for vigilance and transparency in pharmacy operations.