Bloomberg News

Lawmaker Probes Alleged Improper Buying By U.S. Veterans Agency

December 14, 2011

Dec. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs may have improperly spent billions of dollars on pharmaceuticals and other items, according to a lawmaker who is probing the allegations and whether the safety of those who use the medicine was put at risk.

The VA may have paid out as much as $333 million without contracts in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, according to a letter to Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki by U.S. Rep. Joe Donnelly, the top Democrat on the House Veterans’ Affairs subcommittee on oversight and investigations. The unauthorized buying may have been going on for years and involved “billions of dollars” in spending, the Indiana congressman wrote.

“This information, if found to be true, is both shocking and deeply troubling,” Donnelly said in the Oct. 28 letter obtained by Bloomberg News.

Buying drugs or other medical products without a contract would make it hard for the government to ensure it’s getting the best price, and that a purchase meets safety requirements and complies with trade agreements, said Larry Allen, president of Allen Federal Business Partners, a procurement consulting firm based in Arlington, Virginia.

“Big Issues”

“These are big issues: What steps did the VA take to make sure the government is getting a good deal, how was a price determined to be reasonable?” said Allen, who wasn’t aware of the allegations until contacted by Bloomberg.

Donnelly’s letter asked Shinseki to explain how the agency can ensure drugs purchased without contracts meet federal safety and efficacy standards, and that the VA paid a fair price. He asked the VA to provide records of meetings between VA officials and pharmaceutical suppliers as well as the names of VA leaders who approved decisions to buy drugs without contracts.

His panel has an obligation “to ensure that transparent and legal contracting procedures are being followed,” he wrote.

No one from the VA has responded to Donnelly’s request for information, which asked for the materials by Nov. 10, Elizabeth Shappell, a Donnelly spokeswoman, said in an e-mail.

“Allegations were brought to Congressman Donnelly’s attention, and he had an obligation” to seek more information, said Shappell. She declined to comment on whether Donnelly believes the allegations or to reveal the source of the allegations.

McKesson Contract

VA officials are aware of the concerns and reviewing the allegations, Jo Schuda, an agency spokeswoman, said in an e- mail.

“VA takes this issue very seriously and respects the Congressman’s concerns,” Schuda said. “We are examining the situation and will respond to the Congressman once that process is complete.”

McKesson Corp. has been the VA’s sole medicine supplier for veterans’ hospitals and the department’s mail-order pharmacies since 2004. Donnelly’s letter doesn’t mention McKesson or accuse it of wrongdoing, though it seeks documents and information related to the agency’s “Pharmacy Prime Vendor.”

McKesson’s contract expires in May, and the San Francisco- based medical supplier is competing with at least two other companies, Cardinal Health Inc. and AmerisourceBergen Corp., to keep the business.

Kris Fortner, a McKesson spokesman, issued a written statement last night, saying only that “McKesson is in compliance with our contract with the VA.”

The VA paid McKesson $3.8 billion for goods and services during the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, according to data compiled by Bloomberg Government.

The new contract, which the VA plans to award by January, will determine whether McKesson keeps all or part of the work, valued at about 2 percent to 4 percent of McKesson’s current earnings, according to a Sept. 19 report by Lisa Gill, a New York-based analyst with J.P. Morgan Securities LLC.

It might not be difficult for VA staff at certain facilities to make unauthorized purchases because there are 21 separate regions that make their own medical purchases for facilities within their region, said Allen, the procurement consultant.

“It’s a big government,” Allen said. “There are people out there who look at what is right in front of them but not from side-to-side, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are acting with malicious intent.”

--Editors: Jon Morgan, Joe Winski

-0- Dec/14/2011 18:51 GMT

To contact the reporter on this story: Kathleen Miller in Washington at

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jon Morgan at

The Good Business Issue
blog comments powered by Disqus