ILNews

Judge allows state to cut Medicaid fees to pharmacists

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis federal judge has reversed the temporary restraining order she issued two months ago that stopped the state from cutting fees it pays to pharmacists for dispensing Medicaid prescriptions.

The decision Wednesday by U.S. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in the Southern District of Indiana follows more comprehensive briefing and arguments held in August. She overruled the judgment issued a week after the lawsuit was filed July 1.

As plaintiffs, the non-profit Community Pharmacies of Indiana and Williams Brothers Health Care Pharmacy in southern Indiana challenged a new state policy requiring a 38 percent cut in the Medicaid pharmacy-dispensing fee; meaning pharmacies would receive $3 instead of $4.90 for preparing and dispensing any particular drug under the Medicaid program.

Judge Pratt granted a temporary restraining order against the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration and its Office of Medicaid Policy and Planning on July 8 until the briefs and court arguments could provide more of the legal theory behind the case.

In her 24-page order Wednesday, Judge Pratt noted that the plaintiffs’ overarching argument has remained the same: that the fee reduction is a violation of state and federal law and would cause irreparable harm, because many pharmacies will have to seriously reevaluate whether they can afford to continue offering Medicaid services as they had and some would be driven out of business.

“The State counters that these apocalyptic scenarios are purely speculative, and, in any event, the Fee Reduction complies with state and federal law,” she wrote. “While the Court certainly sympathizes with Plaintiffs, the State’s position best aligns with the law at this stage of the proceedings.”

Judge Pratt noted that it’s “not to say the Plaintiffs are crying wolf,” and indeed “their dire predictions may, but hopefully will not, morph into reality. Regardless, at this stage, the Court simply has more questions than answers when it comes to the Fee Reduction’s further impact on the availability of Medicaid services.”

Judge Pratt reversed the TRO and denied the request for a preliminary injunction. No further hearings have been scheduled as of the date of the order, according to the federal court’s docket. The case is Community Pharmacies of Indiana, et al v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, et. al., No. 1:11-cv-00893.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT