ILNews

Judge blocks Medicaid fee cut to pharmacies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge in Indianapolis has temporarily blocked the state from cutting the fees it pays to pharmacists for dispensing Medicaid prescriptions.

On July 8, U.S. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in the Southern District of Indiana granted a temporary restraining order against the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration and its Office of Medicaid Policy and Planning. Her decision came a week after the non-profit Community Pharmacies of Indiana and Williams Brothers Health Care Pharmacy in southern Indiana filed a suit challenging the new policy that would have taken effect July 1.

Specifically, the lawsuit challenges 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.

The lawsuit alleges the cut violates the federal Medicaid law because the state FSSA secretary didn’t approve the fee reduction as required and that runs contrary to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The suit also alleges the fee reduction violates Indiana Code 12-15-13-2, which states that Indiana Medicaid providers must offer services to program recipients similar to what the general population might receive.

The plaintiffs argue that if imposed, the cut could result in pharmacies closing and patients being unable to access their needed medications.

But the state disagreed, saying the reduced rate was aimed at making sure Indiana met the $212 million budget reduction mandated by the General Assembly. In a brief filed July 6, the Indiana attorney general’s office also contended that the non-profit group representing 170 local pharmacies statewide isn’t a Medicaid recipient and shouldn’t be able to challenge a federal program designed for patients, not pharmacies.

“Requiring the State to continue to reimburse Plaintiffs under the old rate would negate the purpose of the Medicaid Act and would not in any way serve the poor and aged – the intended beneficiaries of the Medicaid Act,” the state’s brief says.

Judge Pratt ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but noted in her grant of the temporary restraining order that both sides present compelling arguments and she still has some question about whether a private cause of action exists here.

Caselaw dictates that the Supremacy Clause doesn’t create rights for Medicaid Act providers to sue for enforcement, and Judge Pratt agreed that no authority supports the notion that the statute includes right-creating language directed at those providers.

But those arguments weren’t enough to persuade her to the state’s side.

In her decision, Judge Pratt determined the IFSSA acted prematurely in cutting the dispensing fee before the reduction was approved by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources. That reduction is irreconcilable to the federal statute and would cause many pharmacies to “continue to hemorrhage dollars” and affect their ability to continue providing Medicaid services, she wrote.

The judge wrote that precedent from both the U.S. Supreme Court and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recognizes the availability of injunctive relief to enjoin state officers from implementing a rule or regulation that’s preempted under the Supremacy Clause, and the plaintiffs don’t have to show the Medicaid Act confers a private right of action for injunctive relief.

“Obviously, this harm could trickle down to Medicaid patients who constitute the poor, the elderly, the disabled and families with children, many of whom reside in rural areas with a dearth of other pharmacy options within close proximity,” she wrote.

A briefing scheduled is being worked out with U.S. Magistrate Judge Denise LaRue, and Judge Pratt has set a hearing on the preliminary injunction for Aug. 24.

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT