ILNews

Pharmacy group sues over state's Medicaid fee cut

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A non-profit group for local pharmacies statewide is suing the state’s Medicaid office in federal court, attempting to block cuts to the fees given to local pharmacies participating in the Medicaid program.

Community Pharmacies of Indiana and Williams Brothers Healthcare Pharmacy in Southern Indiana filed a lawsuit July 1 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana seeking a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction against Indiana Family and Social Services Administration’s Office of Medicaid Policy and Planning. The suit aims to stop the state from imposing a 38 percent cut in the Medicaid pharmacy-dispending fee, which would mean pharmacies would receive $3 instead of $4.90 for preparing and dispensing a particular drug.

If imposed, that cut would be in effect from July 1, 2011 until June 30, 2013, and the CPI says it could result in pharmacies closing. Such closings could put patients at risk who may not have access to their needed medications as a result.

“We don’t feel as though we have any choice,” said Nathan Gabhart, president of CPI that represents about 170 pharmacies statewide. “Litigation is always the last resort, and in this instance, it’s the only option left. We have a very real concern, based on our research, that this cut will force a number of pharmacies in Indiana to drop out of the Medicaid program and jeopardize many Medicaid patients’ access to the vital prescription drugs that they need to stay healthy and in some cases to stay alive.”

On top of this cut, the lawsuit says pharmacies already took a 34 cut on brand name medication reimbursement in September 2009.

The lawsuit alleges the cut violates federal Medicaid law because the state FSSA secretary didn’t approve the fee reduction as required and that also 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.

Since the suit was filed July 1 challenging a cut designed to take effect that day, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt held an emergency hearing to hear initial arguments from both sides. The Attorney General’s Office had just received notice that day, and so the judge gave the state office until 4 p.m. July 6 to file a brief in the case before she decides on the temporary injunction that would halt the new cut.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT