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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT