Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Medco Claims Settled by 20 States
On April 26, State Attorneys General from 20 states announced the settlement of claims under state deceptive trade practices laws against Medco Health Solutions, Inc. (Medco), for drug switching practices. The multi-state investigation began 2 years ago in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.
The Suit
Medco is the world's largest pharmaceutical benefits management (PBM) company, with over 62 million people covered. PBMs contract with health plans to process prescription drug payments to pharmacies for drugs provided to patients enrolled in the health plan.
According to a complaint filed in New York State Supreme Court and other state courts, Medco encouraged physicians and other prescribers to switch patients to different prescription drugs without disclosing that the switches benefited Medco by increasing rebate payments from drug manufacturers. Medco represented to prescribers that a switch would result in savings to patients and health plans when in fact at times the drug switches increased costs, primarily in follow-up doctor visits and tests. For example, Medco switched patients from certain cholesterol-lowering medications like Lipitor' to Zocor', which required patients to pay for follow-up costs.
New York's Attorney General Eliot Spitzer stated, “This case shows how pharmaceutical benefit managers previously hid from consumers, doctors and health plans that they were switching prescriptions to promote their own profits. With this settlement, patients and doctors will have full information and can make a decision based on the consumer's best interest.”
The Settlement
The settlement prohibits Medco from soliciting drug switches when 1) the net drug cost of the proposed drug exceeds the cost of the prescribed drug; 2) the prescribed drug has a generic equivalent and the proposed drug does not; 3) the switch is made to avoid competition from generic drugs; or 4) it is made more often than once in 2 years within a therapeutic class of drugs for any patient.
The settlement also requires Medco to disclose to prescribers and patients the minimum actual cost savings for health plans and the difference in co-payments made by patients, Medco's financial incentives for certain drug switches, and any material differences in side effects between prescribed drugs and proposed drugs. In addition, Medco will have to reimburse patients for out-of-pocket costs for drug-switch-related health care costs, and notify patients and prescribers that such reimbursement is available; obtain express, verifiable authorization from the prescriber for all drug switches; inform patients that they may decline the drug switch and receive the initially prescribed drug; and adopt a specified code of ethics and professional standards.
Medco will pay more than $29 million to settle the deceptive trade allegations. $20.2 million will go to states in restitution; $2.5 million to the identifiable patients who incurred expenses related to a switch between cholesterol-controlling drugs; and $6.6 million to states in fees and costs. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, states may use the funds to benefit low-income, disabled, or elderly consumers of prescription medications, to promote lower drug costs for residents of the state or to fund other programs reasonably targeted to benefit a substantial number of persons affected by the conduct covered in the complaint.
On April 26, State Attorneys General from 20 states announced the settlement of claims under state deceptive trade practices laws against
The Suit
Medco is the world's largest pharmaceutical benefits management (PBM) company, with over 62 million people covered. PBMs contract with health plans to process prescription drug payments to pharmacies for drugs provided to patients enrolled in the health plan.
According to a complaint filed in
The Settlement
The settlement prohibits Medco from soliciting drug switches when 1) the net drug cost of the proposed drug exceeds the cost of the prescribed drug; 2) the prescribed drug has a generic equivalent and the proposed drug does not; 3) the switch is made to avoid competition from generic drugs; or 4) it is made more often than once in 2 years within a therapeutic class of drugs for any patient.
The settlement also requires Medco to disclose to prescribers and patients the minimum actual cost savings for health plans and the difference in co-payments made by patients, Medco's financial incentives for certain drug switches, and any material differences in side effects between prescribed drugs and proposed drugs. In addition, Medco will have to reimburse patients for out-of-pocket costs for drug-switch-related health care costs, and notify patients and prescribers that such reimbursement is available; obtain express, verifiable authorization from the prescriber for all drug switches; inform patients that they may decline the drug switch and receive the initially prescribed drug; and adopt a specified code of ethics and professional standards.
Medco will pay more than $29 million to settle the deceptive trade allegations. $20.2 million will go to states in restitution; $2.5 million to the identifiable patients who incurred expenses related to a switch between cholesterol-controlling drugs; and $6.6 million to states in fees and costs. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, states may use the funds to benefit low-income, disabled, or elderly consumers of prescription medications, to promote lower drug costs for residents of the state or to fund other programs reasonably targeted to benefit a substantial number of persons affected by the conduct covered in the complaint.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Role and Responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders
Ideally, the objective of defining the role and responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders should be to establish just enough structure and accountability within their respective practice group to maximize the economic potential of the firm, while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?