Call Us Today
December 19, 2020

Darren Files Suit in Circuit Court Against Pharmacy Benefit Managers

Millions of Dollars in Recoveries Awarded

Darren has been fortunate to be asked to represent some of the greatest clients from all over the United States against insurance companies, nursing homes, hospitals, and corporations of all sizes, including those in the Fortune 500. He has obtained numerous million-dollar plus recoveries for his clients. That is real money, not subject to appeals or reconsideration.

Martindale-Hubball recently announced Darren as a 2021 AV Preeminent Rated Attorney

The AV Preeminent Rating is the pinnacle of professional excellence earned through a strenuous peer review rating process that is managed by the law profession’s most trusted resource Martindale-Hubbell. Darren has achieved this highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies that a large number of the Darren’s peers rank him at the highest level of professional excellence for his legal knowledge, communication skills, and ethical standards.

Darren has a lawsuit filed in circuit court against Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) claiming they are violating Arkansas law by withholding information to pharmacies and reimbursing their own pharmacies more than they reimburse independent ones.

The suit says pharmacists have been forced to routinely sell prescriptions to consumers at a loss and alleges that the pharmacists are entitled to their actual financial losses and reasonable attorneys’ fees. It seeks a “disgorgement,” or a return of profits gained from the PBMs’ wrongful activities. It also seeks civil penalties of $10,000 per violation, along with injunctions to end actions in violation of Arkansas law.

PBMs serve as middlemen between pharmacies and insurance companies, reimbursing pharmacies for the drugs they buy wholesale through a methodology based on “maximum allowable cost.” Their stated purpose is to incentivize pharmacies to reduce costs. But pharmacies say that some reimbursements fall below their wholesale cost of the drug, and they accuse PBMs of unequal reimbursements. The largest PBM, CVS Caremark, is owned by the same company that owns CVS Pharmacy.

The 17-page complaint accuses PBMs of failing to abide by an Arkansas law requiring pharmacies to know reimbursement rates before filling prescriptions, and for PBMs to update their lists so pharmacies know current pricing. It says the process forces pharmacists to fill prescriptions without knowing what the reimbursement will be, and then to accept whatever money it receives.

And it says PBMs are doing this deliberately, with bigger profit spreads for pharmacies like Darren represents and narrower profit margins for their own affiliates. It called Arkansas CVS Pharmacy an “active co-conspirator” acting in violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practice Act. Under Arkansas law, PBMs are required to reimburse other pharmacies the same amount they reimburse their affiliates.

“The Defendant PBMs and the Defendant PBM Affiliates are knowledgeable and, in fact, intend for Lackie Drug to lose substantial sums of money in this blind reimbursement process in order to remove [pharmacists] and other Arkansas independent pharmacies like [them] and that compete against Arkansas CVS Pharmacy and other PBM Affiliates, from the marketplace or force them to sell their business to a big brand PBM Affiliate’s pharmacy controlled, operated, and preferred by a PBM,”

the complaint says.

The complaint says the defendants’ actions are “intentionally designed to prevent honest competition and perpetuate monopolies by the owners of big brand stores, which control the PBMs and are treated much more favorably by the PBMs.”

This action comes a week after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the state in Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association. That case centered around Act 900, which was passed in Arkansas in 2015. The Arkansas law requires PBMs to increase reimbursements for generic drugs if they are below wholesale costs, and it created an appeals process for pharmacies to challenge the reimbursements.

When the law went into effect in September 2015, the PCMA immediately sued. The industry argued that state laws can’t preempt payments made for voluntarily created employee benefit plans in private industry under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, otherwise known as ERISA.

PCMA lost and now huge PBM corporations must face the legal consequences inflicted on small, independently owned pharmacies.


Recent Comments

    May 31, 2023
    The Cost of Dignity: A deep dive into the 'personal needs allowance' with THV11

    People need help as they age. We look closer at the “personal needs allowance” and how it affects those living […]

    September 10, 2021
    Does your pharmacy or medical practice receive unsolicited faxes?

    We are currently investigating a class action lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) — which limits […]

    September 2, 2021
    The Great Vacation

    As summer ends, I would like to reflect on what turned out to be a unique family vacation during a […]

    36 Rahling Circle, Suite 4
    Little Rock, Arkansas 72223
    © 2024   All Rights Reserved | The Law Offices of Darren O'Quinn
    Disclaimers: Material presented on the Law Offices of Darren O’Quinn, PLLC’s website is intended for information purposes only. It is not intended as professional advice and should not be construed as such. The material presented on this site is included with the understanding and agreement that the Law Offices of Darren O’Quinn, PLLC is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional services by posting said material. The services of a competent professional should be sought if legal or other specific expert assistance is required. Any unauthorized use of material contained herein is at the user’s own risk. Transmission of the information and material herein is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an agreement to create an attorney-client relationship with the Law Offices of Darren O’Quinn, PLLC or any member thereof. This website is not intended to be advertising and the Law Offices of Darren O’Quinn, PLLC does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this website in any state or jurisdiction where this website fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules. This website is not intended to constitute legal advice or the provision of legal services. By posting and/or maintaining this website and its contents, the Law Offices of Darren O’Quinn, PLLC does not intend to solicit legal business from clients located in states or jurisdictions where the Law Offices of Darren O’Quinn, PLLC or its individual attorneys are not licensed or authorized to practice law. Some links within this website may lead to other sites. The Law Offices of Darren O’Quinn, PLLC does not necessarily sponsor, endorse or otherwise approve of the materials appearing in such sites.
    crossmenuchevron-down linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram