Legal Center
NCPA undertakes extensive legal advocacy to protect and advance the interests of independent community pharmacies, using a broad, multi-front strategy. This work includes leading and supporting class action lawsuits to challenge unfair practices, submitting amicus briefs in key cases to shape precedent affecting states’ rights to regulate PBMs for the benefit of pharmacies, their patients and taxpayers.
We advocate directly with state attorneys general to prompt enforcement actions and policy reforms. Through this combination of litigation, appellate support, and government advocacy, NCPA legal team plays a sustained and active role in defending independent pharmacies and strengthening their legal position nationwide.
Please click the pulldown buttons below to learn more.
-
NCPA Class Action Lawsuits
-
Rutledge-related State Litigation – NCPA’s amicus support
Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA)
The Supreme Court of the United States issued its landmark ruling in Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA), determining whether community pharmacies are protected from abusive payment practices.
The unanimous (8 to 0) decision ruled in favor of the interests of patients and community pharmacies, who have been fighting for years to regulate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), the controversial middlemen that manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. With this ruling, states will have greater authority to protect their local businesses and their patients from PBM overreach.
-
Industry-related Class Action Lawsuits
Osterhaus Pharmacy v. Express Scripts Inc.
Plaintiffs (Osterhaus and 6 other pharmacies) allege that ESI (and Evernorth) executed three separate agreements (the “Agreements”) with competing PBMs—Prime, Benecard, and Magellan (the “Co-Conspirators”). Each Co-Conspirator, negotiating individually, previously agreed to charge the pharmacies less for services and reimburse them more for drugs than ESI. Each then agreed with ESI to charge pharmacies ESI’s higher prices for services and pay pharmacies ESI’s lower reimbursement rates. Plaintiffs allege that the Agreements violate §1 of the Sherman Act as each is a horizontal price fixing agreement designed to (1) suppress the Co-Conspirators’ drug reimbursement rates and (2) inflate the Co-Conspirators’ prices for administrative services. The case survived a motion to dismiss by ESI and is in discovery.
Osterhaus Pharmacy v. CVS Health, Caremark, and Aetna
The National Community Pharmacists Association loudly applauded a class action lawsuit filed against vertically conslidated CVS Health, Caremark, and Aetna that aims to recoup for independent pharmacies millions of dollars in what the lawyers say are wrongful back-end penalties for Medicare Part D prescriptions, otherwise known as pharmacy direct and indirect remuneration fees.
In the News
-
Attorney General
Oklahoma:
Rhode Island:
Minnesota:
Michigan:
Vermont:
Ohio:
-
Case Resources
-
NCPA - Class Action Complaint v. Change Health Care Inc., Optum Inc., and UnitedHealth Group
-
NCPA - Rutledge v. PCMA, No. 18-540 (U.S.): One Pager on Unanimous Decision Reversing Eighth Circuit
-
C-SPAN - Rutledge, Attorney General of Arkansas v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association Oral Argument
-
NCPA - Analysis of Rutledge v. PCMA
-
Talk Business & Politics: U.S. Supreme Court hearing state appeal on pharmacy benefit managers Tuesday
-
-
NCPA Press Releases
- NCPA: Boom! FTC Squeezes Concessions from Cigna’s Express Scripts
- NCPA: NCPA Laments SCOTUS Decision to Punt on Oklahoma PBM Reform
- NCPA: NCPA Urges SCOTUS to Reject Radical Change to Legal Procedure That Could Limit Class Action Cases
- NCPA: NCPA Applauds Key Decision in Landmark Class Action Case Against CVS
- Whistleblowers