SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
CVS Health Corp. and Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. were sued by California customers who accused the drugstore operators of charging co-payments for certain prescription drugs that exceed the cost of medicines.
CVS, the largest U.S. pharmacy chain by number of stores, overbilled consumers who used insurance to pay for some generic drugs and wrongfully hid the fact that the medicines' cash price was cheaper, Megan Schultz said in her lawsuit. Schultz said in one case she paid $166 for a generic drug that would have cost only $92 if she'd known to pay cash.
[...] In her suit, Shultz accused CVS of clawing back her co-pay because the chain was in cahoots with the pharmacy benefit managers who got the extra money. The practice was part of CVS's agreements with benefit managers, such as Express Scripts Holding Co. and CVS Caremark, according to the suit filed Monday in federal court in Rhode Island. CVS is based in that state.
"CVS, motivated by profit, deliberately entered into these contracts, dedicating itself to the secret scheme that kept customers in the dark about the true price'' of drugs they purchased, Schultz's lawyers said in the suit, which is seeking group status.
[...] The lawsuits follow at least 16 other cases around the U.S. targeting drugstore chains' alleged co-pay clawback practices. The clawback occurs when patients hand over co-payments set by a pharmacy benefit manager that exceed the actual cash cost of the drug. The benefit managers pocket the difference, according to the complaints.
Most patients never realize there's a cheaper cash price because of clauses in contracts between pharmacies and benefit managers that bar the drugstore from telling people there's a lower-cost way to pay, according to the complaints.
[...] The cases are Megan Schultz v. CVS Health Corporation, 17-cv-359, U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island (Providence); and David Grabstald v. Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc., 17-5789, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
Source: Bloomberg
Also at The Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, and NBCNews
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jelizondo on Saturday August 12 2017, @08:18PM (20 children)
Every time there is a story like this I wonder where are the usual Soylentils who spout the benefits of the free market and non-interference from the big ugly government?
Where are the arguments like ‘fucking idiots they deserve to pay more ‘cos they did no research’? Or ‘Well, they had it coming, why buy there? There’s plenty other places’
Why some people are thick enough not to understand that a function of democratic government (i.e. for the people by the people) is precisely to protect citizens against abuse from the stronger? And if the abuse happens, the government should punish those abusing the public.
But no, let the market fix everything, miraculously like in some religion of old…
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday August 12 2017, @08:29PM (9 children)
This is an easier problem for the free market to fix unlike an infrastructure problem that indicates a natural monopoly like internet connections.
Healthcare in the US is not a free market, and it hasn't been in a long time, way before the ACA (“Obamacare”). Shopping around between Walgreens, Meijer, CVS, that family-owned pharmacy on the south side of town, just to name a few in my neck of the woods, is a very easy thing to do, or at least it would be in a free market.
The pharmacy I used to be able to use online let me choose between 3–4 different manufacturers for each of my meds. Some were really cheap but didn't see too trustworthy. Others were overpriced for no reason I could discern. In all cases, the total cost was way less than with “insurance.”
But in the end, all things considered, single payer is a viable, proven model. It beats the pants off the “insurance” middleman complex in the US. For emergency care, this is a no-brainer. Perhaps for more routine care, it really is beyond the capabilities of most people to manage. We either need to go free market or single payer. Instead, the US has a system of middlemen that is bleeding us dry, the worst of both worlds and as far as I can tell with none of the good of either.
I've noticed that in the Republican hand-wringing, for what little of it I've paid attention to (they need to shit or get off the pot already), the insurance companies really love the ACA, for all of their crybaby antics when it was implemented.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @08:46PM (8 children)
I've yet to see a country which has single-payer, universal health care revolt against it and try to repeal it.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by jmorris on Saturday August 12 2017, @09:03PM (6 children)
Because it always comes wrapped up in a soul destroying Socialist welfare state. People become so hopeless under such a system they simply lose hope and commit suicide. Whether it is an overdose, a 9mm to the dome, state assisted suicide or simply ennui to the point the society simply doesn't reproduce and fades away, the end is the same. If they did wake up enough to see what is happening to them it would be time for the State to open up a few camps and "liquidate a few Kulaks." Socialism == Death.
Point to the exception. Ain't one.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @10:27PM
Does this mean if we ever pass single payer, we will no longer have to hear this crap from you?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Saturday August 12 2017, @11:01PM (1 child)
That was a fantastic example of Poe's law in action. I cannot tell if the rant was serious or tongue in cheek.
Do I mod it as Funny, or Troll? It's by jmorris which is usually an indicator that a troll mod is appropriate, but it reads so much like it could be sarcastic, that I am very confused.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday August 13 2017, @04:03AM
Please trust me on this: J-Mo is as serious as an Ebola outbreak. No one can act that well and that consistently.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @11:27PM (1 child)
Denmark
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday August 12 2017, @11:40PM
Birth rate is 1.69. Dying. Thanks for playing, loser. :)
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Saturday August 12 2017, @11:34PM
I guess the U.S. has become socialist then since suicide rates [soylentnews.org] among white people have increased steadily since about 2004. (see graph Suicide Rates by Ethnicity on linked article.)
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday August 12 2017, @10:42PM
It works provided the main beneficiaries are the tax payers or very likely tax payers ie belonging to the same cultural and ethnic setup. Such that the actual payers see they have a in-group connection to those that use the system. There always has to be an incentive to contribute, meaning everyone in the in-group gets food and housing. Any extras like caviar, boat, big screen tv etc has to be earned..
A trust capital also has to exist that the system is observed to deliver on promises and that the quality is what is perceived as adequate.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Justin Case on Saturday August 12 2017, @08:51PM (6 children)
Our "healthcare" (actually insurance) system is ZERO PERCENT FREE MARKET and TOTAL interference from the big ugly government. That's the problem!!!
How's that working out for you so far? In case you haven't noticed, "government" === "the stronger".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jelizondo on Saturday August 12 2017, @11:44PM (5 children)
Who is the most powerful: Themistocles or his son? The figure head or the real power behind the throne?
You see the problem is not the government, it is us, who have let the government be controlled by big money. So you are wrong, the government is not the strongest, Wall Street is.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Justin Case on Sunday August 13 2017, @12:40AM (4 children)
Who let them? I didn't. Did you? Why???
Every time I vote they pay no attention to me whatsoever.
The strong will do strong things, like control stuff. They can, so they will. They don't care about your opinion.
Trusting the government to fix anything -- while simultaneously pointing out that the government is not under our control -- is, well... naive? irrational? Let's just say, the product of a brain I don't understand.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13 2017, @01:52PM (1 child)
The greatest argument for anarchy that exists... Take responsibility for your life and your world in your own hands and refuse the usurpers!
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Sunday August 13 2017, @02:14PM
I'm not generally an advocate for outright anarchy, but at least if one chooses to go that way, you don't need to convince 100 million other people to join you.
You just do it. To whatever extent you think you can sustain.
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Sunday August 13 2017, @11:36PM (1 child)
Thank you for your reply. I’m sorry if it appears that I trust the government (this one or the past few), I was merely pointing out what the government function should be.
From your comment it seems that you have been voting independent, which I believe is the way to go. Both parties are too entangled with special-interests and Wall Street to let anyone be a candidate who is not properly vetted and controlled, so by the time you vote, it's always their guy .
So what do we do? What I’m doing, trying to convince one person at a time to go independent until there are so many of us that politicians can’t ignore us anymore.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Monday August 14 2017, @03:57PM
Thank you also. Yes I usually avoid voting for either of the major puppets. "The lesser of two evils is still evil."
If you actually get involved -- I mean really deeply involved -- with one of the smaller political movements, you will see 100 times how the big powers use every trick in the book, including dirty tricks, to shut you down. Democracy is just an illusion to keep the masses complacent by thinking they have a voice.
How to fix it? I don't know. I just know everyone calling for more central concentration of ever growing power is probably pulling us in the wrong direction.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13 2017, @05:12AM (2 children)
It has to be said, you can go to developing nations that otherwise have pretty good healthcare yet have no real regulations on pretty much anything. And the costs, even relative to local incomes, are a tiny minuscule fraction of what you pay in the US. I don't know if there's a causal relationship there - but such a relationship definitely exists. It's both the reason that medical tourism exists and the reason that places like Costa Rica, which has a purchasing power adjusted GDP of just $12,382 per capita, actually have greater life expectancy than we do.
I've always been extremely liberal, but having traveled the world a lot I've started to become more and more averse to governmental regulations. The United States has some of the strictest regulations in the world in many fields, but you'd be surprised how little a difference there is between our amazing country and developing nations, even what we'd refer to as the 'third world.' Government is absolutely a force for good, but it can also be exploited by private interests and turned into the opposite. I think the biggest protection against a corrupt government is keeping the distance (literally and figuratively) between the government and its constituents as small as possible. In the US it takes millions of dollars to effectively run for congress and unsurprisingly you end up with a situation where the majority of congressmen are millionaires. And they're not only millionaires but people entirely detached from the people they're supposed to represent - again physically and figuratively.
I think much strong state powers and much weaker federal powers would be something that could greatly benefit the US. Allow Ohio to have its own set of rules and regulations (or lack thereof) for medicine and insurance, and another for California. And let people decide where they'd prefer to take their business and ultimately let us see, existentially, which works out better. This is most obvious today with things like drug laws. The fact that the federal government is attempting to stop states from legalizing, or even decriminalizing, possession or consumption of various natural compounds is just silly. I'm not actually taking a pro or con stance there, but rather that this is something that the people most directly affected by these things should get to decide - not some centralized government so far detached from the people it is legislating against.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13 2017, @05:32AM
Take this exact case for an example. I'm certain there is probably some law on the books that made what CVS is doing illegal. Perhaps it's the Orwell fair pricing and consumer confidence act of 1984. But one of two things will happen here, with our hypothetical regulation. Either CVS would end paying a fine which would be a small fraction of the additional profits they garnered, or CVS would manage to successfully argue that the law didn't apply to them because reasons. This story plays out over and over and over. The only people said law ends up applying to are those who are either not wealthy or well connected enough to successfully defend themselves.
Bring things down to a smaller scale and it becomes more and more difficult for companies or individuals to escape the consequences of their actions. Alice Walton, one of the richest individuals in the world, was put through a drunk driving test and arrested for breaking a law at the local level. But it eventually got thrown out and one can only imagine what happened to the police officer who did arrest her, thanks to her connections with people far detached from that officer who's interest is not in appeasing rich connected individuals - but just doing his job. The fewer people in the pipeline who see value in pandering, the more concrete laws become. Our federal government adds an entire layer of people who are for the most part only in the position they are thanks to pandering - and they're at the top of society. That, in effect, means society is for sale.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Sunday August 13 2017, @02:11PM
I think that's why we have 50 separate states. But federal power has gradually expanded. Or sometimes not so gradually. Consider the civil war. By spinning the propaganda to the evils of slavery, the winners shut down any further discussion of states' rights.
Imagine if we had 50 simultaneous experiments running. One state has "single payer" (actually taxpayer) health insurance. Another has highly regulated doctors and hospitals. Another is more or less a free for all, but the poor and careless die.
We would quickly see through the rhetoric to find out what really works.
And fairly soon, the other 49 states would converge toward the winning solution. With less debate, because everyone would have seen the truth and lies of the talking points.