Breaking: Walgreen Refuses To Fill DE Medicaid Patients Prescriptions
While the logo remains, whatever was left of the old Happy Harry’s has now died. Reuters is reporting that Walgreen now refuses to fill the prescriptions of Delawareans on Medicaid.
CHICAGO, June 4 (Reuters) – Walgreen Co (WAG.N) said on Thursday it would no longer fill Medicaid prescriptions at its Delaware pharmacies starting next month in protest against the state’s plan to slash reimbursements for drugs.
In a press release DHSS puts it this way:
Walgreens Turns Its Back on Delaware’s Neediest Citizens
Illinois-based company refuses to serve state’s Medicaid customers
WILMINGTON – Refusing to share in the sacrifice necessary to help Delaware meet its historic budget challenge, Walgreens Pharmacies announced Thursday that it will no longer fill Medicaid prescriptions in the First State, according to the Department of Health and Social Services.
DHSS point out the bullshit behind the company’s claims that it can only afford to serve wealthy customers:
Walgreens, according to its recent SEC filing in January 2009, enjoyed $59 billion in total revenue and $2.2 billion in net income for its last reported fiscal year. In addition, Walgreens recently reported second quarter sales of $16.5 billion, a record for the company.
This isn’t the first time Walgreen has been in the news recenty. Yes, these are the same scumbags that advertised the “Chia Obama” last November. But more relevant to this news about screwing Delawareans…
According to this kos diary, the company recently had to settle a $9 million whistle blower suit when an employee tipped off the feds that the company was ripping off Medicaid.
The company wasn’t simply skimming some money off of Uncle Sam like any red blooded Republican company – but it was also switching the types of drugs it was giving medicaid patients:
Pharmacy retailer Walgreens has agreed to fork over $35 million to settle allegations that it squeezed the government out of additional reimbursements by improperly switching the type of drugs given to Medicaid patients, the Justice Department said in a press release this week.
This could have all been avoided had the state stopped to study its Medicaid program for improvement like so many other states have done.
1) Quick job Jason…It’s not even on the NJ’s site yet
2) Can’t wait until Dover gets a CVS.
3) Let me get my 25$ gift card for transferring my prescriptions to Rite Aid 🙂
FSP sides with the fucking Illinois-based corporation that rips off customers and government alike as a part of its business plan.
Shocking!
CVS is owned by Walgreen.
Rite-Aid, Shop Rite, Acme, Pathmark, Super G, Walmart, and Target still accept medicaid patients.
Nobody’s siding with anybody, Rush330. Your demagoguery aside, Happy Harry’s almost was forced to do the same thing last time the state squeezed the rates, and they were one of Delaware’s finest companies.
If Walgreen’s committed a crime, they should be punished. If they are unethical, you shouldn’t shop there. If you want to whistle past the fact that our Medicaid costs are going up 15%+ per year and the state’s not doing anything about it despite many loud calls to do so, that too is your choice.
If they are unethical,
If? Given thier track record I’d say the jury is in.
… you shouldn’t shop there.
You can bet that I will not and I don’t imagine I’ll be alone after this move.
Happy Harry’s almost was forced to do the same thing last time the state squeezed the rates,
Funny. That’s not what Levin says in the DHSS press release:
Alan Levin now has a boss who has political needs.
…or Levin might have been negotiating when he said whatever you think he said about Medicaid.
The bottom line is that Walgreen’s has decided to screw “Delaware’s neediest citizens.”
Added the link to the Reuters article up above. According to that, the reimbursements are being cut for the brand name stuff only. And neither CVS or Rite Aid are following suit.
“The bottom line is that Walgreen’s has decided to screw “Delaware’s neediest citizens.””
The state of Delaware screws Delaware’s neediest citizens every day when they waste money hand over fist that could be used to help people or grow the economy.
Rush330
Funny.
… that could be used to help people or grow the economy.
Or in this case to grow Walgreen’s profits.
“Or in this case to grow Walgreen’s profits.”
Not if they don’t accept Medicaid. If I were the state, and times got better, I wouldn’t let them come back on as a Medicaid provider.
But that’s pennies compared to the hundreds of millions wasted because the state didn’t know the difference between a check and a credit card. Imagine all of the good that money could have done, either through services to help people in need, job training or economic development incentives.
I won’t be shopping there anymore. The joys of the marketplace: Eckerds, CVS and Rite Aid are all just around the corner.
Washington state got into a pissing match with Walgreens earlier this year, and I understand things were resolved.
More on my WDEL blog.
Allan Loudell
I won’t give any business to Walgreen’s anymore.
“The bottom line is that Walgreen’s has decided to screw “Delaware’s neediest citizens.””
I find it interesting that Walgreens still wants to take my money for the State Employee health plan, which basically required an act of the legislature to accomplish a few years ago because the State wanted to go mail order for all of it’s prescriptions, but not Medicaid’s money
“According to that, the reimbursements are being cut for the brand name stuff only”
I’d love to know the difference between what the State’s health plan pays for my Lipitor and what the medicaid pays for the same drug. I’d venture to guess that it’s pretty close to the same. The difference? I might spend money in the store and perhaps the Medicaid users won’t.
Markell, if you’ve got a set….Pull all of the State’s business from Walgreens.. Although it’s going to hurt me as I have a Walgreen’s right next door..THEY ARE NOT GETTING A #$%^ING DIME OF MY MONEY once this goes into effect.
Dave, you’re not even in the same discussion as we are.
“Dave, you’re not even in the same discussion as we are.”
Why’s that?
Nothing you’ve said has addressed the issue. All of the things you’ve said may be true, but doesn’t explain Walgreen’s decision. If a lot of pharmacies were following suit, I might cut Walgreen’s some slack.
Since when does the government get to mandate discounts from a business? Since when does the government get to require a company do business with it? Or are such government intrusions another part of Obamunism?
“Since when does the government get to mandate discounts from a business? Since when does the government get to require a company do business with it? Or are such government intrusions another part of Obamunism?”
How did this idiot lose the most annoying right-winger election??
How come you can’t answer the questions, Mark?
1)The government sets rates for Dr’s offices and prescription copays all of the time for Mediciad and Medicare. It’s called Health Care.
2) The government isn’t requiring Walgreen’s to accept Medicaid. I’m just suggesting that if Walgreen’s isn’t interested in taking the State’s money for Medicaid, then perhaps the State shouldn’t be interested in paying them for State Employee’s prescriptions either.
3) Obama has nothing to do with this. This is Delaware
1) And Drs. offices and pharmacies get to decide whether or not they participate in those programs, free from government coercion.
2) Do you propose the same for doctors who refuse to take medicaid patients?
3) Strong-arming business is part and parcel of the Obama program — this appears to simply be a state-level copy of his methods.
By the way, congratulations to Obama, who created or saved -500,000 jobs last month.
“2) Do you propose the same for doctors who refuse to take medicaid patients?”
Yes
“3) Strong-arming business is part and parcel of the Obama program — this appears to simply be a state-level copy of his methods.
Well business has been strong-arming us for a while so maybe it’s time for a little payback 🙂
Yeah — government coercion in response to exercising freedom. Sounds like true Americanism — if you are an Obamunist.
“Nothing you’ve said has addressed the issue. All of the things you’ve said may be true, but doesn’t explain Walgreen’s decision. If a lot of pharmacies were following suit, I might cut Walgreen’s some slack.”
I don’t give a crap about Walgreens. But this is a site that devoted absolutely no bandwidth to the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted by the state in its payment system — which I believe is the biggest story of the year. If you really care about poor people, then you should be outraged by the waste more than the stupid corporation.
government coercion in response to exercising freedom.
RWR argues for more socialism – LOL!
Hey, if a little freedom from government money is good for Walgreens, then a lot of freedom will be better for them, right?
FSP is correct in this. Happy Harry’s had to threaten the same action before it became Walgreen’s.
Both Happy Harry’s and Walgreen’s maintained that the State was setting reimbursement rates so low that it would be tantamount to giving the drugs away at below cost. Agree or disagree, but Alan Levin had to negotiate with Vince Meconi on this a couple of years back. They ultimately reached a deal.
‘Bulo suspects the same thing will happen here. The state cannot afford to have Walgreen’s not serve Medicaid clients as Walgreen’s/Happy Harry’s has by far the largest market share in the state.
He also thinks that whoever wrote the press release for DHSS would have been better advised to be less apocalyptic in their language. This is the beginning of a negotiation, and it should be viewed as such.
If you really care about poor people, then you should be outraged by the waste more than the stupid corporation
We do care about this and some critique of this issue was found in the time and energy spent in trying to figure out WTF was going on with that strange DOI RFP.
But let’s not pretend to any high dudgeon on this either — if there was more money available it isn’t as though the state would be increasing its Medicaid prescription payments.
“But let’s not pretend to any high dudgeon on this either — if there was more money available it isn’t as though the state would be increasing its Medicaid prescription payments.”
It wouldn’t be forced to lower the rate, though. And that is important to note. Also important to note is that there appears to still be no government effort to study our Medicaid program for improvements as so many states have done.
“hundreds of millions of dollars wasted by the state in its payment system”
Dave, that system has wasted a lot of money, but it’s nowhere close to hundreds of millions
“He also thinks that whoever wrote the press release for DHSS would have been better advised to be less apocalyptic in their language. This is the beginning of a negotiation, and it should be viewed as such.”
Although you may be right, perhaps they wanted “apocalyptic” in their language. Seems to be the way this administration handles money issues 🙂
“Both Happy Harry’s and Walgreen’s maintained that the State was setting reimbursement rates so low that it would be tantamount to giving the drugs away at below cost.”
They call this a loss leader 🙂
How ironic it would be if Walgreens gave an unemployed Medicaid recipient a free exam and then they had to go fill the prescription somewhere else.
The state cannot afford to have Walgreen’s not serve Medicaid clients as Walgreen’s/Happy Harry’s has by far the largest market share in the state.
I don’t know about that. The nature of market share is that it can flow from one provider to the other.
Walgreens still wants to sell candy bars and diapers and toothpaste; so it needs people to keep walking through its doors.
I think the state is in the stronger position here.
“Dave, that system has wasted a lot of money, but it’s nowhere close to hundreds of millions.”
News-Journal reported it as 100-200 million per year (5-10% of 2 billion).
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009905170346
“Walgreens still wants to sell candy bars and diapers and toothpaste; so it needs people to keep walking through its doors.”
Probably how they make their “real” money
“News-Journal reported it as 100-200 million per year (5-10% of 2 billion).”
Didn’t believe that figure when it was reported 🙂
I disagree with Mr Lee Holtzclaw on his findings, but that’s still not the issue here anyhow.
“hundreds of millions” is not credible.
OK, shoot me. The cuts by the State to medicaid are borderline criminal. I am sure that Joanne Christian will jump into this discussion any minute now and tell you how it is for her. And she is right.
I have a friend that runs a medical office that does a lot of medicaid work for the State (especially handicapped children). Almost every discussion that I have with him contains a horror story with the problems that are encountered with that population. Missed appointments (that empty slot costs money that will never be collected from the State), anesthesia for procedures that non-handicapped wouldn’t need, more acute issues and additional paperwork to ensure that the proper person (family doesn’t always drive the patient) has given permission for medical procedures.
It is a goddamned mess. And if you are a healthcare provider still doing this work, you should be able to write it off, because it is absolutely charity.
So, again, this is an example of more Minneresque “dumb cuts” that Jack promised wouldn’t happen in his administration. This is the month that will set the tone for Jack’s term as Governor.
I know the car was busted when you got it in the shop, but there are a bunch of broken parts laying on the garage floor and you haven’t found a single part that needs to be replaced.
““hundreds of millions” is not credible.”
According to who? To Rush330?
LG — You’re clearly just a shill looking out for Walgreen’s….
Clearly.
They need to sacrifice! That is the stupidest thing I have heard from the administration.
In the immortal words of Samuel Gompers, ““The worst crime against working people is a company which fails to operate at a profit”.
They are already paying taxes which are going up as part of the sacrifice. Why should they give away their product and sacrifice more than anyone else. They don’t work for the state. They have no obligation to play games. WalMart will be there. It will just bring more business and be a small loss leader for shopping by cash or ebt. Then when there are only a few providers, the state will no longer be able to play games. The power will shift to the providers. Is that what the administration wants?
I blame the administration for trying to balance its budget on the health of the poor. Shame on it. What we need is a comprehensive Medicaid reform modeled upon what is already saving money in Florida and other places.
I think LG must own a lot of Walgreen’s stock 🙂
LG, I see your point and what you say might be true, but I’d like to point out that
1) Dispensing drugs is a little different than the Dr’s office scenario that you are talking about. Less room (missed appts, etc) for losses by Walgreens
2) Until one of the parties (and this won’t happen) releases the actually rates that state is going to pay, it’s really hard to tell one way or the other.
Becoming disillusioned with Markell are we? 🙂
Why is everyone so upset it appears this is just Par for the course when it comes to health care.
The Dem’s are going to let us all down when it comes to Single payer. Harry Reid has put the question of health care in the finance committee instead of Health and human services where it belongs so that Senator Backus who has taken more money from the health insurance companies will control the process
I just want to see real cuts from the places where there is this mythical waste and fraud. I sat in a meeting with Jack and 150 others at one of his soften-the-blow meetings. One of the things that he stated was that he wanted to make smart cuts. precision cuts in areas that would have little or no impact. Perhaps I am conflating this with waste and fraud but it seems to fit.
All I have seen is regressive cuts.
8% from ALL state employees
2% in healthcare from State employees
Cuts in Medicaid payments
Freezing of ladder raises (esp teachers)
etc.
And yet we see no movement on reversing any of these in lieu of a cut of a redundant office or overstaffed fiefdom. I get the whole “partial year budget” problem that Markell faces as a new Gov. But I want to see movement on these things. All I am seeing is a continuation of a crappy Minner habit.
LG makes a good point. The franchise fee cap would have been (could still be?) be a good place to start to show a new approach, but Walgreen is no mom and pop.
They appear to have made this kind of brinksmanship part of their negotiating strategy – and Markell seems to be calling the bluff of a very profitable company that does very well in Delaware.
It seems like a market contraction in response to the cuts. If this isn’t a market responding to a change in the inputs, I don’t know what is. Perhaps by the end of the day both parties will kiss and make up, but my service provider points will stand.
It’s gonna be a long month. Looks like I picked a bad month to stop sniffing glue. 🙂
“I sat in a meeting with Jack and 150 others at one of his soften-the-blow meetings”
I didn’t go to one of those, but also thought more meetings were promised. Haven’t seen one of them either.
Elmers or the real stuff? 🙂
Well Walgreen has demonstrated time and again that it would rather pay out tens of millions of dollars in court settlements than be a good citizen, so who knows how this will work out.
“I just want to see real cuts from the places where there is this mythical waste and fraud.”
It’s not mythical, dude. But in Markell’s defense, he can’t cut that which he doesn’t know, so I imagine you’ll see a lot more of that starting next year. Or at least that’s my hope. He SHOULD know where the cuts need to be after 10 years as Treasurer, but he obviously doesn’t, or those cuts would be in his plan.
There is one simple cut they can make this year, however, and that is cutting payroll not by taking 8% from everyone, but by telling each cabinet head to cut 8% of their staff. They can’t afford to fire the lower-level folks who are doing the actual work: teachers, social workers, correction officers, police, etc. They’d have to take out a few of those $100K bonus babies, and some unnecessary middle managers.
What’s the weather report in hell for today?
I actually agree with FSP about 8% of the upper level deadweight.
“I actually agree with FSP about 8% of the upper level deadweight.”
Based on personal experience, I wouldn’t recommend you publish your thoughts in the News-Journal.
WOW–Hold one minute DL, before you waste all that time transferring your psychotropics elsewhere.
HURRAH FOR WALGREEN’S for TAKING ACTION, and not being another victim of this highway robbery!!!!!
LG-FSP-and maybe Jason seem to be at therapeutic levels…let me just give you a few reality bites before you cry outrage.
How many of you or your parents or anyone you have known has enjoyed the new marketing model of many of the chains to provide low-cost set fee prices of say 3-7 bucks of HUNDREDS of popular drugs for a month’s supply, regardless of ability to pay?
How may of you have appreciated the allergy meds going over-the-counter? And the yeast infection stuff? And now the morning after pill?
OK–we all have. And guess what? It was cheaper to have a prescription for Zyrtec than to now buy it over the counter. But then now you don’t need an MD appointment to get the drug…..
Walgreens and other chains are already onto some solutions in light of economic troubles, realizing they were under the gun for mandates, if something wasn’t done in regards to meds and pricing. But the “something” had to be for all consumers and not just Medicaid. As it stands now, I can buy a 30 day supply of many generics under the “fixed rate” fee of a couple of bucks, CHEAPER than going to a 3rd world country, and buying it in a “farmacia”. Isn’t that great? Because the company did take a loss leader approach for the benefit of a greater reach of benevolence. But how much can you expect them to give away?
Medicaid prescriptions are not just about prescription drugs. If a Medicaid child presents w/ OTCs on a prescription pad, it is filled at no charge. So yes, Claritin, and Tylenol, and Calamine Lotion can all be provided free of charge compliments of Medicaid–and the good intentioned citizen of DL is providing prescriptions and a shopping trip. And Walgreen’s and others cannot afford to give a stock rate to the state, AND settle the grumblings of senior citizens and the everyday out-of-pocket folk of rising medicine costs. NOBODY wants to pay for it, but should a company keep eating everyone’s request for lower rates? The drug chain market is so crowded and tight now, decisions have to be made now of where the economic benefit to most precludes carte blanche to Medicaid. So wouldn’t it make sense now to off load Medicaid to those companies who think they can afford to carry them, and concentrate on a the already disgruntled consumer who may be part of underwriting the funding of Medicaid, and has just gotten some relief w/ fixed price prescriptions? Or do you think the state could renegotiate Medicaid contracts, acknowledging the fact it’s not just drugs these companies provide, nor is Medicaid the only deeply, discounted program offered in cooperation with the general public and other programs, OR should we just have the state start their own pharmacies, and see just how far that reimbursed dollar goes out to market for anyone needing a prescription filled? Hold that line Walgreens…..
And remember, when BC/BS went at it w/ duPont Childrens’ Hospital over reimbursement rates about 2 years ago, reality set in real fast. You can’t keep getting something for nothin’ just because you’re liberal, or it’s the right thing to do. Soon enough, nothing is left. Do the analysis, then pony up appropriately.
Hi Eveyone :)..It is such a shame that everything is about money, Profit is good, greed diabolical.
Delaware Medicaid needs to reexamine itself! I used to work for a pharmacy and we filled sooo many otc things for people , able-bodied adults mostly, and the expensive otc brand names went on medicaid. childrens rx’s are and should be free. Adults should not have tylenol,aspirin, SUNSCREEN etc.paid for on medicaid! walgreens is a business and medicaid is ANOTHER insurance company trying to dictate patient care basically. ALL insurance companies do it. but medicaid should go after the abusers or release them and not hurt the innocent!