Medicare Part D plan sponsors and pharmacies are often confused by the program’s any willing pharmacy (AWP) requirements. Since the inception of the Medicare Part D program, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has required Part D plan sponsors to: (i) have standard terms and conditions that are “reasonable and relevant;” and (ii) allow any pharmacy willing to accept the terms and conditions to participate in the sponsor’s network (AWP Requirements). The “standard terms and conditions” requirement does not require that Part D plan sponsors offer the same reimbursement terms to all pharmacies. Although CMS has tried to clarify these requirements through Call Letters and memos, CMS has not substantially updated these regulations over the past 10 years. Continue Reading Proposed Medicare Advantage and Part D Regulations for CY 2019 – CMS Tries to Clarify Any Willing Pharmacy Rules
Pharmaceutical industry enforcement has been one of the hottest topics in the news in the past month. Last week, Ellyn Sternfield and Rodney Whitlock were quoted by cnbc.com regarding the recent Mylan settlement:
[T]he Justice Department ‘does not have the authority to settle states’ individual drug rebate claims against Mylan, which means any potential ‘global’ settlement with the states raises a variety of issues.’ Those issues include the fact ‘Medicaid Drug Rebate settlement terms for each individual state will have to be agreed to by each individual participating state’s Attorney General and in many states, also by the State Medicaid Agency.’
For more insight from Ellyn, Theresa Carnegie, and Larry Freedman, please join us this Wednesday, October 26 at 1pm (ET) for a webinar discussing health care fraud enforcement in the pharmacy and pharmaceutical industry. In addition to covering topics related to pharmaceutical manufacturers, the webinar will cover topics related to pharmacies, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and health insurers.
The webinar is approved for CLE credit in California and New York.
You can register for the webinar here.
Written by: Rachel Irving Pitts
In an Advisory Opinion posted August 15, 2014, the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) concluded that a proposed arrangement by a specialty pharmacy (“Requestor”) might generate prohibited remuneration under the Federal anti-kickback statute and would pose a risk of fraud and abuse.
Specialty pharmacies dispense drugs that retail pharmacies typically do not – sometimes because the manufacturer limits the pharmacy network authorized to dispense the specialty drugs, or because managed care companies limit how they reimburse for dispensing, or because the retail pharmacy cannot manage the specialty drugs’ specific handling and inventory management requirements. As a result, when a patient presents a specialty drug prescription to a non-specialty-drug-dispensing-pharmacy (a “Local Pharmacy”), the Requestor proposed to pay the Local Pharmacy a fee for certain “Support Services” the Local Pharmacy would provide when referring the patient and transferring the prescription to Requestor. The OIG did not look favorably on the Requestor’s proposed arrangement.