Intern from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Department of Public and International Affairs
In June 2013, PR Newswire published an article, quoting Consumer Watchdog staff attorney Jerry Flanagan as saying:
“United’s decision to
force their most vulnerable members into a pharmacy program not of their
choosing is harmful to the very people United is supposed to be protecting.
Patients, not insurers, should be allowed to decide how, when and where they buy
their medications.”
The settlement was reached on March 20, 2014; it required United Healthcare to
allow patients to opt-out of the mail-order plan and resume receiving their
medications at their local pharmacy.
The argument against the mail-order plan is four fold.
First, healthcare advocates fear that eliminating the
patient-pharmacist relationship would have adverse effects on the patient’s
ability to navigate the complications that come with taking multiple medications
as part of a daily routine. Pharmacists are unable to monitor potential drug
interactions when they are cut out of the healthcare process through the
implementation of mail-order plans. Additionally, pharmacists offer valuable
counseling and advice that many patients depend on.
Pharmacists are in a unique position to assist patients with
questions they may have about their medications before they take them home.
Further, they are able to develop relationships with patients that further
assist with ensuring safe and proper adherence to their prescription drug
routines. As it stands now, United has replaced these relationships with an 800
number.
A second concern about these mail-order plans is that they
cause patients to miss out on discounts offered exclusively at retail
pharmacies. In a time when rising costs of medications is increasingly
burdening people living with HIV/AIDS, these opportunities to save money on
medications are crucial.
A further reservation is that there is a serious issue of
patient-privacy with mail-order plans. A news release
issued by Consumer Watchdog (3/20/2014) clarifies this point stating, “…HIV/AIDS specialty
medications often are delivered in refrigerated containers. Patients who live
in apartment buildings or have medications delivered to their work-place have
expressed alarm that neighbors, co-workers, and employees, who do not know that
the recipient has HIV/AIDS, would come to suspect that they are seriously ill.”
Finally, there is the issue of time lag with mail delivery. Many of
these medications must be refrigerated and therefore are time sensitive. In
addition, these medications are often life-saving for some of the most vulnerable
people living with HIV/AIDS. The issue of time lag with respect to slow
delivery, mix-ups at the postal service, and mishandling of medications could
potentially be life threatening.
Consumer Watchdog had also alleged that United
Healthcare’s requirement was discriminatory in nature, illegally targeting
those policy holders living with HIV/AIDS.
The ADAP Advocacy Association agreed. In a press release
issued last year in response to another insurance carrier mandating the same policy to its policy holders living with HIV/AIDS, Brandon Macsata said:
“Patients should be
afforded as many treatment options as possible, especially when combating a
chronic disease such as HIV/AIDS. Any policy that restricts the patient’s
ability to interact directly with healthcare professionals, including a
pharmacist, is counter intuitive to promoting better medication adherence,
which is critically important to improved health.”
Although this statement was in response to another lawsuit filed by
Consumer Watchdog against Anthem Blue Cross of California, its message rings
true in this case as well.
Consumer Watchdog settled a similar lawsuit against Anthem Blue Cross
of California in May 2013. The difference between that lawsuit and this one is
that the Anthem Blue Cross case only impacted clients in the state of
California whereas this settlement will apply to, “…individual
and employer-provided health plans across the country, and allows patients the
right to exercise their opt-out right for a broader range of medications by
written opt-out, United’s website,
and over the phone” (Consumer Watchdog
3/20/2014).
The court is expected to finish its review in July 2014. They will then
notify Class members of their decision and allow the opt-out process to begin.
Additionally, Class members who paid more for their prescriptions due to the
mail-order plan may seek reimbursement for those costs.
The ADAP Advocacy Association welcomes the news of this
settlement with United Healthcare. The reversal of United Healthcare’s decision brings less
complication for patients, increased knowledge of medications, and more
productive relationships between patients and their healthcare professionals.
2 comments:
Nice way to execute a post. I think you have done a fabulous work. Keep posting.
Herbal Incense
This is the right decision! Patients should be the right choice. Nobody has the right to impose their conditions. All four reasons have proof.
Post a Comment