NACDS brief supported North Dakota law amid U.S. Supreme Court’s decision
NACDS is hailing a decision by the Eighth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals yesterday which upholds a North Dakota law prioritizing the health and safety of patients by promoting the economic viability of local pharmacies.
In the case — Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) v. Wehbi — the Eighth Circuit relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association in determining that all provisions in the North Dakota statute, which seek to regulate the relationship between pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs) and pharmacies, were not preempted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
Importantly, the Court also found that most provisions in the North Dakota law were not preempted by Medicare Part D and outright rejected the PBMs’ argument that they could not be regulated in the federal or state arenas. Specifically, the Court found that the state could regulate PBM practices that impact, among other things:
- the ability for pharmacies or pharmacists to be able to mail or deliver drugs to a patient;
- the ability for a licensed pharmacy or pharmacist to dispense any and all drugs allowed under their license;
- and standards that dictate a pharmacy’s accreditation or recertification requirements to participate in a network if they are inconsistent with, more stringent than, or in addition to the federal and state requirements for licensure as a pharmacy in this state.
In late June, NACDS filed an amicus brief defending North Dakota’s statute.
Critically, NACDS noted in the brief that “the [North Dakota] statute is designed to mitigate a health care crisis: the rampant closure of pharmacies. Pharmacies not only dispense medications, but also provide front-line health care like immunizations, tobacco cessation, hormonal contraceptive therapies, blood pressure, glucose testing, flu shots, and information to customers on a variety of health-related matters. When a pharmacy closes in a rural area, local residents may have no alternative health care provider nearby, leading to the risk of noncompliance with medication regimens and poor health outcomes.”
“NACDS applauds the Eighth Circuit’s ruling, and is honored to have engaged in this process through the successful arguments provided in our amicus brief,” said NACDS President and CEO Steven C. Anderson. “The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Rutledge case provided compelling precedent for the Eighth Circuit to validate the North Dakota law — and both cases have proven to be pivotal for those state laws helping to ensure the continued viability of pharmacies so that pharmacies can keep their doors open to patients who rely on them most.”
