Drugstore company Walgreen Company, known as Walgreen's Drug Stores, said on Monday it would pull almost half its pharmacies in Washington State from the U.S. Medicaid program to protest against the state's plan to cut reimbursements for drugs.
Cash-strapped Washington State plans to insist on cheaper, generic drugs for low-income Medicaid clients whenever available and equivalent to brand-name drugs, and is also cutting the rate of reimbursements on all drugs to pharmacies which supply them.
Cutting the reimbursement rate of generic and brand-name drugs would severely impact the "economic viability of doing business in Washington," Walgreen said in a statement. However, this is not only being considered in Washington State. There are several other states going through the same financial issues - especially with Medicaid. Washington State is simply the first state that Walgreen's will be pulling many stores out of, severely limiting choices for some seniors who have dealt with Walgreen's for many years when it has come to their medication and other Medicaid needs.
Walgreen, one of the largest U.S. pharmacy chains, is to withdraw 44 of its 111 pharmacies in the state of Washington from the Medicaid program. Medicaid provides health insurance to low income individuals.
Unlike Medicare, the federal health program for seniors, Medicaid is partially funded by states. In order to cut the costs of the program, Washington state announced last week it would cut Medicaid reimbursements for brand-name prescription drugs by 6 percent, effective on Wednesday.
Walgreen said it would withdraw the 44 pharmacies from Medicaid as of May 1, a month after Washington introduces its plan. It said those pharmacies represent more than 60 percent of its total Medicaid business in the state.
There is a chance other pharmacies such as CVS Caremark Corp and Rite Aid Corp will follow suit in pulling out of Washington's Medicaid program
Some information from Reuters.
In the near future, Louisiana could face an even larger shortfall than expected in the money needed to provide health care to the poor, elderly, uninsured and children. Tax collections inflated by the recovery from the 2005 hurricanes are the source of the problem, state Health Secretary Alan Levine said Monday.
Instead of paying 67.6 percent of Medicaid costs in Louisiana, the federal government is expected to only pay 63.1 percent beginning October 2010. Federal funding cuts also are projected for a children’s health-care program. The difference in the percentages amounts to millions of dollars.
“The problem is nobody — and I mean nobody including myself — thought the reduction … would be this large,” Levine said.
Governor Bobby Jindal and his administration is proposing a $26.7 billion budget that trims the state’s health-care costs by more than $400 million in the fiscal year that starts July 1. The reduction would decrease the state Medicaid budget from $6.5 billion to $6.18 billion, affecting hospitals, nursing homes, physicians and others.
The federal “stimulus” package is helping with some health-care expenses. From October 2009 to December 2010, states do not have to bear the cost of changes in the percentage of Medicaid expenses that the federal government pays. The “stimulus” will get the state through part of the 2010-2011 fiscal year, Levine said.
But once the money runs out, the state will have to deal with a shortfall that now is larger than anticipated, he said.
The Federal Funds Information for States estimates Louisiana stands to lose $268 million in health-care dollars in a single federal fiscal year. “This is a massive, massive impact to Louisiana,” Levine said.
The decrease is in the percentage of costs that the federal government picks up for the Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance programs.
There are other states that are going through very similar plights, however, since Louisiana - and a few surrouding states - is still recovering in many ways, especially financially from Hurricane Katrina, there are difficult issues that have to be ironed out to get the situation together economically so that Medicaid coverage will drop as little as possible and the people that truly need it will be able to have it continuously.
