|
 The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court in Minnesota by three
UnitedHealth customers, seeks to represent a nationwide class that
it says could include "tens of thousands" of people insured by
UnitedHealth.
The lawsuit said Minnesota-based UnitedHealth and affiliated
companies charged customers co-payments for drugs that were
significantly higher than prices it negotiated with pharmacies for
those drugs.
For example, the lawsuit claims, one class member paid a $50
co-payment for Sprintec, a contraceptive, while UnitedHealth paid
the pharmacy only $11.65. The pharmacy was then required to hand the
extra $38.85 over to UnitedHealth under its agreement with the
insurer, the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit claims that such a co-payment "is not a 'co-' payment
for a prescription drug because the insurer is paying nothing," but
is instead "a hidden additional premium."
The lawsuit says UnitedHealth has hidden this practice from its
customers, forcing them to overpay for a wide variety of common,
low-cost drugs.
[to top of second column] |
The lawsuit claims UnitedHealth's co-payments violate the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a federal law used
to target illegal conspiracies, and in some cases also violate a
federal law governing employee benefit plans.
UnitedHealth spokesman Matt Wiggin said in an email that the company
had not yet been served with the complaint, and that "pharmacy
benefits are administered in line with the coverage described in the
plan documents."
(Reporting By Brendan Pierson in New York; Editing by David
Gregorio)
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
