CVS Charges more for Drugs Paid for With Insurance, Than Cash-- Lawsuit Claims

a reply to: seasonal

Just giving an example of why it might charge more. I was a business owner for nearly twenty years.

a reply to: Sillyolme

True, there are costs to every service offered by a business.

This was not about the business covering costs and satisfying the shareholders.

This is about a system of kickbacks to insure more insurance paying customers. Or so the story goes.

CVS is an evil branch of the pharmocracy. They treat their customers and some of their employees with about as much sensitivity as cattle. The folks at the front check out, sometimes, are happy. But not usually. Ditto Rite Aid. They card adults to buy Bic lighters. Uneffing believable.

Support Your Local Apothecary!

a reply to: Namdru

Race to the bottom is going to make the very few smile.

a reply to: Namdru

YES. Support us local pharmacies. We are getting bled dry due to the contracts we basically have to sign stacking the deck against us versus the CVS, Rite Aid' s, and Wal-Mart's of the world.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
The gas station's the street charges more if you use a credit card than if you pay cash.

Technically they charge you less for cash. That's how they get around the issue.

a reply to: Namdru

I so agree. A local apothecary saved my niece's life. If it wasn't for him and her doctor working together on compounding her medications, she would not be alive today.

Everybody doesn't fit off the shelf medications. It is imperative that we keep the local Apothecaries in business.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
The gas station's the street charges more if you use a credit card than if you pay cash.
Know why? Because the bank charges them for every credit card transaction. They then charge credit card customers more to cover that.
Filing insurance paperwork requires man hours. Those people don't work for free. So the pharmacy charges more for that.

That's ok on gas or other products as long as there is no disparate pricing.

It's legal to charge an extra fee to a "group" sharing a provable additional cost profile.

What's illegal is charging disparate price to different individuals based on arbitrary reasons having nothing to do with product or service being offered at time of sale.

Back to gas, if card company XYZ kicked back 1% it'd be restraint of trade and unfair trade practices.

If XYZ required retailers kickback it's price collusion.

This kind of crap is rampant in medical industry but nary a whiff of complaint from a complacent public that thinks they're getting served - served up on a platter is what it really is.

If CVS actually posted their price and then notified ALL insured that "X" % would be added then they'd be in the clear.

But that's not what they do is it?

a reply to: seasonal

Just like politicians.

Say one thing, do something different.

a reply to: seasonal

I am actually in favor of hospitals, doctors, and pharmacies charging less for cash-paying customers / patients. They can afford to get paid less, because they do not need to complete all the horsesh__ paperwork of the insurance and billing companies, and they are guaranteed at least some type of collection (cash) up front. Go go go!

a reply to: Fowlerstoad

Of course the pharmacies can charge a small percentage less so they don't have to do a few key strokes.

That is not what this story is about.

This is about a system of kickbacks to insure more insurance paying customers. Or so the story goes.

a reply to: seasonal

I always thought that this type of thing was pretty much common knowledge--if you're paying cash versus using insurance, most medical bills can be negotiated to be cheaper (than what they would charge insurance) for the cash-paying individual. Of course, this is a good option in a world where (a) one isn't forced to buy insurance by the federal government (or face a "tax" *cough* penalty *cough*), and (b) one assumes that they will end up paying more overall for the service/product when combining out-of-pocket costs and the cost of insurance.

The logical (and it is logical) justification for this is that it costs a lot of money to deal with insurance companies, from filing claims to negotiating prices to just simply dealing with a middleman for something that should be paid out-of-pocket.

The plaintiff is an idiot.

Like others have said, if we could wean ourselves off of the belief that insurance is necessary (at least for things like prescriptions and annual check-ups and the like), this type of crap wouldn't even be an issue. And then, of course, you have big-government proponents blaming a lack of federal oversight and regulation as being the problem.

Bass ackwards, I say...

This is not about the key strokes for who is paying for the pharma pills.

The lawsuit, filed on Monday, accuses CVS Health Corporation of participating in a "fraudulent scheme" and claims the plaintiff, Megan Schultz, paid $165.68 for a prescription in July that, had she bought without using insurance, would have only cost $92.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

a reply to: seasonal

This is not just a CVS issue. I found this out with getting my vision screening and eyeglasses. Using insurance was actually more expensive than paying out of pocket. Here is the kicker, when I went to get my last vision test, with my daughter, we received additional discounts for NOT having insurance! I don't think a lot of people realize this. Crunch the numbers and see for yourself!