The Eighth Circuit has recently reviewed whether a pharmacy benefit manager (”PBM”) is a “health benefit plan” within the meaning of the state statutes in Mississippi, North Carolina, and Georgia such that a pharmacy may bring a claim to enforce the any willing provider laws against PBMs. 

Many states have enacted some version of any willing provider laws, which generally require healthcare plans to accept any qualified provider willing to accept the plans’ terms and conditions.  Some of these laws, such as Colorado’s § 10-16-122, C.R.S., specifically refer to PBMs.  Others, such as Mississippi’s Miss. Code. Ann. § 83-9-6, are much more ambiguous.  For example, Miss. Code. Ann. § 83-9-6 applies “to all health benefit plans providing pharmaceutical services benefits, including prescription drugs…” without specifically mentioning PBMs.

A pharmacy sued a PBM in the Eastern District of Missouri, bringing claims sounding in contract, promissory estoppel, federal antitrust, and violations of Georgia, Mississippi, and North Carolina state any willing provider laws after the PBM terminated its contract with the pharmacy.  In its appellate briefing, the pharmacy argued that the District Court should have afforded it an opportunity to prove that a PBM falls within the purview of the Mississippi, North Carolina, and Georgia any willing provider laws, even in the absence of binding authority holding that these statutes apply to PBMs.  The Eighth Circuit concisely rejected this invitation with a single sentence:  the pharmacy  “has pointed to no case law that suggests that these laws apply to PBMs, and we decline to extend the reach of these laws to PBMs as a matter of first impression.”  The Eighth Circuit’s holding thus rejected the pharmacy’s claims under these statutes. 

Health care entities reviewing state any willing provider laws should perform careful state-specific research as to the applicability of those laws.  Even more generally, the Eighth Circuit opinion cautions litigants against framing claims enforcing state healthcare statutes absent authority supporting the statutes’ application.