June 28, 2016

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressmen Doug Collins and Buddy Carter sent a letter to Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Acting Administrator Andy Slavitt asking for a review of Humana’s proposed amendments to its Pharmacy Provider Agreement for the 2017 Part D plan year. The amendments will force independent community pharmacies to accept predatory pricing provisions that could severely impact their ability to do business. Congressmen Collins and Carter, who have been strong advocates for community pharmacies, issued the following statements after sending the letter:

“In many rural parts of the country, including Northeast Georgia, folks may see their pharmacist more often than they see their doctor,” said Congressman Collins. Pharmacists, especially those from independent pharmacies, have an established connection with those they serve in the community, and take great care when advising their patients. Many of these establishments are family-run and have been part of these communities for years.”

“Humana, one of the largest insurance providers in the country, currently has a proposal the would require these small pharmacies to lose $5.00 per prescription, up front, with the hope that they will be reimbursed if they meet certain metrics. However, meeting all of the criteria is not a guarantee that the pharmacy will get reimbursed because there are only spots in the top rankings for a few pharmacies. Under this proposal, a pharmacy could meet most of the CMS benchmarks, provide quality customer care, and still not be reimbursed by Humana. Humana’s criteria has little to do with patient care, and everything to do increasing their profit and driving community pharmacies out of the market. Some of these metrics, including “patient adherence” are beyond the control of the pharmacists. Pharmacies already compete for customers and business, let’s not set a precedent to make them compete for reimbursement by insurance companies as well.”

“Humana is using this proposal to attempt to drive community pharmacies out of the marketplace, to clear the way for big box chain pharmacies like Walgreens and CVS. If this proposal is allowed by CMS and enacted, these community pharmacies will either have to pay huge sums of money with no guarantee they will be able to recover their costs, or become out of network providers, which will increase costs and drive patients away. Improper metrics are being used to determine the future existence of community pharmacies in this situation, and deserve further examination from CMS.”

“As a community pharmacist for more than 30 years, I know firsthand how hard it is for the smaller guys to stay competitive, especially in the face of predatory pricing,” said Congressman Carter. It is unsustainable and unacceptable for one of the largest insurance providers in the country to force small pharmacies to lose money upfront with an uncertainty on whether or not they will even be reimbursed. This proposal would allow Humana to not reimburse pharmacies even if they meet most of the CMS benchmarks.

“I’m a free-market guy. We need to let the free-market work. This proposal does nothing more than infringe on the free-market in pharmacy, increase Humana’s profits and actively work to drive community pharmacies out of the market. If allowed, this proposal will leave community pharmacists with two choices: leave themselves vulnerable to the very real possibility they will not be reimbursed or become an out of network provider which will increase costs for patients. My patients were always like family members and they should have the ability to choose whatever pharmacy is best for them and their health. I strongly urge Acting CMS Administrator Slavitt to reconsider this adverse proposal.”

March 1, 2016

In Case You Missed It: In The Case Of Apple V. FBI, Congress Should Be The Judge

By Congressman Doug Collins, March 1, 2016

Technology has made the impossible, possible. Every aspect of our lives as Americans, as humans, has been altered by the digital revolution. From medicine, to education, to war, technology has given citizens, government, and terrorists previously unimagined powers.

As Peter Parker’s uncle said, with great power comes great responsibility. Laws exist to preserve the rights enshrined in our Constitution. But technology has progressed far more than I believe our founders could ever have envisioned. And that is truly a celebration of the entrepreneurial spirit that exists in us today, as it existed in our forefathers. But there is a lurking danger that calls into question the very fabric of our society and forces us as Congress to decide if we will heed the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin — “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Perhaps you think I’m being dramatic. Perhaps you reject the idea that our nation is at a defining moment. And that is your right. But if that’s the case, go ahead and pass your smartphone over to me. If you are anything like my 17 year old son, the very idea of giving your smartphone — your calendar, your bank, your correspondence, your pictures, your playlists — to a family member, much less a stranger, will cause you to recoil in horror. Our lives, our personal information, and our technological devices are so intertwined that according to recent surveys, many of us blame smartphones for difficulties in our love lives.

As our smartphones have become an extension, and reflection, of our lives, the national debate over consumers’ ability to protect the information stored on their phones has amplified in both volume and complexity. The laws governing who has access to our personal, digital information and communications were written when a cloud was exclusively a white, puffy thing that formed familiar shapes. Technology has far outpaced the law, and now law enforcement, business, courts, and Congress are all grappling with the implications.

The tragic events in San Bernardino, California, and the ensuing battle between Apple and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have made it abundantly clear that Congress, and Congress alone, must act to rewrite the laws governing the access to, and use of, our electronic communications. The need to balance security and liberty is not new. But the debate to find the proper balance belongs in the halls of Congress, not in a courtroom.

Our national security is critically important, and protecting this country is one of the primary reasons I came to Congress. As someone who has served with the Air Force in Iraq, I know the threats that America faces. I believe protecting this country means protecting her from enemies both foreign and domestic, but it also means protecting the ideals upon which she was founded. As the son of a state trooper, I have seen firsthand dedication of those in uniform who sacrifice day in and day out to keep our communities safe. But Benjamin Franklin was right — if we prioritize safety at the expense of privacy, then we will be safe, but not free.

In the case of Apple versus the FBI, it’s tempting to say that any and all evidence should be available and readable to law enforcement, including access to a device. But pause with me for a moment and think — this isn’t just about one smartphone. This isn’t just about one case. It’s about if the government can mandate weakened technological protections for one phone, for any phone. It’s about what the responsibility of technology companies is as it relates to law enforcement. It’s about if you can comprise the security and privacy of personal communications for law enforcement, without comprising them to hackers, foreign governments, and terrorists.

With great technological power, comes great legal responsibility. Congress exists for such a time as this — to debate the profound policy questions of today, recognizing our responsibility to protect both the civil liberties of Americans and the security of our nation. Congress must act, and it must act now.