Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association
U.S. Supreme Court · decided December 10, 2020 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- December 10, 2020
- Term
- October Term 2020
- Vote
- 8–0
- Majority author
- Justice Sotomayor
- Issue area
- Federalism
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 , 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus RUTLEDGE, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS v. PHARMACEUTICAL CARE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 18–540. Argued October 6, 2020—Decided December 10, 2020 Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) act as intermediaries between phar- macies and prescription-drug plans. In that role, they reimburse phar- macies for the cost of drugs covered by prescription-drug plans. To determine the reimbursement rate for each drug, PBMs develop and administer maximum allowable cost (MAC) lists. In 2015, Arkansas passed Act 900, which effectively requires PBMs to reimburse Arkan- sas pharmacies at a price equal to or higher than the pharmacy’s wholesale cost. To accomplish this result, Act 900 requires PBMs to timely update their MAC lists when drug wholesale prices increase, Ark. Code Ann. §17 –92–507(c)(2), and to provide pharmacies an ad- ministrative appeal procedure to challenge MAC…
Excerpt of a 34,811-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.