MONTPELIER — Walgreens Co. In response to a state complaint about the unplanned pharmacy closures and the impact on customers, the Vermont Board of Pharmacy has asked the Vermont Board of Pharmacy to completely dismiss the complaint.
It is the first of what will likely be an avalanche of legal proceedings in what is now a quasi-legal process. Until and unless the Vermont Office of Professional Regulation and Walgreens settle the charges, the Board of Pharmacy must decide whether to punish Walgreens for a laundry list of alleged violations at its 32 state locations, including Brattleboro, Bellows Falls, Wilmington, Bennington and manchester. Think of sanctions up to and including the loss of the permit.
Walgreens, which had been given an additional month to respond to the allegations, responded with a motion to dismiss the complaint “with prejudice” — that is, prevent them from being resubmitted — and a motion to set the deadline. to delay responding. The pharmacy chain originally had a July 20 deadline, which was moved to August 20 at Walgreens’ request.
In its motion to dismiss, Walgreens said the state had gone too far in its allegations that many of the company’s stores did not meet professional standards, that the statute for operating pharmacies is vague and that the allegations violated Walgreens’ procedural rights. The motion was filed by White River Junction attorney P. Scott McGee, on behalf of Quarles and Brady LLP of Washington, DC.
“In the context of the uncertainty and instability caused by the pandemic, [Walgreens] provided reasonable care to her patients as she struggled with unforeseen circumstances affecting rural pharmacists. Despite this, [the Vermont Office of Professional Regulation] falsely trying to hold [Walgreens] to an almost impossible standard of care under the circumstances and tries to discipline [Walgreens] under unprecedented circumstances,” the motion said.
It further claims that the state has “unilaterally — and without notice — determined that” [Walgreens’] Pharmacy closures are against the law.”
While the state acknowledges that the closures were unexpected and temporary, [Walgreens] pharmacies were usually open and serving the public during a pandemic, [the Office of Professional Regulation] tries to punish unreasonably [Walgreens] for unexpected closures,” the motion states.
The initial 40-page complaint alleges that the company unreasonably restricted consumers’ access to medicines and hardships to customers by closing stores without notice; that it did not meet federal and state professional standards; and that it was concerned with “character behavior likely to deceive, deceive, or harm the public.”
The complaint further alleges that Walgreens “has failed to comply with state law on a flagrant scale by operating retail stores without a pharmacist manager present, including locations in Bellows Falls and on Canal Street in Brattleboro, and has no working conditions.” identified or addressed that compromised patient care.
The state’s complaint also alleges that Walgreens’ computer system continued to order refills and charge customers insurance for drugs they couldn’t access because the store was closed. That led customers to scramble to find another pharmacy that would fill the script — and in some cases, led customers to pay out of pocket at a significant cost.
Incidents in Southern Vermont included unexpected closures in Brattleboro and Manchester, forcing customers to travel significant distances for prescriptions; insurance billing for medicines unavailable due to the closures, forcing consumers to pay out of pocket; and continued to bill for prescriptions in Manchester despite that pharmacy being closed after a fire.
According to S. Lauren Hibbert, director of the Office of Professional Regulation, the state’s response to the dismissal request is expected to be filed next week.
The state did respond to Walgreens’ motion to delay its response, saying it is neither allowed by administrative rules nor justified.
“Walgreens has already had additional time, nearly eight weeks, to, in his own words, ‘establish the facts and provide a full and accurate response to each of the charges,'” said attorney Jennifer B. Colin on behalf of the office. of Professional Regulations. “Walgreens’ response has already been delayed to give respondents enough time to gather facts and respond substantively to each of the specifications.”
Despite all legal procedures, the complaint does not appear in a civil or criminal court. Rather, it is up to the Board of Pharmacy to act as a jury in the case, with a judge hired to handle the proceedings and administrative officials appointed to assist the board. Retired Washington County Judge George Belcher has been appointed as the presiding officer in the case.
The State Board of Pharmacy has eight members, who are appointed by the office of the governor.
