Walgreens to pay $2.8 million in alleged Medicaid overbilling lawsuit
BOSTON — Walgreens has agreed to pay over $2.8 million in settlement agreements in violation of federal, Georgia and Massachusetts False Claim Acts. The settlement alleges Walgreen Co. inflated prices for generic medications to Georgia and Massachusetts Medicaid programs.
Both the Georgia and Massachusetts Medicaid programs are jointly funded and administered programs that cover medical costs, including medication costs for people with limited income.
The programs reimburse pharmacies for distributing generic medication at the lowest of four price points. One of the price points is the 'usual and customary price' which is generally the amount a pharmacy is willing to take.
The lawsuit alleges that, between 2008 and 2023, Walgreens' pharmacies submitted a higher 'usual and customary price' to the MassHealth and Georgia Medicaid programs for certain generic medications at certain times. By failing to report the correct price, Walgreens' pharmacies allegedly caused both programs to pay more for generic medications than they should have.
Under the Georgia, Massachusetts and federal False Claims Acts, private parties may sue on behalf of the government and receive a share of a recovery.
WRBL has reached out to the Georgia Attorney General's office, but has not received a comment at this time.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
Trump budget proposal could tighten access to housing vouchers in Nevada
Trump budget proposal could tighten access to housing vouchers in Nevada More than 15,000 households in Nevada rely on federally funded housing vouchers, with thousands more waiting years to access vital rental assistance. Representatives from the local housing authorities worry many would be locked out of vouchers and other assistance under President Donald Trump's proposed budget, which calls for billions of dollars in cuts to housing programs. 'Based on our current average monthly subsidy in our Housing Choice Voucher Program, we've estimated that for every million-dollar reduction in housing assistance, it would be approximately 93 fewer households that we would be able to serve,' said Dr. Hilary Lopez, the executive director for the Reno Housing Authority. An estimated 15,300 people in Nevada rely on housing choice vouchers, formerly known as section 8 vouchers, which provide rental assistance subsidies for low-income people, seniors and people with disabilities, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The number doesn't include other types of specialized vouchers, such as emergency solutions housing vouchers designed to pay rent for people and families at risk or experiencing homelessness. Another 2,500 people live in public housing throughout the state, according to data from CBPP. Trump's budget requests, which have been formed into the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' were passed overwhelmingly by House Republicans in late May and are currently being debated in the Senate. The proposal, which aims to slash Medicaid and food assistance programs, would reduce the Department of Housing and Urban Development's budget by more than 40% amid a national housing and homeless crisis. The cuts to homeless assistance dollars include a $27 billion reduction in funding to the State Rental Assistance Block Grant, which funds housing vouchers. The recommendations released by the White House in May said the proposed cuts 'would encourage States to provide funding to share in the responsibility to ensure that similar levels of recipients can benefit from the block grant.' If these proposed cuts are approved it 'would be staggering in both scale and impact,' Renee Willis, the president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said in a press call last week. 'Rather than preserving and strengthening the federal rental assistance program that serves as a lifeline for these communities, the budget proposed consolidating HUD's five largest rental assistance programs into a single state-run block grant,' Willis said. 'It also imposed a two-year time limit on assistance.' She added that the budget proposal is not only 'misguided but fundamentally unjust' but that it 'abdicates the government's responsibility to address poverty and housing stability.' While the full scope of these cuts, or the state and local impact of reductions, has yet to be determined, social service providers and local governments fear any cuts to HUD funding would reduce Nevada's already fragile social safety net to tatters. The Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority declined to answer questions about the proposed budget cuts as well as how it currently used federal funding dollars. 'While federal funding changes are uncertain at this time, we remain laser focused on our mission to provide safe, sanitary and affordable housing to eligible residents within our jurisdictions – housing that will provide an environment that fosters independence, self-sufficiency and community pride,' Lewis Jordan, executive director of the Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority said in a statement. Bill Brewer, the executive director for the Nevada Rural Housing Authority, said he is still waiting to see what the final budget will look like. Any amount would mean less people in rural areas being served. 'Worst case scenario, if we took a 40% cut to our vouchers, then we would be looking at cutting about 500 households off of assistance out of our approximately 1,275 voucher holders,' he said. 'If it was just 12% or 10%, then we're still looking at losing 120 to 130 households' 'They'll simply lose their support' The Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority currently oversees the lion's share of housing assistance, around 12,000 vouchers for low income residents. Reno Housing Authority, which provides assistance throughout Washoe County, allocated around 2,094 housing choice vouchers last year. Nevada Rural Housing Authority oversaw about 1,100 vouchers, not including specialized housing assistance. Reno Housing Authority relies on two main federal funding sources: $32 million from the federal government to provide housing vouchers along with $3 million to administer public housing. 'It does fluctuate on an annual basis and really depends upon federal appropriations,' Lopez said. Of the more than 2,000 households – roughly 3,600 people – that rely on housing choice vouchers in the Reno area, Lopez said close to three-quarters of clients who receive housing choice vouchers are seniors or disabled households. The breakdown is similar for the 600 households living in a public housing unit. Average income for those relying on housing vouchers is roughly $18,000, according to the authority's 2025 annual report. Nevada's housing shortage and skyrocketing rent prices have made it difficult for the authority to meet the demand for services, Lopez said. 'Over the last several years, we've seen those rents consistently rise,' Lopez said. 'What that means is that the average rental subsidy that we're providing has also been increasing over time and that also impacts the number of clients that we can assist.' The rural authority gets about $12 million for its housing choice vouchers, which funds its 1,077 vouchers throughout the rural areas. Additionally it received last year $786,340 for Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Vouchers, which provides assistance for 76 veterans experiencing homelessness. Similar to the Reno authority, Brewer said roughly two-thirds of housing voucher recipients are elderly or disabled. 'They're not the kind of folks that can go out and get a job and take care of themselves,' he said. 'They're already living on Social Security or supplemental Social Security, and they simply can't afford a $1,500 a month rent payment. That's all the money they get in most cases.' Demand for housing assistance is growing. Reno's authority has about 4,000 people waiting to apply for housing vouchers while the rural authorities have 2,248 applicants waiting. 'What we try to do for households on our wait list, we try to serve them within anywhere from about 18 to 36 months,' Lopez said. The waitlist in rural Nevada opened last year and 'within a week's time, we had about 5,000 applicants on there,' according to Brewer. 'We had to close the list.' 'It will take us at least two years, if not longer, to work through that list,' he added. 'I think we still have a couple thousand names on there that we will work through.' Nevadans wait an average of 38 months, more than three years, to receive housing vouchers, according to 2021 data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In addition to housing choice vouchers, communities across the country, including those in Nevada, also began receiving funding for emergency housing vouchers through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 signed by President Joe Biden. Funding for that is expected to be depleted by the end of 2026. Willis from the National Low Income Housing Coalition said Trump's current budget request doesn't provide additional funding for these emergency vouchers and could 'put more than 60,000 households at risk of losing their assistance and being pushed into homelessness.' The rural authority received $455,616 for Emergency Housing Vouchers, which support 36 people. Washoe County previously told the Nevada Current 137 people rely on emergency housing vouchers in the county. In a 'normal year,' Brewer said the rural authority would just roll people relying on emergency housing voucher holders 'onto a regular Section 8 voucher.' He doesn't know if that would be possible if the proposed cuts are passed. 'If our voucher program overall is cut, we won't have any room to bring those people on to the (housing choice) vouchers,' he said. 'They'll simply lose their support.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Minnesota Legislature to pass gloomy $66 billion budget
Lights stay on inside the Minnesota State Capitol Building as the sun sets during a special legislative session Monday, June 9, 2025. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer) The Minnesota Legislature was expected to pass the final bills comprising the $66 billion, 2026-27 budget in the early hours of Tuesday morning — an 8% decrease from the previous biennium. With final passage of budget bills after a marathon 21-hour special legislative session, the divided Legislature was on pace to hit the most important deadline of all — June 30, after which a partial state government shutdown would commence, affecting schools, roads and social services. The bleary-eyed finish late Monday and early Tuesday morning is a fitting end to a fitful session, which began just after a Democratic senator died in office, putting the upper chamber in a 33-33 tie, later resolved by a Democratic victory in a special session. T he Minnesota Supreme Court was forced to settle a dispute between Republicans and Democrats over the control of the House after Democrats boycotted the Capitol for multiple weeks. Another special election brought the House into a 67-67 tie and a power-sharing agreement. A Democratic senator had her burglary trial delayed, and a Republican senator was arrested in a police sting and charged with one count of attempted coercion and enticement of a minor. Lawmakers adjourned on May 19 without a budget deal, which was followed by weeks of secret negotiations. Lawmakers this session also confronted a tough fiscal reality: The state is spending more money than it's bringing in and is expected to blow through its reserves as soon as 2028. While tax revenues have regularly exceeded expectations, the cost of providing government services — particularly care for the elderly and disabled — has grown even faster. 'The budget we are passing will fund the services Minnesotans rely on to live their daily lives, including care for people with disabilities and seniors, maintenance for roads and bridges, funding for courts and correctional facilities, and support for veterans,' Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy, DFL-St. Paul, said in a statement. 'We are making difficult but responsible decisions to reduce the budget without sacrificing core services.' Senate Minority Leader Mark Johnson, R-East Grand Forks, who hopes to be the majority leader in 18 months, criticized the budget for not cutting spending and taxes. 'We are here today not because we agree with this budget,' Johnson said. 'Minnesotans deserve much, much better.' Legislators could find themselves back in St. Paul later this year: Federal cuts — like those included in the Trump-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act — could quickly put the state in a more dire financial position. In 2024, Minnesota spent $18.5 billion on Medical Assistance, Minnesota's Medicaid program, and the federal government covered $11 billion of that. Any Medicaid cuts on the federal level will have major ramifications for the state budget, especially DHS. Many lawmakers are expecting to return to the Capitol sometime in the fall or winter for another special session to grapple with the steep cuts to Minnesota's budget once the federal cuts are signed into law, as expected. Here's some key takeaways from the now completed budget, pending the signature of Gov. Tim Walz, who has 14 days after he receives them to sign or veto the bills passed during the Tuesday special session: The budget is smaller than the record-breaking $72 billion two-year budget passed by the DFL-controlled Legislature in 2023, which was bolstered by the American Rescue Plan and other federal spending under President Joe Biden. The budget bills take a step towards resolving the deficit projected to begin in the 2028-29 budget years, but don't avert it entirely. It closes the gap between revenue and spending by 45%, and will leave approximately $1.9 billion on the bottom line at the end of the biennium. But current projections — which are likely to change significantly based on the economy and federal budget — predict a $290 million deficit in 2028-29. The budget will cut approximately $283 million from projected expenditures over the next two years, with most of the savings coming from the Department of Human Services. Republicans, who control half of the House, won a major concession from the DFL: the repeal of MinnesotaCare eligibility for undocumented adults. The vote came after impassioned speeches from Democrats opposed to the bill. Rep. Kaohly Her, a St. Paul Democrat, said she was 'illegal' because her father lied on an immigration paper to expedite her family's journey to the United States, highlighting the desperate circumstances many immigrants find themselves in. She later clarified that she and her family are American citizens. Lawmakers opted not to give agencies a bump in funding to cover inflation, except for areas of the budget where inflation is built into funding formulas, like education and some areas of DHS. The move saves money across the budget, but will squeeze state agencies as the cost of providing services outpaces their funding. The budget holds education funding steady for the next two years. It also funds pay raises for home care and nursing home workers. The Legislature was also expected to pass a $700 million infrastructure package to pay for upgrades to the state's roads and bridges. The package, known as a bonding bill around the Capitol because it's funded with borrowed money, requires a three-fifths supermajority to pass. It was expected to garner enough votes to pass, though as one of the last bills.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
As Washington Democratic lawmakers slam 'Big Beautiful Bill,' NW Republicans back it while acknowledging imperfections
Jun. 9—WASHINGTON — Lawmakers return to the Capitol on Monday with less than a month before Republicans' self-imposed July 4 deadline to pass President Donald Trump's signature bill, extending tax cuts and increasing spending on immigration enforcement and the military while cutting spending on health care and food assistance. In interviews on Capitol Hill last week, Northwest lawmakers illustrated why passing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is proving such a vexing needle to thread, even as nearly all Republicans agree they must pass some version of the legislation this year. "We have very strong support and we have very strong unity in moving forward to make sure that we don't give America the biggest tax increase in the history of the country, a $4.3 trillion tax increase," said Sen. Mike Crapo, the Idaho Republican crafting the bill's tax provisions as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, after meeting with Trump on Wednesday. "There's a lot of talk about 'this is a tax cut for the wealthy,'" Crapo told reporters outside the White House. "This is a $2.6 trillion tax increase on people making less than $400,000, and the vast majority of that is for the middle and lower-middle income categories." The crux of the challenge for the GOP is balancing benefits for the businesses and high-income people who have traditionally been the party's constituents with the interests of the working-class Americans who form the party's base in the Trump era, all while appeasing fiscal conservatives who worry about the nation's debt. Reading between the lines of Crapo's statement reveals this tension. The bill would extend the sweeping tax cuts Republicans enacted in 2017 during Trump's first term, so taxes would largely stay the same if it passes, with the exception of temporary tax cuts for tips, overtime wages and Social Security income that were central to the president's campaign. If failing to pass the bill by Dec. 31 would mean a $4.3 trillion tax hike, as Crapo said, including a $2.6 trillion increase on Americans who earn less than $400,000 a year, then the other $1.7 trillion in extended tax cuts would not benefit those people. Meanwhile, the bill passed by House Republicans would reduce future spending on Medicaid by $793 billion and on food assistance for low-income Americans by $294 billion over a decade, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO. "It is a big, ugly bill that is really bad for our district and really bad for the country," said Rep. Kim Schrier, a Democrat whose district spans the Cascades from Wenatchee to the eastern suburbs of Seattle and Tacoma. "It explodes the debt, and they are taking away from my constituents Medicaid, taking away food stamps, taking away new energy projects in the district, all in order to pay for a tax break for the wealthiest. So this is a lose-lose situation for my constituents." Growing budget deficits In his address to a joint session of Congress in March, Trump said Republicans would balance the federal budget, something Congress hasn't done since Bill Clinton was president in 2000. But estimates published last week by the CBO, a nonpartisan agency that analyzes the effects of legislation, project that the GOP bill would do the opposite, increasing budget deficits by $2.4 trillion through 2034 and adding to the nation's debt of more than $36.2 trillion. For deficit hawks like Rep. Russ Fulcher, a Republican whose district includes North Idaho and most of the Gem State's western half, that's less than ideal. "I'd like to see some more aggressive reductions on the spending curve," Fulcher said. "But the reality is this is Congress and we got this passed by one vote, and so that tells me that those of us on the fiscal conservative side probably pushed it about as far as we could in the House." Fulcher opposed a provision in the House bill that gives an extra tax write-off to people in states with high state and local taxes, which he described as forcing Idahoans "to subsidize bad policy in New York and California." He also lamented that federal spending is projected to keep growing, and the GOP bill wouldn't bring spending down, only slow the increase. "At the end of the day, we did not cut spending overall," Fulcher said, but he ultimately voted for the bill — like all but five House Republicans, while every Democrat voted against it — because he believes it puts the federal budget on a better trajectory. He also supports repealing Biden-era subsidies for low-carbon energy and electric vehicles, another key part of the bill. "By simply bending the spending curve, I believe that gives the investment community some confidence that leadership is taking the debt seriously, and that's really important when it comes to the bond markets financing our debt," he said. "And when the investment community has confidence, that also promotes economic growth." Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Democrat who represents a conservative, largely working-class district in southwest Washington, said many of her constituents hate the idea of future generations having to pay for debt-financed spending in the GOP bill, including a down payment on Trump's "Golden Dome" missile system that CBO estimates could cost as much as $831 billion over two decades. "Working people deeply, bitterly understand debt," she said. "People care about this much more than the political establishment realizes. Like, we understand that we are mortgaging our future here, and what are we getting for it?" Gluesenkamp Perez, who has voted with Republicans more often than nearly any other Democrat, said she supports Trump's stated goal of rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in government spending but the GOP bill doesn't accomplish that goal. She said she agrees with the president's proposals to raise taxes on the highest earners and close a tax break for Wall Street called the "carried interest loophole," which Republicans in Congress have shot down. "It's not providing relief from administrative burden and bureaucracy," she said. "It's not empowering people to make better decisions for their long-term health. It's not building national health; it's taking food away from kids. You know, my dad always said that people can talk about their values all day, but you see their tax returns and you know what they really think and care about." Rep. Michael Baumgartner, a Spokane Republican, said he disagrees with the idea Trump reportedly floated in a call with House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. — letting the tax rate on people who make at least $2.5 million a year revert from 37% to 39.6% — and said the president hasn't made that a priority in his conversations with congressional Republicans. Baumgartner said that while the GOP bill isn't perfect, he supports it because it would enact the policies Trump ran on. "The Big Beautiful Bill is not a silver bullet for everything that ails the American republic, but it is very much a fulfillment of President Trump's campaign promises and what the American people voted for," he said. "It is not a plan to balance the federal deficit in one bill. It took decades to create the framework that had a significant imbalance in federal spending, and it's going to take more than one bill to right that ship." Despite the CBO's projected increase of $2.4 trillion to deficits through 2034, Crapo and other Republicans say their bill won't increase deficits by a penny, relying on projections of increased tax collections from economic growth that critics call wildly unrealistic. Both parties have disregarded the CBO when its findings haven't suited their policy goals, but the office has historically produced accurate predictions and routinely scrutinizes itself when they miss the mark. Republicans accuse the CBO of underestimating the effects of economic growth spurred by their 2017 tax cuts, but independent analysts point out that higher-than-expected revenue was mostly due to inflation and other effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Asked if he was concerned about the GOP bill increasing deficits, Baumgartner said the gap between government revenue and spending is already on track to grow because of the rising cost of entitlement programs like Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. Solving that problem would take bipartisan action, he said, but the Republicans' bill would be a step in the right direction. "Those are politically very challenging votes to take," Baumgartner said of reforming safety-net programs. "But eventually the bond market will force the American people, and very likely a presidential campaign. You have to have a presidential campaign where candidates are campaigning on entitlement reform and fiscal responsibility at the presidential level to get the message through to the American people." Cuts to Medicaid Wary of the political pitfalls of cutting benefits Americans rely on, Republicans have pitched their reforms to Medicaid and food aid as merely targeting "waste, fraud and abuse" by imposing restrictions designed to prevent noncitizens and able-bodied adults who choose not to work from receiving the funds. The CBO estimates that 10.9 million people would lose Medicaid coverage as a result of those changes, including 1.4 million noncitizens who currently receive Medicaid funded only by states. Combined with the expiration of expanded subsidies passed by Democrats to help pay for private insurance, which Republicans don't plan to extend, the office estimates that 16 million Americans would lose their health insurance by the end of 2034. The bill would require recipients to regularly file reports to prove that they qualify for health insurance and help buying groceries. Democrats say that extra paperwork would strip vital benefits from people who deserve them but get tripped up by added bureaucracy. "The vast majority of people on Medicaid are already working. This bill is just a scam by Republicans to make it so hard to qualify for Medicaid that people just give up," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said in a virtual news conference on Thursday. "The Republican tax bill will strangle everyone who relies on Medicaid in red tape, creating more barriers to coverage through intentionally confusing and burdensome new work-reporting requirements that could leave more than 620,000 Washingtonians without health care coverage or delayed coverage," Murray said, citing an estimate by the Washington State Health Care Authority, which administers the state's Medicaid program, called Apple Health. The CBO has estimated that stricter work-reporting requirements to qualify for Medicaid wouldn't increase employment. When Arkansas imposed such a policy in 2018, it didn't reduce joblessness in the state. Rep. Dan Newhouse, a Republican from Sunnyside, represents a central Washington district where 70% of children rely on Medicaid, the highest rate in the state. Asked why he voted for the bill despite the cuts to Medicaid, he said federal spending on the program is on an unsustainable trajectory. "We want the program to be viable, to go on into the future being able to provide the service necessary, the medical service for people that absolutely have to have it," Newhouse said. "There are rules in place and we have to follow the law." The GOP bill would change that law. While federal funds already can't be used to give Medicaid to noncitizens, it would penalize states like Washington that use their own money to provide health insurance to immigrants, including both people living in the country illegally and those with legal status. Newhouse, whose heavily agricultural district relies largely on unauthorized immigrant farmworkers, said the loss of health insurance among immigrants in central Washington is "going to be an issue that we'll have to address in some way." But he said his party's bill will help keep Medicaid viable in the long term, as spending on the program continues to grow. Democrats warn that cutting spending on the program won't only affect the people who lose their government-provided health insurance. Leaders of rural hospitals have warned that they could be forced to curtail services or even close due to lost Medicaid revenue, and uninsured patients often delay treatment until they need expensive emergency care. "Whenever we take away health care from anyone, it puts stress on the entire health care system," said Rep. Marilyn Strickland, D-Tacoma. "They're still going to get health care through the emergency room, so all that's going to do is drive up the expense. They will be far more sick and in dire condition when they show up in the emergency room, and that means longer wait times for everybody." The Affordable Care Act of 2010, often called "Obamacare," reduced the number of Americans without health insurance by subsidizing private insurance plans and letting states choose to expand Medicaid coverage to a larger share of their population, which Washington did in 2014 and Idaho did in 2020. Republicans have repeatedly tried and failed to repeal that law, coming close during Trump's first term in 2017 before the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., famously killed that effort. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., told reporters on Tuesday that by reducing Medicaid coverage and allowing the expanded subsidies to expire, the GOP bill is "literally just another attempt to repeal the advancements of the Affordable Care Act." "By covering more people, the Affordable Care Act improved access to care, covered millions more Americans and helped us lower costs, but the provisions in the House reconciliation bill will reverse those gains," she said. "And for what? To give a tax break to the ultra-wealthy or to corporations that don't need it." Sen. Jim Risch, an Idaho Republican, said his party faces a difficult balancing act in crafting the bill — especially when they can afford to lose no more than three GOP votes in either the House or Senate — but they ultimately have to get it done to enact Trump's agenda. The bill would also raise the government's borrowing limit by about $4 trillion, which Congress must do before its August recess, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says, or risk a global financial crisis. "I'm concerned about the deficit every moment of every day," Risch said. "The biggest competing thing you have is the fact that we're going into debt, $1 trillion every 150 days. And on the other side, people are unhappy with the rate of taxation they've got, and those things have got to get reconciled. I think they can, but it's a heavy lift." Orion Donovan Smith's work is funded in part by members of the Spokane community via the Community Journalism and Civic Engagement Fund. This story can be republished by other organizations for free under a Creative Commons license. For more information on this, please contact our newspaper's managing editor.
