Litigation, legislation, collaboration: Neronha outlines fix for R.I.'s broken health care system

Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha answers reporters' questions on his new health care reform strategy during a press conference at his Providence office on Wednesday, May 28, 2025. (Photo by Alexander Castro/Rhode Island Current)
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha took a break Wednesday from his breathless legal pursuit of President Donald Trump's administration to chase a different foe: pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs.
'The cost of drugs is astounding,' Neronha told reporters gathered at his South Main Street office in Providence. 'Pharmacy benefit managers…operate in a very secretive and shrouded way…Because they have 80% of the market, they're able to use that market power to drive drug prices sky high and keep that difference.'
A lawsuit filed Tuesday in Rhode Island Superior Court against three of the nation's biggest PBMs — CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and OptumRx — is perhaps the sharpest prong among many in a sweeping plan to restructure the way Rhode Island funds health care unveiled Wednesday morning. All of the initiatives in Neronha's heavy slate of proposals are meant to remedy what Neronha called a 'spectacular failure' that has been years in the making.
'It was looming then,' Neronha said Wednesday of the state's health care crisis when he took office in 2019. 'It's here now.'
In about 34 minutes of opening remarks, Neronha detailed his office's new list of efforts to effect major change, from boosting mediocre Medicaid reimbursement rates to filling absences in primary care practices. The entire plan is available on a new website, titled 'A Way Forward,' which went live during the press conference.
The health care system in Rhode Island is so bad, Neronha offered, that even the state's largest hospital corporation doesn't want to buy hospitals here but instead shops for prospects in Massachusetts. Neronha cited Brown University Health's 2024 purchase of Saint Anne's Hospital in Fall River and Morton Hospital in Taunton.
'There are struggling hospitals right here in Rhode Island,' Neronha said. 'Why are they buying them in Massachusetts? Because the reimbursement rates are higher. It's always about the money. Don't let anyone convince you that it's not about the money.'
The rollout of initiatives came a week after Neronha announced he secured an $11 million settlement with Barletta Heavy Division Inc., the Massachusetts contractor accused of dumping contaminated soil during construction of the Route 6/10 Interchange in Providence. Neronha steered most of the money toward dental care for children in low-income neighborhoods near the construction site. Unlike with multistate lawsuits where proceeds go directly to the state's general fund, the term-limited Neronha said his office had the authority to decide where the money goes.
'We really started rolling out what we're doing last week with the Barletta settlement,' Neronha said. 'The question was, 'What do we do with that money and how do we solve a problem?'…It became very clear to me that if we had this pot of money and we could use it to drive it back into those neighborhoods, to at least address that community problem and hope to solve it, then that action would make a difference.'
After Neronha's monologue, seven of his staff attorneys came up to the podium one by one to describe the details of the AG's plan, including the PBM lawsuit, which targets the three companies who make up around 80% of the national market for managing insurers' prescription drug benefits for patients.
'The cost of drugs is astounding...Pharmacy benefit managers…operate in a very secretive and shrouded way…Because they have 80% of the market, they're able to use that market power to drive drug prices sky high and keep that difference.
– Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha
The lengthy complaint alleges that PBMs extract billions in rebates while reimbursing pharmacies below cost. These shadowy maneuvers, the lawsuit claims, threaten the survival of independent pharmacies, deceive consumers, and inflate drug costs via intricate manipulation of pricing schemes.
Sarah Rice, deputy chief of the office's civil division, told reporters that PBMs will demand manufacturers offer rebates on certain drugs if they wish to be distributed through PBMs' networks. That leads manufacturers to increase prices, and PBMs then shave a little off the top by taking a portion of the rebate, according to Rice.
'The health plans pay more, and consumers pay more,' Rice said. 'All of this is set out in much better detail in the complaint, if you are ready to read over 200 paragraphs of allegations.'
The complaint was filed under state laws on deceptive trade practices, Rice said, 'Because this behavior is harmful to consumers. It has a direct pocketbook effect to any consumer that has a deductible or co-insurance when they go to the pharmacy, which is most of us.'
The suit also identifies three group purchasing organizations (GPOs) — Zinc Health Services, Ascent Health Services, and Emisar Pharma Services — as defendants. PBMs use their organizations to aggregate their purchasing power for pharmaceuticals — a more recent development as benefit managers usually had 'enormous bargaining power on their own,' the lawsuit explains.
'It appears PBMs use GPOs to recategorize existing income streams and generate new income streams,' the lawsuit reads. 'GPOs also serve as an additional, non-transparent layer in an already opaque system, making it even more difficult for health benefit plans to determine whether they received their fair share of rebates.'
Neronha's office is seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties, and full restitution for affected patients and pharmacies. The complaint aligns Rhode Island with a growing cohort of states, including Ohio, Arkansas, and Mississippi, that have started legal battles with PBMs for pricing tactics or rebate sleights-of-hand.
CVS spokesperson Amy Thibault defended the Woonsocket-based company against the lawsuit's claims in a statement Wednesday.
'It's surprising and unfortunate that Rhode Island's attorney general would use biased and incorrect assertions about our industry to needlessly attack a hometown company,' Thibault wrote. 'CVS Health contributes nearly $3 billion of positive economic activity in Rhode Island each year, and we employ more than 7,000 colleagues across the state.'
Thibault said CVS saved customers nationwide over $40 billion last year, with members paying under $8 on average for a 30-day prescription. She also cited an increase in independent pharmacies over the past six years, which the company says are reimbursed at higher rates than CVS stores, including its 62 Rhode Island locations.
Neronha's plans include support in three major areas of legislation, including some bills he hopes will pass before the legislative session ends next month. Most prominent in the AG's machinations is a reevaluation of Medicaid rates, illustrated by a presentation slide at the press conference.
A hypothetical Medicare reimbursement may pay a provider $100, the slide showed. A commercial insurer might reimburse the provider at $200 for the same service, but Medicaid might only pay $37 — a problem in a state where Medicaid factors heavily into the payer mix, or makeup of different insurance types among the population. About 70% of Rhode Islanders are on public insurance, either Medicare or Medicaid, according to a report accompanying Neronha's action plan.
That's why Neronha is supporting H6373, sponsored by Exeter Democratic Rep. Megan Cotter, which would immediately increase Medicaid payment rates to be on par with Medicare payments. The bill was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Finance on Wednesday. Retooling the reimbursement rates would conservatively cost $50 million, Neronha said.
'We can find it in our state government, a $14.2 billion budget,' Neronha said.
A year to the day ago, Neronha argued passionately to save the state's safety net hospitals to a who's who of lawmakers and health care leaders at a Rhode Island State House health care summit. On Wednesday, Neronha reiterated several of the same points, and said that the lamentable case of Rhode Island's two safety net hospitals — Our Lady of Fatima and Roger Williams Medical Center — taught him valuable lessons in how reimbursement rates work.
It's surprising and unfortunate that Rhode Island's attorney general would use biased and incorrect assertions about our industry to needlessly attack a hometown company.
– CVS spokesperson Amy Thibault
'That's where I learned that there's a problem in health care, a structural problem that's going on here,' Neronha said. 'And what is it? Our reimbursements are too low. They're too low in Medicare, they're too low in Medicaid, they're too low in commercial.'
The hospitals remain in a purgatory of ownership, with the finalization of the two properties' transfer from Prospect Medical Holdings to new owner Centurion Foundation still incomplete as of Wednesday. Also on Wednesday, Gov. Dan McKee submitted a budget amendment that would infuse $4.3 million in state money for a 21-bed long-term behavioral health care inpatient unit at Fatima.
Hoping to preempt similar situations, one of Neronha's more assertive proposals would let his office petition Superior Court to place financially distressed or poorly run hospitals, especially those under private ownership, into receivership. The corresponding bill is H6369, sponsored by Rep. Susan Donovan, a Bristol Democrat. On Wednesday, it was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
'This is something, frankly, that we talked about with Prospect before we got to where we are today,' Neronha said.
To complement that legislation, Neronha is proposing a regulation that would require Rhode Island-based medical groups to notify the AG's office of any acquisition or restructuring involving private equity or the consolidation of large practices. A public hearing on the proposed rule is scheduled for July 8.
'One thing that we know we don't know is the level of private equity intrusion into the health care market outside of hospital systems,' Neronha said. 'We have great insight into hospital systems because of our regulatory authority over hospital systems, but not into health care practices, and we believe that we need to know so we can head off any problems.'
Neronha wants to almost universally eliminate prior authorization processes for primary care providers, except for certain controlled substances or in documented cases of physician fraud, via bill H6317 sponsored by Rep. Mia Ackerman, a Cumberland Democrat. The bill was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Health and Human Services on May 9, and is still waiting for a hearing date.
Prior authorization acts as a lever on insurance claims and is meant to help insurers contain unnecessary costs, but it has also been criticized as an example of payer overreach and a seriously demanding time constraint on already overworked physicians. Jordan Broadbent, the office's insurance advocate, told reporters the move to abolish prior authorization is 'bold legislation' and would make Rhode Island a national leader should it pass.
Backing Neronha's claims are two reports — one focused on the past, the other on the future. The Statewide Health Care Capacity Assessment features the retrospective data and was compiled by the consulting firm Health Management Associates, who found deep gaps in primary care access and coverage, wobbly long-term financing across different kinds of providers, and understaffed and overworked emergency departments.
According to the report, there are roughly 100,000 Rhode Island adults without a primary care provider, an ongoing issue recently exacerbated by the impending closure of Anchor Medical Associates' remaining offices.
The report also found poor outcomes for nursing homes, which boast a closure rate twice the national average. An additional nursing home closed shortly after the report was being prepared last summer, said Dorothea Lindquist, health care senior litigation attorney at the AG's office. Lindquist also noted that four providers of Medicare Advantage plans in Rhode Island — which account for over 56% of Medicare enrollees statewide — have not raised their post-acute care reimbursement rates in a decade.
'This finding should be terrifying to everyone in Rhode Island who plans to find themselves aging here,' said Lindquist.
Another policy brief included in the AG's package comes from the Collaborative for Health Policy and Reform Analysis (CAHPR) at the Brown University School of Public Health. The dossier reinforces load-bearing planks in Neronha's plans, including enhanced regulatory authority over health care transactions and expansion of primary care access.
'The proposals vary in scope, legal complexity, and political feasibility, but each offers a potential pathway for meaningful reform,' according to the brief, which discusses a state-based, single-payer plan, a comprehensive public option, pricing parity for Medicaid reimbursements and widening the state's drug purchasing pool beyond state employee coverage.
The Brown collaborative's recommendations and Neronha's stratagems differ from those outlined in a primary care stabilization strategy recently announced by Gov. Dan McKee, which emphasized more gradual reform via existing regulatory mechanisms and a future review of Medicaid rates. Neronha called McKee's April 29 announcement of a long-term primary care strategy 'slapdash,' and the attorney general's plan is contrastingly nimble, in his own evaluation.
'Everything we're gonna roll out today is action we believe will make a difference,' Neronha said.
The complete set of initiatives included in Neronha's wishlist, as listed in a press release from his office:
File suit against the three largest Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) in the country to protect Rhode Island consumers from unfair and deceptive conduct that has caused drug prices to skyrocket;
Introduce legislation to immediately raise Medicaid reimbursement rates to 100% of Medicare rates for primary care providers;
Introduce legislation to immediately eliminate nearly 100% of prior authorization requirements for primary care providers;
Introduce legislation authorizing the Attorney General to petition the Superior Court to place a hospital into receivership if the facility becomes financially unstable;
Issue proposed regulations to require pre-merger notification of certain material corporate transactions involving medical practice groups, including transactions involving private equity firms;
Issue an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking regarding market oversight of artificial intelligence (AI);
Collaborate with the Brown University School of Public Health Center for Advancing Health Policy Through Research (CAHPR) to examine potential policy options for state-based health system reform; and
Plan for a new state health care agency to obtain and analyze healthcare data, and inform innovative and effective governmental health care decision-making.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

32 minutes ago

• Yahoo

What the business world has to like (and not) in the Senate version of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'

The business community has some clear wins in a Senate version of President Trump's "big, beautiful bill" but it isn't getting everything it wants. The Senate's Finance Committee's 549-page blueprint contains significant changes, especially on taxes, Medicaid funding, and clean energy. One proposal was quickly embraced by the business community: a Senate-side push to make corporate tax deductions permanent around things like interest payments and new capital investments. But a less popular idea is the survival of the so-called revenge tax that would allow the government to levy new duties on foreign nations and their businesses. That idea was introduced in the House version and sparked fears of reduced foreign investment. The version released last Monday pares back the tax but doesn't eliminate it entirely, as corporate lobbyists had asked. Specific industries also have plenty at stake from Senate changes if they make it into law. Businesses that work in clean energy will have more time to adjust to the phase-out of Biden-era credits. Restaurants and gig economy companies have more limited tax breaks for tips and overtime. Healthcare providers will also have to adjust to even steeper cuts to Medicaid's provider tax structure — perhaps the most surprising and significant overall change in the Senate version. What the Senate version of the bill doesn't appear to have — as Elon Musk and others had pushed for — is a significant change in the final price tag. Both versions are expected to add trillions of dollars to the debt. The Senate version also raises the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, compared with $4 trillion in the House version. The bill does have one clear cost-saving measure: slashing the annual deduction for individual state and local taxes (SALT) from $40,000 to $10,000. But that provision is described even in the bill's official summary as "the subject of continuing negotiations," with defenders of the deduction pledging to restore the full credit forthwith. The Senate version earned a quick flurry of Republican pledges — from fiscal hawks to defenders of those SALT deductions to those who object to the Medicaid cuts — to vote no if the final version isn't changed to their liking. "We're not seriously addressing our long-term deficit and debt," Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin told reporters soon after the unveiling, reiterating that he remains a no. The back and forth comes just weeks ahead of Republicans' self-imposed deadline to get the bill to the president's desk by July 4. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said sticking to that timeline means Senate passage by the end of this coming week. Ed Mills of Raymond James offered in a note that "we continue to view the July 4 target as ambitious" — suggesting that SALT and Medicaid provisions in particular could be under continued debate in the days ahead. Here is a closer look at some of the major business world changes being proposed by the Senate: A key focus for business owners is a series of tax deductions that will reinstate credits for corporations around things like property depreciation, capital investments, new factory construction, interest expenses, and research and development costs. These provisions were present in the House version but only temporarily. Permanency was a key Senate priority once they took over, even as it is expected to increase the price tag. The bill "powers the economy by permanently extending critical pro-growth provisions and introduces new incentives for domestic investment, providing certainty for American job creators to spur domestic economic activity and invest in their workers," offered Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo as he unveiled these provisions. The Senate version also enhances credits for "opportunity zones," which provide tax relief in rural and distressed communities. The bill also includes Trump's campaign promises of no taxes on tips and overtime, but in a more limited form. Employees would be able to deduct up to $25,000 annually for tips and overtime, in contrast to the House's approach of 100% deductibility under certain income limits. The Senate blueprint also includes a rollback of clean energy credits for things like solar panels and electric vehicles. The changes in the Senate would make that phaseout slower — zeroing out some key credits by 2028 — but with a bottom line that Republicans across the spectrum are united in eliminating these benefits entirely. Amy Hanauer, executive director of the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, reacted to the released proposal by saying that "the emerging clean energy economy will be curtailed and for what?" "Our communities will be worse off as a result of this legislation,' she added. On the fossil fuel side, the Senate bill continues to include changes to make permitting less laborious, open up new lease sales, and reverse a fee on excess methane emissions. The Senate bill also includes a controversial plan to limit the ability of states to regulate artificial intelligence. The Senate's provisions are less airtight, stopping short of the outright ban proposed by the House, but are expected to remain a point of contention and potentially an issue for the Senate parliamentarian, given the Senate's complex reconciliation rules. Other changes in the bill appear to cut against business interests at least slightly. The Senate bill makes permanent the so-called pass-through deduction — formally called a 199A deduction for small businesses — but at the current rate of 20%. The House version also had permanency, but at a higher rate of 23%. Meanwhile, a clear focus of business lobbyist ire has remained in the bill, but in a slightly diminished form: the so-called revenge tax. This idea would allow a president to punish companies and countries if they adhere to foreign laws that policymakers find objectionable. In Trump's case, things like the digital services taxes that often hit tech companies overseas. The Senate version, in a nod to the flurry of concerns, set a maximum rate of 15% and delayed implementation until 2027 but kept the concept intact. In addition to that tax, the SALT and Medicaid changes are likely to be most in focus in the days and weeks ahead. Tobin Marcus of Wolfe Research noted Tuesday morning that "SALT changes underscore the reality that this is another step forward in negotiations, not the final answer." He added that "we still view late July as the real deadline." This story has been updated. Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Miami Herald

39 minutes ago

• Miami Herald

Donald Trump's SNAP Benefit Cut Plans Suffer Blow

A plan by Republicans to shift a portion of federal food stamp costs to state governments suffered a major setback after the Senate parliamentarian found it would violate chamber rules. The blocked provision was an attempt to reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), affecting more than 40 million low-income Americans who rely on food aid. The shift would have transferred major SNAP costs to the states, requiring them to pay at least 5 percent—and potentially more—of benefit costs, which analysts warned could result in significant cuts to nutrition support. The parliamentarian's decision places additional pressure on the bill's champions to find alternative means to fund tax cuts without imperiling food assistance, Medicaid, or other federal support programs. The provision, a cornerstone of Republican efforts to offset the costs of President Donald Trump's multitrillion-dollar tax and spending legislation, has been ruled inadmissible under Senate rules, sending GOP leaders scrambling to revise the mega bill. The ruling, issued by Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, came as the package prepared for a vote. While her opinions are advisory, they are rarely ignored in lawmaking practice. Republican lawmakers are now searching for new savings as they continue to advance Trump's legislative priorities despite the setback. MacDonough declared the SNAP cost-sharing plan noncompliant with the chamber's budget reconciliation rules, specifically the Byrd Rule, which bars certain policy measures from being attached to budget bills. The proposal would have shifted billions of dollars in SNAP costs from the federal government to the states, creating a new fiscal obligation for state governments and threatening coverage for millions. House Passes Bill with GOP SNAP Cuts The House passed the broader tax and spending package along party lines in May 2025, including a provision to require states to fund at least 5 percent of SNAP benefits and more for high error rates. The House-passed measure's SNAP provision was projected to save about $128 billion. Republican leaders had hoped these savings would help offset the bill's $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and new spending. Other Key Provisions Beyond SNAP, the package includes an extension and expansion of individual and business tax cuts, new work requirements for Medicaid recipients, cuts to federal health and nutrition programs, increased military and border security funding, and the elimination of taxes on tips for service workers. GOP Paths Forward Republican leaders, including Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman of Arkansas, said they were exploring options to keep the legislation on track while still delivering savings elsewhere. Options range from modifying the disputed SNAP provision to removing it entirely or risking a procedural vote requiring 60 votes—an unlikely scenario in the current Senate. Impact on SNAP Recipients The plan would have expanded work requirements to older adults (up to age 65), a component that remains in the bill for now. Democrats and anti-hunger advocates warned of significant harm to those in need, with more than 3 million individuals projected to lose food stamp access based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Additional Rulings Expected The Senate parliamentarian is also expected to rule on other elements in the bill, including limits on immigrant eligibility for nutrition aid and changes to federal agencies, with further decisions likely to shape the final legislation. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, said: "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," opposing shifts in SNAP costs to states, which she said would result in significant benefit cuts. Arkansas Senator John Boozman, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Republicans are "exploring options" to comply with Senate rules, while supporting those reliant on SNAP. Senate Republicans are expected to revise the bill to comply with the parliamentarian's rulings or drop the contested SNAP provisions. Further decisions from the adviser on other elements of the megabill are anticipated before any final Senate vote. This article contains reporting from The Associated Press. Related Articles When Are July 2025 SNAP Payments Coming?Republicans Out Of Step With Voters On Medicaid FundingNew York State Facing Lawsuit Over SNAP BenefitsSNAP Recipients Get Extra Money This Month in California 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

Bloomberg

2 hours ago

• Bloomberg

The Issue That Can Damage Republicans the Most

Amid all the news that Donald Trump creates, and there's a lot, one story stands out for its unrivaled potential to damage the president's political standing: the Republican effort to pass a huge budget bill that, among other things, would kick millions of people off Medicaid. Above all else, this is what Democrats should be focused on. The polling on this legislation is terrible, and with good reason. It's one thing to ask for belt-tightening in a spirit of shared sacrifice, but the One Big Beautiful Bill Act doesn't reduce the deficit at all — on the contrary, it adds nearly $3 trillion to the national debt. And that's an underestimate. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, if all its changes were made permanent, the bill would add closer to $5 trillion in new debt. Nor can economic growth avert this fiscal catastrophe. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that on a 'dynamic scoring' basis — which usually reduces the cost of legislation — the price tag of the bill actually goes up by nearly $400 billion due to higher interest rates. This upward pressure on interest rates will spread through the economy and slow growth.