NPCE: Is this legal?

[summer]

My mom takes a medication that she has to have (so say her doctors).  Before she had her plans switched (long story with her former employer), it was $10 a month for the generic.  

The new plan always had a tagline that the amount could change.  It's a medication that is only available through mail-order and she always has to order 3 mo. supply at a time.

She went to order recently and they said the generic was no longer available and it would now be $180 a month.  She immediately cancelled the order.  They then sent her a bill for the previous 3 months at $180 a month (totaling approx $540) even though she was already billed (and paid) $10 a month for those orders.  Can they do that? It's as if they forgot they should have charged her 3 months ago and are now going back to do so.  That sounds fishy to me.  

[orangeblossom]

I would fight this. If seems she should have only been bills the $180, once thy ceased having a generic. It doesn't seem like they could retroactively say pay $180 prior I that, especially if she's already paid the appropriate $10.

Hopefully, someone will have some more concrete advice than what I can give.

[laurenpetro]

was the last shipment the generic or the name brand?

either way it's fucked up, but i'd guess she has less of a leg to stand on if she took the name brand, KWIM?

[PinkSquirrel]

May 5, 2014 11:11:10 GMT -5 Lucy Honeychurch said:

No. I'd fight it. Firstly, there is no evidence (medication) left to ascertain whether or not she received the generic for those three months they're attempting to bill. And secondly, she should not have to pay twice for goods received once.

How is she paying for the same thing twice if she was billed for the generic initially, but received the name brand?   It's reasonable that she would have to pay the difference if she was charged for something cheaper than she received.     I'm would definitely complain about it, but it seems weird to jump straight to being double billed, when it seems more likely they were just correcting a billing error.

[iammalcolmx]

Ditto everyone who says fight it. Also is the generic gone permanently or just now?

[summer]

She received the generic the whole time.

[PinkSquirrel]

May 5, 2014 11:31:47 GMT -5 summer said:

She received the generic the whole time.

If she was only ever sent the generic then the $180 a month is going to be wrong no matter how you slice it because it's the full cost for non generic.  So yeah, complain and definitely do not pay.   

[ringstrue]

ditto others and also I'd have her call the doc to see if he can switch her to something else that does still come in a generic.

My old employer did the 3 month thing and it's such BS.

[sugarglider]

May 5, 2014 12:15:46 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

May 5, 2014 11:31:47 GMT -5 summer said:

She received the generic the whole time.

It's not legal. You cannot increase the price of a product retroactively. That's sort of the height of bait and switch. They offered her a product for a certain price, she accepted the price, paid it, they sent her the product. The end. Tell.them.to pound sand (or in the alternative, present anything at all demonstrating the agreed on price was different from what she paid).

I feel like this exact scenario was in my 1L Ks book...

[origami]

May 5, 2014 11:31:47 GMT -5 summer said:

She received the generic the whole time.

I'd fight it for sure. They probably have her down as receiving the brand name. Hopefully fighting this won't be PTSD-inducing. I hate dealing with stuff like this. If she had had the brand name I'm guessing she would have to pay. I have a mail order Rx insurance that I once fought over some meds they said were covered until I bought them. Then it was oh my bad, that's not actually covered. Guess who lost that fight. I wonder if your mom and I have the same horrid Rx insurance. Anyway, since a generic does exist look into whether paying for it OOP is cheaper than using insurance for the brand name. GL!