CVS Caremark is currently facing class action lawsuits that its pharmacy coverage improperly forces many insured individuals to buy HIV/AIDS drugs from CVS pharmacies only at full cost. According to the plaintiffs in these class action lawsuits, enrolllees in health insurance plans that offer prescription drug coverage via CVS Caremark are instructed that they must obtain their medications through CVS pharmacies only at full retail price. Subsequently, if an insured individual does not obtain the prescribed medications through a CVS pharmacy, they are instructed that they cannot receive the benefits of the health plan. The plaintiffs further claim that this violates the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Compromise on Affordable Health Care Act (COA).

In the Class Action lawsuit, the plaintiffs say that the policies of CVS Caremark force individuals to submit to a lengthy application process where they answer questions about medical conditions. In many instances, plaintiffs contend that they were never advised that they had an option other than purchasing their medications at full price. Subsequently, they say that they were subjected to the CVS Caremark’s policies which dictate that they must use CVS pharmacies for all health-related necessities. In addition to subjecting their lives to a lengthy CVS pharmacy application process, the plaintiffs contend that they were denied coverage for AIDS drugs and other prescribed medications that are covered under different health care plans such as Medicare and Medicaid.

A class action lawsuit is basically a lawsuit filed by multiple plaintiffs who ask the court to resolve a dispute regarding the legality of a specific corporation. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit, they are given their due compensation. If they lose the case, the defendant is generally required to reimburse the lost expenses, attorney fees and any other losses that resulted from the defendants’ refusal to offer fair and reasonable prescription drug coverage to its plaintiffs.

Two of the main issues that the class action lawsuit claims concern is the dismissal of the mandatory arbitration policy and the exclusion of pre-existing conditions. Plaintiffs argue that the defendants breach the implied conditions of the arbitration policy because it requires them to accept the offers of all pharmaceuticals present on the market irrespective of the plaintiffs’ medical condition or current health status. The defendants argue that plaintiffs cannot show that there has been a rejection of their applications solely because of plaintiffs’ health status. In addition to health status, the defendants maintain that plaintiffs have failed to establish that the denial of their applications was based on some concrete or inherent bad act or intention.

Another class action lawsuit against CVS Caremark centers on the company’s rejection of claims made by individual plaintiffs. According to this complaint, the company policies were originally intended to provide benefits to all its class members regardless of health status. However, plaintiffs claim that they have not been provided with treatment or other benefits that they would have been entitled to if the class had been of lower income bracket members. Further, they argue that the original class action lawsuit signing statement provided that the company would provide treatment to individuals who may not otherwise receive it. The plaintiffs argue that this violates the implied conditions of the class action lawsuit signing statement.

Another class action lawsuit against CVS Caremark involves claims related to the distribution of prescribed drugs. According to this complaint, the distribution of CVS Caremark drugs in the distribution network was controlled in a discriminatory manner. Class members were distributed to different pharmacies based on their geographical location and the size of their accounts. Subsequently, different pharmacies were awarded different percentages of the prescriptions by the company, based on their volume of sales. Plaintiffs seek damages on the basis that they suffered a financial loss as a result of this violation of the anti-price discrimination statutes.