Labor Agreement Provision Closes Independent Pharmacy
by Hugh McQuaid | Jun 21, 2011 5:42pm
(15) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Business, Labor, Mansfield-Storrs
A long-standing independent pharmacy in Storrs shut its doors last week, a move the owner said was a direct result of a provision within the tentative labor agreement reached between the governor’s administration and state unions.
Though it has changed ownership twice, Storrs Drug has been independently owned and operated near the University of Connecticut campus since 1951. In a business profile published by the Journal Inquirer a year ago, current owner Naufel Tajudeen, who could not be reached for comment Tuesday, spoke of an expanding business with a focus on community outreach.
At that time, the pharmacy had only recently become certified to administer immunizations to customers and he had expected to offer vaccines for the flu, shingles, and pneumonia last October.
But Tajudeen told Mansfield Today he could not continue to operate the business because of a provision in the tentative labor agreement requiring state union employees to get their prescriptions for daily drugs through a mail order service owned by CVS.
Located within a mile of the state’s largest public university, state union workers make up about 70 percent of Tajudeen’s clientele, he said in that article.
Mark Ojakian, deputy secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, said Tuesday that the provision is a product of negotiations between the administration of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition and it was aimed at saving the state money. Those savings are estimated at $19.87 million in the first year and $20.5 million in the second.
Ojakian said pharmacists are reacting to the provision, saying it will kill their businesses without having any conversations with the administration on ways they could be included.
But as part of a negotiated agreement, the provision did not go through the normal legislative process where it likely would have had a public hearing where independent pharmacists would have had a chance to weigh in on its impact.
“When we sat down to negotiate, it was to find as much savings as we could,” Ojakian recalled.
State employee unions are currently voting on the agreement and Ojakian said neither the Malloy administration nor the State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition has any interest in re-opening it to remove the mail-in prescription provision. Opening the agreement for one provision welcomes a barrage of other requests, he said.
However, he said the Malloy administration has heard the concerns of independent pharmacists like Tajudeen and is working on a way to soften the blow. He said that later this week he plans to meet with independent pharmacists, the Connecticut Pharmacists Association, and the members of SEBAC to find a way to allow local pharmacists to take part in the mail-in program within the confines of the negotiated agreement.
“We’re trying to work on a mechanism that will allow independent pharmacies to participate in the program,” he said, as long as they could match the rates the state has gotten from CVS’s Caremark.
Margherita R. Giuliano, executive vice president of the Connecticut Pharmacists Association, confirmed that the meeting was in the works. She said she hadn’t seen the language of the mechanism Ojakian spoke of, but said it has the potential to be helpful to independent pharmacists.
“It depends on what the reimbursement rate is, and it depends on all things being equal on both sides of the equation,” she said.
She said she would like to see the state’s independent pharmacists on a level playing field with Caremark.
Whatever results from that meeting, it may be too late to help Storrs Drug. Calls to the business are already being redirected to Beacon Prescriptions Center in Willimantic, where Tajudeen transferred his remaining client list.
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy expressed little sympathy for the business closing Tuesday. At an unrelated event in Windham, Malloy said, “We’re not in the business of subsidizing individual businesses.”
He said he inherited a budget with a $3.5 billion deficit and he did what was necessary to eliminate it.
“So should we not purchase drugs in the most cost effective manner that we can? Is that what people are advocating now? I think we’ve answered it,” Malloy said.
While Malloy may have bigger problems to worry about than one business, people in town will miss it.
On Tuesday morning, former customers of Storrs Drug arrived at the pharmacy to find its doors locked and its windows dark.
Jack Davis, a customer of more than 20 years, said he dropped by hoping to catch Tajudeen to ask about his future plans. He said in the years since Tajudeen took over the pharmacy with his wife, Ami Tajudeen, he has come to like the pharmacist.
“It’s very sad. Naufel is a very nice guy and a very able pharmacist,” he said.
Davis himself is a former state employee. He said he worked as a professor of English literature at UConn for 35 years. But at 86 he will not be affected by the provision which exempts retirees over the age of 65.
He said he will now likely get his prescriptions filled at a nearby Big Y. Maria Gates of Mansfield Center said the same.
Gates, who works as a nurse in Windham, said that she has been coming to Storrs Drug since she was 18, some 30 years ago. It was kind of a pastime for her, she said. She would often go there to buy small products like medication dispensers for her clients at Regency Heights nursing home, she said.
She described Tajudeen as an exceptional young pharmacist who took the time to explain medications to his customers. She showed up for the shop’s liquidation sale, which she thought was scheduled for that day.
Sitting outside the closed up pharmacy, she questioned the logic of requiring people to obtain their medications by mail.
“That’s lousy. You only get so much out of a doctor’s visit. It’s really the pharmacist who talks to you about your medications. That’s just how the system is set up,” she said.
Tags: pharmacist, union concessions, labor agreement, connecticut, SEBAC, prescription drugs, Hugh McQuaid
(15) Comments
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | June 21, 2011 6:22pm
i heard an independent pharmacy owner on the radio the other day. he estimates that $180 million will leave the local pharmacies and the state per year if this agreement passes.
posted by: Ben Dover | June 21, 2011 6:35pm
Isn’t this what Dan wanted all along…....“Shared Sacrifice?”
posted by: Disgruntled | June 21, 2011 7:16pm
CVS is THE WORST and hardly the most cost effective.
Malloy is showing his true colors with his callous comments. His $3.5 billion mantra is wearing pretty thin.
posted by: Lawrence | June 21, 2011 8:33pm
Let me be ther first to say—CAN’T THE STATE JUST FIND TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOALLRS IN SAVINGS SOMEWHERE ELSE??
And the answer is… no. This is what the public has demanded—budget cuts. And this is one of the results of those budget cuts. C’est la vie.
posted by: gutbomb86 | June 21, 2011 8:55pm
Well said, Lawrence.
And @BenD, yes that’s exactly the result of shared sacrifice - there demands for cuts and cost savings and this is just one part of that process.
Did anyone notice that the guy decided to close his doors before the votes have even been counted? Smells fishy.
posted by: Leslie4 | June 21, 2011 9:08pm
More & more mom & pop pharmacies will be going out of business because of this deal..
posted by: CitizenCT | June 21, 2011 9:14pm
Malloy said, “We’re not in the business of subsidizing individual businesses.” Umm, what do you think the “First Five” program does? It subsidizes five individual businesses of course. Does the Governor think state residents are stupid?
posted by: Terry D. Cowgill | June 21, 2011 9:59pm
Exactly, gutbomb86. The man is closing his pharmacy based on a labor agreement that might never be reached? This looks like the beginning of a PR campaign waged by the small pharmacies’ lobby. And don’t underestimate their power. Look at how effective the package store owners have been in putting the kibosh on Sunday liquor sales.
posted by: ... | June 22, 2011 4:34am
Hmm, for a deal not to even pass yet (and down to the wire now), I’m under the impression the union deal was not the primary reason. Instead this exit leaves the owner a way to use politics as a cop-out.
posted by: Disgruntled | June 22, 2011 7:32am
First Five are the smart companies who get outta here for greener pastures.
UBS in Stamford is the first…in spite of all the spin. One big huge empty building with a few lights on and a big sign—but nobody home.
posted by: jonpelto | June 22, 2011 7:46am
Terry, actually you are wrong. So very wrong.
In 1989, when I was a State Representative and the state of Connecticut and the state employee unions first agreed to the use of mail order drugs, Storrs Drug (the previous owner) and a small group of other pharmacists who owned small pharmacies in areas with a significant numbers of state employees came to me saying the new provision would literally put them out of business.
So we adopted 89-374 which became Section 38a-544 of the Connecticut State Statutes;
Prescription drug coverage. Mail Order Pharmacies. (a) No medical benefits contract on a group basis, whether issued by an insurance company, a hospital service corporation, a medical service corporation or a health care center, which provides coverage for prescription drugs may require any person covered under such contract to obtain prescription drugs from a mail order pharmacy as a condition of obtaining benefits for such drugs.
(b) The provisions of this section shall apply to any such medical benefits contract delivered, issued for delivery or renewed in this state on or after July 1, 1989.
(P.A. 89-374.)
My understanding is that the new agreement will have to include language exempting the state from this state law.
Storrs Drug closing – after being our local pharmacy for 60 years is not closing because of some SEBAC publicity stunt – and the people who have just lost their business and the jobs are really suffering – not to mention their jobs are really suffering.
posted by: Terry D. Cowgill | June 22, 2011 9:20am
Jon, you misunderstand me. I’m not saying this new law, if enacted, won’t put any local pharmacies out of business. But how could it put the Storrs pharmacy out of business when the law hasn’t even taken effect?
That’s why I think this is beginning of a PR campaign to nip this law in the bud before it is passed.
posted by: markiemark | June 22, 2011 10:06am
Why would this man close his pharmacy because of a proposed deal that is nearly dead? Doesn’t add up to me. Has to be other reasons and just wants some press.
posted by: jonpelto | June 22, 2011 5:03pm
markiemark. I’m intrigued by your response. This agreement, even if it goes down, will be back in another form and the Malloy Administration and the Unions have made it clear that they are moving to mandatory mail order to save money.
I don’t know the owners well but having had my own retail business in Storrs that I closed after 7 years I think there are probably a number of factors that went into their decision.
But facing losing up to 70% of your customers - on top of a difficult economy - is certainly reason enough to make some dramatic action.
Meanwhile, all we hear from politicians is we need a better “business environment”.
This proposal (which actually will become a reality sooner rather than later) will put some people out of business.
Is that good, bad or just the way things go?
I’m not sure but when we give $165 million to a foreign corporation to move to Stamford for 6 years and then it begins to move out…
Well I, for one, think something is really screwed up.