Yes. That all makes sense particularly because it is Walgreens and they swallowed the Rite Aide pharmacies; two patient databases and two sets of database staff one of which had to go… The chances of the two databases being merged correctly were probably close to zero.
We swapped all out prescriptions to the other Wally too mainly because all the Rite Aide customers were simply told to go to Walgreens to fill their prescriptions and the Walgreens was overloaded. Quite a lot of their staff moved to Walmart as well; for a year so it was, “Oh, hello, it’s so nice to see you here!”
Some things still go wrong. We always refill online and sometimes there are two prescriptions for the same thing or a minor variation; choosing the wrong one normally causes weirdness.
For transfers I suggest always use the prescription number. It’s always on the receipt, so just pull the receipt from the last fill (or, indeed, the one you need) then give it to Walmart; that way they will track it down instantly:
If you click on “Transfer” and enter the city,state (the zip code doesn’t seem to work ATM) you will get the Walgreens (select it) then get this dialog:
Enter the prescription number… IRC it should be possible to do it at the customer service stall in the pharmacy as well. I don’t think they really even need the pharmacy information if you have the number.
You might also discover the different accounts this way; a different spelling of your name is a favourite. Walmart keys on first and last name plus date of birth for pickups; a problem for the John Smiths but not the John Bowlers, there’s only one of me born on that date round here.
I don’t think the insurance companies would try gaming that and I don’t read the legislation you quoted as requiring the two refills to be simultaneous. There seem to be three conditions:
- Chronic disease.
- Co-pays limited to $25 per item per month per item.
- $50/month limit for all supplies for a chronic disease.
Each of those items is tricky. Firstly there’s no definition in what you quoted of what a “chronic” disease is. For example obesity is a chronic disease. Bottom line medical definition comes down to whether there is normally a cure which can be achieved in a reasonable short time (an acute disease). When I was in the UK there was a prescription copay; a fixed amount per item (IRC). I didn’t pay it because I was a T1 diabetic; the NHS did not require prescription copays for people with chronic medical conditions which it duly defined…
For item (2) it only limits “co-pays”; this is not defined. It might be intended only to cover “tier 1” drugs, which traditionally do not count towards the “deductible” (also not defined) but have a “copay” (no hyphen IRC). It talks about insurance “setting co-pays”; they only do that for “tier 1” and sometimes “tier 2” items. Otherwise the amount we pay (also often called a copay) is a proportion (40%, 60% etc) of the price until the “out of pocket maximum” is met.
Item (3) does, however, seem to be the joker in the pack; the ultimate trump. Even if an item isn’t covered by (2), such as (apparently) CGMs and pumps (e.g. Omnipods) which are certainly not normally tier 1 (so far as I know) there’s a $50 max on everything. The ambiguity is whether “related medical supplies” includes the items covered under (2); might your insurance shift your Omnipod and your CGM to tier one so you had to pay $75/month (including insulin)?
I don’t think the last was the intention of the law but unless it’s defined elsewhere it’s lawyers akimbo to establish the momentary truth.
I also don’t think the insurance companies will try to game the system; they will just say $50/month, so max $300/year for chronic medical conditions. They might, they will, pick a fight over the word “chronic” unless the law does define it. IMO they should; lawyers should write definitions that computers, and therefore computer programmers like me, understand. Define every term, initialise every variable.
As for the text itself it is apparently a good step towards a socialist solution; it shifts the cost of “chronic” conditions to the insurance premium, which is paid by everyone with that insurance. That is also the capitalist definition of insurance; a shared risk, albeit on the basis of a buy-in and for a specific risk.
The problem is that no one wants to buy insurance for something that they don’t know will happen; lottery tickets, “Someone will win.” Health insurance, “What if I don’t lose?” Health insurance really is a loser’s game. Think about what I just said.
That said, isn’t SF2744 DITW:
You didn’t include the footnote[*] for SF2744 but I think the actual source is elsewhere. A better way to quote this stuff is to give a real link to an MN government web site with the actual bill with the text you are quoting.
Maybe I should tell the feds. 
What do you think? I love starting trouble for the medical establishment, John. It’s my favorite new past time. If it’s more than 1 Million dollars in total billing errors (I think), you get a 30% cut, personally. I like those odds. Maybe losers can be winners. 
