`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`
`
`SENDERRA RX PARTNERS, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD
`OF NORTH CAROLINA,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1:18-CV-871
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge.
`
`The plaintiff, Senderra Rx Partners, LLC, contends it suffered lost profits when
`
`Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina did not allow Senderra to participate in its
`
`specialty pharmacy network in violation of the North Carolina “Pharmacy of Choice”
`
`statute, fraudulently misrepresented the requirements to participate in the network, and
`
`committed unfair and deceptive trade practices. Because there are no disputed questions
`
`of material fact and the evidence shows that Senderra is not aggrieved by BCBSNC’s
`
`allegedly unlawful actions, BCBSNC’s motion for summary judgment will be granted.
`
`FACTS
`
`The evidence material to this motion is largely undisputed. To the extent it is not,
`
`the Court states the evidence in the light most favorable to Senderra, the non-moving
`
`party. See Sedar v. Reston Town Ctr. Prop., LLC, 988 F.3d 756, 761 (4th Cir. 2021).
`
`The facts are summarized here and supplemented elsewhere as the need arises.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00871-CCE-JEP Document 156 Filed 04/05/21 Page 1 of 19
`
`
`
`Senderra is a specialty pharmacy that began participating in BCBSNC’s specialty
`
`pharmacy network in 2015. Doc. 7-1 at ¶ 8. Senderra filled prescriptions for persons
`
`insured under BCBSNC plans by mail from a Texas dispensary. Doc. 49 at ¶ 17; see
`
`Doc. 137-5 at 6.
`
`In April 2018, BCBSNC notified participating pharmacies, including Senderra,
`
`that it was updating its network requirements and contracts effective September 1, 2018.
`
`Doc. 17; see also Doc. 89 at ¶ 5 (showing receipt by Senderra). BCBSNC also told the
`
`pharmacies that they would receive a “notice of removal” pursuant to the existing
`
`network agreement unless they submitted a form verifying that they were in compliance
`
`with the new network requirements by June 8, 2018. Doc. 17. On May 7, 2018,
`
`BCBSNC sent each participating pharmacy, including Senderra, an email with more
`
`information on the new network, including the new network participation agreement and
`
`the special pharmacy addendum. Id. at ¶ 6; see Doc. 69-1 at 11–79.
`
`When Senderra joined the network in 2015, BCBSNC required participants to
`
`have a “staffed business office” in North Carolina. Doc. 55-2 at 2. The new terms,
`
`however, included a requirement that providers have “a dispensing location” in North
`
`Carolina. Doc. 69-1 at 71. Senderra immediately recognized that satisfying the in-state
`
`dispensing requirement would be difficult, given the short timeframe it had to submit
`
`proof of compliance. See Doc. 55-2.
`
`In June 2018, Senderra timely applied to join the new network, noting in its
`
`application that it had a “staffed business office” in North Carolina without identifying an
`
`in-state dispensing location. Doc. 19 at 8. BCBSNC confirmed with Senderra that
`
`
`
`2
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00871-CCE-JEP Document 156 Filed 04/05/21 Page 2 of 19
`
`
`
`Senderra did not have a dispensing pharmacy in North Carolina. Doc. 23 at 2–3. On July
`
`11, 2018, consistent with the provisions of the April letter and existing contract,
`
`BCBSNC notified Senderra that the 2015 Agreement would be terminated effective
`
`October 15, 2018. Doc. 1-2.
`
`Thereafter, employees of Senderra and BCBSNC exchanged emails and had
`
`conversations about the in-state dispensing requirement, and Senderra began the work
`
`needed to comply with the requirement. In the fall, Senderra bought a business in North
`
`Carolina and converted it into a dispensing pharmacy. Doc. 7-1 at ¶ 15. But as of
`
`October 15, 2018, Senderra did not have a permit from the North Carolina Board of
`
`Pharmacy to operate this dispensary, see Doc. 138-1 (noting the permit was issued
`
`November 5, 2018), and the contract with BCBSNC ended. Many pharmacies met the
`
`new requirement, and every pharmacy admitted into the new network had an in-state
`
`dispensing location with a state permit. See Doc. 48 at ¶¶ 9, 15, 32, 49–53.
`
`BCBSNC included as a term of participation that pharmacies seeking to gain entry
`
`to the network must “submit all necessary paperwork that BCBSNC requires by 10/1 for
`
`a 1/1 entry date, and by 4/1 for a 7/1 entry date.” Doc. 18 at p. 14 ¶ 2.14. Senderra did
`
`not provide the necessary paperwork by October 1, as it did not have a state permit on
`
`that date. Thus, under the terms of the new agreement, the earliest date BCBSNC would
`
`allow Senderra—a pharmacy not in the network seeking to gain entry—to rejoin the
`
`network was July 1, 2019, if Senderra met the requirements by April 1, 2019.
`
`After it received its permit from the Board of Pharmacy, Senderra reapplied to
`
`participate in the network on November 5, 2018. 138-2 at 7. BCBSNC rejected the
`
`
`
`3
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00871-CCE-JEP Document 156 Filed 04/05/21 Page 3 of 19
`
`
`
`application because Senderra had not shown that the North Carolina location had
`
`obtained other credentials required by BCBSNC for the in-state dispensary, specifically a
`
`Medicare certification and a URAC credential. Doc. 36-2.
`
`None of the written materials BCBSNC sent to the providers explicitly stated that
`
`pharmacies had to obtain a Medicare certification or URAC credential specifically for
`
`their North Carolina dispensing location or that pre-existing credentials for other, out-of-
`
`state locations owned by the same pharmacy would not suffice. See Doc. 69-1 at 11–79.
`
`But Senderra was aware from its previous dealings with BCBSNC that it had a
`
`credentialing process. See Doc. 49 at ¶¶ 15–18; Doc. 55-1 at 3. And the new
`
`participation agreement, which was provided to Senderra and others, did say that the
`
`provider “agree[d] to participate and comply with all of [BCBSNC’s] Policies and
`
`Procedures” and that the policies and procedures would be provided to pharmacies “by
`
`hard copy, CD, or other electronic format, or by posting on [BCBSNC’s] website.” Doc.
`
`69-1 at p. 21 §§ 2.3.1, 2.3.1.1. The information on BCBSNC’s website and in the
`
`“BlueBook,” the provider manual, specifically discussed credentialing requirements, see
`
`Doc. 26; Doc. 88 at ¶¶ 6–15, including the URAC credential. Doc. 88 at ¶ 14.
`
`Before October 15, 2018, BCBSNC admitted two pharmacies, Avita Pharmacy
`
`and Long’s Drugs, into the new network even though their in-state dispensaries did not
`
`have the URAC credential. Doc. 36-3 at 3–4; Doc. 48 at ¶ 41. A BCBSNC manager
`
`erroneously assumed that pharmacies with permitted locations also had the URAC
`
`credential. Doc. 48 at ¶¶ 23, 41. Those in-state dispensaries had permits from the North
`
`Carolina Board of Pharmacy, unlike Senderra. Doc. 48 at ¶¶ 13–15.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00871-CCE-JEP Document 156 Filed 04/05/21 Page 4 of 19
`
`
`
`In March 2019, Senderra obtained its URAC credential and, in advance of the
`
`April 1 deadline, it reapplied to participate in BCBSNC’s network. Doc. 89 at ¶¶ 8–9.
`
`The parties executed a new participation agreement, and Senderra reentered the network
`
`on July 1, 2019. Id. at ¶¶ at 10–11.
`
`As a result of these events, Senderra did not participate in the network from
`
`October 15, 2018, through July 1, 2019. Senderra contends this exclusion caused it to
`
`lose millions of dollars in revenue and profits.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Senderra has three remaining claims against BCBSNC.1 First, Senderra contends
`
`that BCBSNC violated the North Carolina “Pharmacy of Choice” statute, N.C. Gen. Stat.
`
`§ 58-51-37, by “failing to provide sufficient information as to the various requirements
`
`for a dispensing location” and issuing “vague, incomplete, and conflicting” instructions
`
`on how to satisfy the requirements, and by enforcing the requirements with “unequal
`
`force and manner.” See Doc. 36 at ¶¶ 48–61. Second, Senderra contends BCBSNC
`
`falsely represented its credentialing requirements and how Senderra could satisfy the
`
`requirements in their communications with Senderra between July 19, 2018, and
`
`November 2, 2018. Id. at ¶¶ 79–86.2 Third, Senderra contends that BCBSNC committed
`
`
`1 The Court dismissed parts of Senderra’s Chapter 75 and fraud claims in its order granting-
`and denying-in-part BCBSNC’s motion for to dismiss. See generally Doc. 79. For clarity and
`ease of reading, the Court has summarized Senderra’s causes of actions only as they survived.
`
`2 The Court dismissed Senderra’s fraud claim to the extent it was based on (1) BCBSNC’s
`failure to affirmatively disclose the credentialing requirements, as BCBSNC had no common law
`duty to disclose; and (2) concealments or misrepresentations about applying the terms of
`
`
`
`5
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00871-CCE-JEP Document 156 Filed 04/05/21 Page 5 of 19
`
`
`
`unfair trade practices in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, by its disparate treatment of
`
`Senderra, its failure to make terms and conditions available to Senderra, and its
`
`misrepresentations about participation requirements. Id. at ¶¶ 62–69.3
`
`Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the movant shows that there is no
`
`genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
`
`of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “Thus, if the evidence would permit a jury to find in the
`
`non-movant’s favor on a disputed question of material fact, summary judgment is
`
`inappropriate.” EEOC v. McLeod Health, Inc., 914 F.3d 876, 880 (4th Cir. 2019).
`
`I.
`
`Chapter 58 Pharmacy of Choice Claims
`
`The North Carolina “Pharmacy of Choice” statute in Chapter 58 applies to
`
`“insurance companies . . . that provide or administer coverages and benefits for
`
`prescription drugs” and “all health benefit plans providing pharmaceutical services
`
`benefits, including prescription drugs, to any resident of North Carolina.” N.C. Gen. Stat.
`
`§ 58-51-37(a). As is relevant here, the statute provides that the terms of a health benefit
`
`plan shall not:
`
`--
`
`Prohibit or limit a resident of this State. . .from selecting a pharmacy
`
`of his or her choice when the pharmacy has agreed to participate in
`
`
`participation equally to all pharmacies, as such statements were not the cause of alleged harm.
`Doc. 79 at 21–22.
`
` 3
`
` The Court dismissed Senderra’s Chapter 75 claim to the extent it was based on: (1)
`BCBSNC notifying Senderra’s patients that Senderra would be terminated from the network; and
`(2) imposing requirements that are “not reasonable and relevant.” Doc. 79 at 14–15.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00871-CCE-JEP Document 156 Filed 04/05/21 Page 6 of 19
`
`
`
`the health benefit plan according to the terms offered by the insurer.
`
`§ 58-51-37(c)(1) (immaterial provisions deleted for clarity).
`
`--
`
`Deny a pharmacy the opportunity to participate as a contract
`
`provider under a health benefit plan if the pharmacy agrees to
`
`provide pharmacy services that meet the terms and requirements of
`
`the insurer. § 58-51-37(c)(2) (immaterial provisions deleted for
`
`clarity).
`
`--
`
`Impose a monetary advantage or penalty that would affect a
`
`beneficiary’s choice of pharmacy. § 58-51-37(c)(4).
`
`The statute further provides that a “violation of this section creates a civil cause of action
`
`for damages or injunctive relief in favor of any person or pharmacy aggrieved by the
`
`violation.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-51-37(h).
`
`BCBSNC asserts that this statute does not apply to the pharmacy network at issue
`
`in this case. In the alternative, it contends that Senderra has not shown a violation.
`
`A. The statute applies to the specialty pharmacy network
`
`The Court––sitting in diversity––applies state law principles of statutory
`
`construction, as enunciated and applied by the North Carolina Supreme Court. See Volvo
`
`Trademark Holding Aktiebolaget v. Clark Mach. Co., 510 F.3d 474, 482 (4th Cir. 2007).
`
`A clear and unambiguous statute must be construed using its plain meaning. Burgess v.
`
`Your House of Raleigh, Inc., 326 N.C. 205, 209, 388 S.E.2d 134, 136 (1990). By its
`
`terms, the “Pharmacy of Choice” statute “shall apply to all health benefit plans providing
`
`pharmaceutical services benefits, including prescription drugs, to any resident of North
`
`
`
`7
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00871-CCE-JEP Document 156 Filed 04/05/21 Page 7 of 19
`
`
`
`Carolina,” § 58-51-37(a), and the three prohibitions at issue apply specifically to health
`
`benefit plans. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 58-51-37(c)(1), (2), (4).
`
`BCBSNC provides health insurance policies that are “health benefit plans,” as that
`
`term is defined in § 58-51-37(b)(3) and § 58-50-110(11). Doc. 155 at ¶ 1. These health
`
`benefit plans provide pharmaceutical services benefits, including prescription drugs, to
`
`residents of North Carolina, as described in § 58- 51-37(a). Id. at ¶ 2. The “Pharmacy of
`
`Choice” statute applies to these health benefit plans per § 58-51-37(a). Doc. 154 at ¶ 3;
`
`see Doc. 155 at 1.
`
`Under most of BCBSNC’s health benefit plans, for specialty drug prescriptions to
`
`be reimbursed at the highest level, beneficiaries and participants must fill the prescription
`
`at a specialty pharmacy within BCBSNC’s network. Doc. 155 at ¶¶ 4–5. BCBSNC
`
`allows pharmacies to participate as contract providers to supply services for these health
`
`benefit plans through a network participation agreement. Id. at ¶ 7. Once a pharmacy
`
`and BCBSNC execute the participation agreement, the pharmacy is part of BCBSNC’s
`
`specialty pharmacy network. Doc. 154 at ¶ 9; see Doc. 155 at 1. Pharmacies within
`
`BCBSNC’s specialty pharmacy network participate as “contract providers” as that term is
`
`defined in § 58-51-37(b)(2), for a health benefit plan, as described in § 58-51-37(c)(2).
`
`Doc. 155 at ¶ 10.
`
`Here, BCBSNC is an insurer offering “health benefit plans” to residents of North
`
`Carolina. Id. at ¶¶ 1–2. While the terms of the different plans that BCBSNC offers vary
`
`to some extent, under most if not all of the relevant plans, beneficiaries and participants
`
`pay less out of pocket for specialty drug prescriptions filled at a specialty pharmacy
`
`
`
`8
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00871-CCE-JEP Document 156 Filed 04/05/21 Page 8 of 19
`
`
`
`within BCBSNC’s network. Id. at ¶¶ 4–5. The network participation agreement is the
`
`contract between BCBSNC and each pharmacy participating in its specialty pharmacy
`
`network in which the pharmacy agrees to provide pharmacy services to persons enrolled
`
`in a BCBSNC health benefit plan, according to the terms and requirements of BCBSNC.
`
`Id. at ¶¶ 8, 11.
`
`Because BCBSNC sells health insurance policies that constitute “health benefit
`
`plans” and pharmacies in BCBSNC’s specialty pharmacy network provide pharmacy
`
`services to BCBSNC’s members (i.e., the plan beneficiaries) pursuant to health benefit
`
`plan terms than reference the network, the network participation agreement becomes part
`
`of the health benefit plan. The “Pharmacy of Choice” statute therefore applies to
`
`BCBSNC’s network relationships with pharmacies.
`
`BCBSNC contends that the statute does not apply because the network
`
`participation agreement is not a “health benefit plan.” The statute defines health benefit
`
`plans as “any accident and health insurance policy or certificate; nonprofit hospital or
`
`medical service corporation contract; health, hospital, or medical service corporation plan
`
`contract; HMO subscriber contract; plan provided by a MEWA or plan provided by
`
`another benefit arrangement.” N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 58-51-37(b)(3), 58-50-110(11).
`
`BCBSNC construes the definition narrowly, contending a “health benefit plan” is the
`
`“insurance policy or health benefit plan issued to an insured.” Doc. 140 at 4. BCBSNC
`
`contends that even though some of its policies essentially require beneficiaries or
`
`participants to use an in-network pharmacy and even though the network agreement—not
`
`the insurance policy—governs pharmacies’ participation in BCBSNC’s network, the
`
`
`
`9
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00871-CCE-JEP Document 156 Filed 04/05/21 Page 9 of 19
`
`
`
`statute does not apply. For several reasons, the Court concludes that the statute applies in
`
`this context.
`
`First, courts “do[] not read segments of a statute in isolation.” Rhyne v. K-Mart
`
`Corp., 358 N.C. 160, 188, 594 S.E.2d 1, 20 (2004). They “construe statutes in pari
`
`materia, giving effect, if possible, to every provision.” Id. The statute as a whole is
`
`structured to ensure that beneficiaries and participants enrolled in health benefit plans
`
`using provider networks can select their pharmacy of choice. See, e.g., § 58-51-37(e)
`
`(“The entity providing the health benefit plan shall, through reasonable means, on a
`
`timely basis, and on regular intervals in order to effectuate the purposes of this section,
`
`inform the beneficiaries of the plan of the names and locations of pharmacies that are
`
`participating in the plan as providers of pharmacy services and prescription drugs.”); §
`
`58-51-37(f) (“If rebates or marketing incentives are allowed to pharmacies or other
`
`dispensing entities providing services or benefits under a health benefit plan, these
`
`rebates or marketing incentives shall be offered on an equal basis to all pharmacies and
`
`other dispensing entities providing services or benefits under a health benefit plan . . . .”).
`
`The prohibitions in § 58-51-37(c) must be read in this context.
`
`Second, as BCBSNC acknowledges, the statute is remedial. It protects residents’
`
`right to pick their pharmacy of choice by prohibiting insurers from excluding pharmacies
`
`from their network and granting aggrieved pharmacies and residents a remedy. See
`
`Marshall v. Miller, 302 N.C. 539, 546, 276 S.E.2d 397, 402 (1981) (characterizing a
`
`statute that “encourages private enforcement” and “provides a remedy for aggrieved
`
`parties” as remedial). “A remedial statute must be construed broadly in light of the evils
`
`
`
`10
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00871-CCE-JEP Document 156 Filed 04/05/21 Page 10 of 19
`
`
`
`sought to be eliminated, the remedies intended to be applied, and the objective to be
`
`attained.” O & M Indus. v. Smith Eng'g Co., 360 N.C. 263, 268, 624 S.E.2d 345, 348
`
`(2006) (cleaned up). If BCBSNC’s construction were adopted, BCBSNC could exclude
`
`pharmacies at will, so long as it used a network agreement to do so.
`
`Third, the legislature understood that insurers offer health benefit plans with
`
`networks of health care providers. Indeed, in other parts of Chapter 58, the legislature
`
`addressed how general provisions applied to plans with network providers. See N.C.
`
`Gen. Stat. §§ 58-3-200(d), 58-50-30. Section 58-51-37 assumes that some entities
`
`offering health benefit plans use networks for pharmaceutical benefits and imposes
`
`certain requirements based on that assumption. For example, §§ 58-51-37(c)(1) and
`
`(c)(2) anticipate that pharmacies will participate in health benefit plans according to the
`
`terms offered by the insurer (i.e., participate in the network), and prohibit insurers from
`
`excluding a pharmacy as a contract provider.
`
`“It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute
`
`must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory
`
`scheme.” See Sturgeon v. Frost, 577, U.S. 424, 136 S. Ct. 1061, 1070 (2016). When
`
`read in the context of the entire statute, § 58-51-37(c) applies to BCBSNC’s network
`
`relationship with pharmacies.
`
`B. There are no disputed questions of material fact on the POC claims
`
`There are not many cases interpreting Chapter 58. See Doc. 78 at 5 n.1. No court
`
`has clearly set forth the elements of “a violation of this section” or defined when a
`
`pharmacy is “aggrieved” by such a violation.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00871-CCE-JEP Document 156 Filed 04/05/21 Page 11 of 19
`
`
`
`Senderra asserts that BCBSNC violated three subsections of § 58-51-37(c). A
`
`cause of action based on any of these subsections requires Senderra to show that it was
`
`“aggrieved” by the violation. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-51-37(h).
`
`1. Prohibiting or limiting residents from selecting their pharmacy of choice
`
`Section 58-51-37(c)(1) provides that “the terms of a health benefit plan shall not
`
`prohibit or limit a resident of this State . . . from selecting a pharmacy of his or her choice
`
`when the pharmacy has agreed to participate in the health benefit plan according to the
`
`terms offered by the insurer.” § 58-51-37(c)(1) (immaterial provisions deleted for
`
`clarity). The Court construes the statute to require BCBSNC to offer pharmacies a fair
`
`opportunity to participate, which means that it must make its terms of participation
`
`available to all interested providers.
`
`To establish a violation of this subsection, Senderra must show that BCBSNC’s
`
`health benefit plans prohibited or limited residents of this State from selecting Senderra
`
`as their pharmacy of choice between October 15, 2018, and July 1, 2019, that Senderra
`
`agreed to meet, and did meet, the terms for participation offered by BCBSNC, and that
`
`Senderra was aggrieved by BCBSNC’s actions. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 58-51-37(c)(1), (h).
`
`It is undisputed that BCBSNC prohibited or limited residents of North Carolina
`
`from selecting Senderra as their pharmacy of choice from October 15, 2018, through July
`
`1, 2019, in the sense that any resident who used Senderra paid more out of pocket for
`
`their prescription. However, all the evidence shows that BCBSNC made its terms
`
`available to Senderra through mailings and its website, that Senderra knew BCBSNC
`
`required an in-state dispensary, and that Senderra did not have an operational in-state
`
`
`
`12
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00871-CCE-JEP Document 156 Filed 04/05/21 Page 12 of 19
`
`
`
`dispensing pharmacy when it applied to participate in the new network in June or when
`
`the old contract expired. Thus, Senderra did not meet a clearly communicated term
`
`required by BCBSNC before it could participate in the specialty pharmacy network.
`
`Given that Senderra did not meet the terms offered by BCBSNC, it cannot show
`
`that BCBSNC violated § 58-51-37(c)(1) when it limited its plan beneficiaries from
`
`obtaining prescriptions from Senderra. In the absence of a disputed question of material
`
`fact, BCBSNC is entitled to summary judgment on this claim.
`
`Senderra contends that BCBSNC did not clearly state its terms and requirements
`
`because it did not tell Senderra until sometime in October 2018 that Senderra needed to
`
`complete BCBSNC’s credentialing process to satisfy the in-state dispensary requirement.
`
`Even assuming this is so, Senderra was not aggrieved by that purported violation because
`
`Senderra had not met the preliminary requirement of having a permitted in-state
`
`dispensing pharmacy. Senderra similarly contends that BCBSNC did not clearly state its
`
`terms and requirements because it did not tell Senderra it could satisfy the dispensing
`
`requirement through a corporate affiliate. But satisfying the dispensary requirement
`
`through a corporate affiliate was merely one way in which pharmacies with qualifying
`
`affiliations could satisfy the requirement— it was not an exception. Doc. 137-7 at 5–6.
`
`And BCBSNC had no obligation to give Senderra advice about corporate structures
`
`available under state law. The statute requires BCBSNC to make its terms available to
`
`interested pharmacies, not walk the pharmacy through how to meet those terms.
`
`Next, Senderra contends that BCBSNC allowed other specialty pharmacies to
`
`participate in the network even though they did not meet all the new terms. Specifically,
`
`
`
`13
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00871-CCE-JEP Document 156 Filed 04/05/21 Page 13 of 19
`
`
`
`it is undisputed that BCBSNC admitted two pharmacies, Avita and Long’s, into the
`
`network even though their in-state dispensing locations did not have the URAC
`
`credential. Doc. 36-3 at 3; Doc. 48 at ¶ 41. But this does not matter, as Senderra did not
`
`have a permitted in-state dispensary. Assuming BCBSNC violated the statute by
`
`inadvertently offering different terms to different pharmacies, Senderra was not
`
`aggrieved by that violation since it did not meet the basic term imposed on all pharmacies
`
`and met by every pharmacy admitted into the network.
`
`Finally, Senderra contends that BCBSNC enforced its contractual provisions about
`
`entry dates differently as to Senderra. As to this point, Senderra relies on the fact that
`
`some pharmacies signed their network participation agreements after October 1, 2018.
`
`See Doc. 137-2 at 5–6. But the agreement merely requires pharmacies to “submit all
`
`necessary paperwork that BCBSNC requires by 10/1 for a 1/1 entry date, and by 4/1 for a
`
`7/1 entry date.” Doc. 18 at p. 14 ¶ 2.14. It says nothing about a deadline for executing
`
`the participation agreement, see Doc. 137-2 at 6, nor is there any evidence that any
`
`pharmacies who executed their agreements after October 1, 2018, had not timely met the
`
`dispensing requirement.
`
`2. Denying pharmacies the opportunity to participate as contract providers
`
`Section 58-51-37(c)(2) provides that “the terms of a health benefit plan shall not
`
`deny a pharmacy the opportunity to participate as a contract provider under a health
`
`benefit plan if the pharmacy agrees to provide pharmacy services that meet the terms and
`
`requirements of the insurer.” § 58-51-37(c)(2) (immaterial provisions deleted for clarity).
`
`To establish a violation of this subsection, Senderra must show that BCBSNC’s health
`
`
`
`14
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00871-CCE-JEP Document 156 Filed 04/05/21 Page 14 of 19
`
`
`
`benefit plan denied Senderra a fair opportunity to participate as a contract provider under
`
`its plan between October 15, 2018, and July 1, 2019, that Senderra agreed to meet, and
`
`did meet, the terms for participation offered by BCBSNC, and that Senderra was
`
`aggrieved by BCBSNC’s decision. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 58-51-37(c)(2), (h).
`
`
`
`BCBSNC is entitled to summary judgment on Senderra’s claim based on this
`
`subsection for the same reason its § 58-51-37(c)(1) claim fails: Senderra did not meet
`
`BCBSNC’s terms and requirements as of October 15, 2018, because it did not have a
`
`permitted in-state dispensary. That term was clearly communicated back in April 2018.
`
`The evidence was undisputed that the other terms were available on referenced websites
`
`and materials. Moreover, Senderra was not aggrieved by BCBSNC’s alleged violations
`
`based on how BCBSNC communicated other terms and requirements for participation to
`
`Senderra or how BCBSNC applied other terms and requirements, given Senderra’s
`
`undisputed failure to have an in-state dispensing location which could lawfully operate by
`
`the deadlines imposed by BCBSNC and given that all pharmacies admitted into the
`
`network met this basic requirement.
`
`3. Imposing a monetary advantage or penalty upon pharmacies
`
`Section 58-51-37(c)(4) provides that “the terms of a health benefit plan shall not
`
`impose a monetary advantage or penalty under a health benefit plan that would affect a
`
`beneficiary’s choice of pharmacy.” § 58-51-37(c)(4). To establish a violation of this
`
`subsection, Senderra must show that BCBSNC imposed a monetary advantage or penalty
`
`that would affect a beneficiary’s choice of pharmacy and that Senderra was aggrieved by
`
`the advantage or penalty. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 58-51-37(c)(4), (h).
`
`
`
`15
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00871-CCE-JEP Document 156 Filed 04/05/21 Page 15 of 19
`
`
`
`BCBSNC is entitled to summary judgment on Senderra’s claim based on this
`
`subsection for the same reason its other claims under § 58-51-37(c) fail: Senderra cannot
`
`show it was aggrieved by any of BCBSNC’s alleged violations.
`
`Senderra contends that BCBSNC imposed a monetary advantage on Avita and
`
`Long’s when it allowed them to participate in the network even though neither pharmacy
`
`had the URAC credential by the June 8, 2018, deadline and allowed them to remain in-
`
`network beyond the 30-day cure period without the URAC credential. It is undisputed
`
`that the pharmacies failed to obtain the URAC credential by the June deadline or within
`
`the 30-day cure period. See Doc. 137-7 at 3. But, as with its other claims, because
`
`Senderra had not satisfied the dispensing requirement, it was not aggrieved by the fact
`
`that BCBSNC effectively excused two pharmacies who did meet that requirement from
`
`complying with an additional URAC credentialing requirement.
`
`Finally, Senderra contends that the requirement that pharmacies have an in-state
`
`dispensing location was itself a “monetary advantage or penalty” and that BCBSNC
`
`violated § 58-51-37(c)(4) by imposing this requirement. But the statute explicitly gives
`
`insurers the discretion to determine the terms and requirements that pharmacies must
`
`meet to serve as contract providers under their health benefit plans. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-
`
`51-37(c)(1), (2). It does not require that the terms and requirements benefit beneficiaries
`
`or participants in any particular way, nor does it impose any sort of objective
`
`reasonableness requirement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00871-CCE-JEP Document 156 Filed 04/05/21 Page 16 of 19
`
`
`
`4. BCBSNC is entitled to summary judgment on the POC claims
`
`Senderra has not shown that there are disputed questions of material fact that, if
`
`decided in its favor, would support a judgment in Senderra’s favor. The undisputed facts
`
`show that Senderra did not have a pharmacy in North Carolina by the required date, that
`
`it had not met a basic term imposed by BCBSNC for network participation, that all
`
`pharmacies admitted into the new network met this requirement, and that, as to this basic
`
`term, Senderra was not treated differently than other specialty pharmacies. BCBSNC is
`
`entitled to summary judgment on this claim.
`
`II.
`
`BCBSNC is entitled to summary judgment on the fraud claims
`
`To state a claim for fraud, the plaintiff must show (1) a false representation or
`
`concealment of a material fact, (2) that is reasonably calculated to deceive, (3) is made
`
`with the intent to deceive and (4) does, in fact, deceive, (5) resulting in damage to the
`
`injured party. Forbis v. Neal, 361 N.C. 519, 526–27, 649 S.E.2d 382, 387 (2007). The
`
`plaintiff’s reliance on the alleged concealments or misrepresentations must be reasonable.
`
`Pearson v. Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, 814 F. Supp. 2d 592, 605 (M.D.N.C. 2011).
`
`Senderra’s evidence is insufficient to establish disputed questions of material fact as to
`
`several of these elements, but the Court will limit its discussion to the reasonable reliance
`
`and damages requirements.
`
`Senderra contends that BCBSNC concealed or misrepresented material facts about
`
`its dispensing requirement by telling Senderra that the only requirement it had not met
`
`was having an in-state dispensing location and failing to mention that Senderra had to
`
`obtain the URAC credential and Medicare certification for its North Carolina dispensary.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00871-CCE-JEP Document 156 Filed 04/05/21 Page 17 of 19
`
`
`
`Senderra further contends that it reasonably relied on the alleged misrepresentations
`
`because information clarifying the dispensing requirement was not readily accessible to
`
`Senderra. As discussed supra, Senderra understood that BCBSNC had a credentialing
`
`requirement: It submitted a credentialing application when it joined the network, Doc. 49
`
`at ¶ 17, and a recredentialing application in December 2016, Doc. 55-1 at 3, which
`
`included the URAC credential. Information clarifying the credentialing process was also
`
`available on BCBSNC’s website at all relevant times. Doc. 88 at ¶¶ 6–15. Many other
`
`pharmacies timely met the credentialing requirements and were admitted into the new
`
`network. See, e.g., 48 at ¶ 11 (noting that four “newly credentialed” pharmacies
`
`submitted the verification form to participate and that 24 pharmacies satisfied the
`
`requirements and became participating providers in the new network). Senderra has not
`
`offered any evidence that anyone at BCBSNC ever told Senderra that it did not have to
`
`meet the URAC credentialing requirement specifically or other credentialing
`
`requirements generally, nor is there any evidence that anyone at Senderra ever asked
`
`BCBSNC about