Hypothetical: Can a chain staff pharmacist also own an independent pharmacy?

[Pharmd77:)]

My buddy and I were talking about this and was hoping to get some input.

Could a chain staff pharmacist (i.e. CVS, Walgreens, etc) buy or start an independent pharmacy and still keep their job as a chain staff pharmacist? (Assume it's in another district from where you currently work, but there is a chain store in the other district that would compete)

He was saying it would be violating a non-compete clause or something, but what if you don't work in the pharmacy, just own it as an investment and manage the finances?
(Yes I know independent pharmacy is terrible to go into right now with below cost reimbursements, hence the "hypothetical" in the title)

Thanks for any input!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WorthlessOxygen]

That would still be a conflict, I can't imagine him keeping his chain job if they found out

 

[projektreverb]

Wouldn’t that violate a conflict of interest or non compete clause?

 

[ranger99rx]

My buddy and I were talking about this and was hoping to get some input.

Could a chain staff pharmacist (i.e. CVS, Walgreens, etc) buy or start an independent pharmacy and still keep their job as a chain staff pharmacist? (Assume it's in another district from where you currently work, but there is a chain store in the other district that would compete)

He was saying it would be violating a non-compete clause or something, but what if you don't work in the pharmacy, just own it as an investment and manage the finances?
(Yes I know independent pharmacy is terrible to go into right now with below cost reimbursements, hence the "hypothetical" in the title)

Thanks for any input!

No, conflict of interest.

 

[Modest_anteater]

That would still be a conflict, I can't imagine him keeping his chain job if they found out

IF

 

[Sparda29]

Yes. I've met plenty of pharmacists who work at chains but own independents.

 

[Modest_anteater]

Yes. I've met plenty of pharmacists who work at chains but own independents.

What about owning a chain and working at a independent? Like if Larry J. Merlo wanted to work at a independent.

 

[Pharmd77:)]

IF

What if you did do that and kept it under the radar for a couple years before they find out. Could they sue you for violating your contract and close the indy down, or would they just fire you?

 

[Modest_anteater]

What if you did do that and kept it under the radar for a couple years before they find out. Could they sue you for violating your contract and close the indy down, or would they just fire you?

prob just fire you. Corps especially big corps hate legal issues in my own opinion. also black list you. I doubt they could close down your Indy. maybe sue u for breach of contract? and you have to repay your salary

 

[WorthlessOxygen]

What if you did do that and kept it under the radar for a couple years before they find out. Could they sue you for violating your contract and close the indy down, or would they just fire you?

I know of a guy who did this for a little bit. It didn't take long for the chain to find out and fire him. As far as I know, they didn't pursue any sort of legal action against him and just fired him. Last I heard his pharmacy is doing pretty well and he's happily just working there now.

 

[lord999]

Technically not illegal, however, I have seen both CVS and Walgreens sue (not fire) those people over trade secret theft, so knowing competitors contracts through deception is a tort. We actually have the same policy within the federal government if you happen to have a McKesson or distributor account with knowledge of NAC pricing.

 

[beautifulrobot]

Can you own stocks in one chain while working for another?

 

[lord999]

Can you own stocks in one chain while working for another?

Not legal advice, but there is no specific issue against it unless the company objects as long as it is not a controlling stake or a closely held company. If you do have a closely held company or controlling stake that does business in procedures and pharmaceuticals and are working for any other health company that has the same line of patient-care business, that's in Stark II territory and there are certain things you cannot do at work and there are some declarations involved.

 

[pharm B]

==Opens portfolio. Moths fly out.

I'm good.

 

[beautifulrobot]

Not legal advice, but there is no specific issue against it unless the company objects as long as it is not a controlling stake or a closely held company. If you do have a closely held company or controlling stake that does business in procedures and pharmaceuticals and are working for any other health company that has the same line of patient-care business, that's in Stark II territory and there are certain things you cannot do at work and there are some declarations involved.

Thanks for the insight. My current assignment within government makes it pretty clear which stocks I can and cannot hold (I pretty much just stick to non-industry-specific mutual funds to make my life easier), but I was curious what it's like in the private sector.

 

[lord999]

Thanks for the insight. My current assignment within government makes it pretty clear which stocks I can and cannot hold (I pretty much just stick to non-industry-specific mutual funds to make my life easier), but I was curious what it's like in the private sector.

Yeah, the scenario I was taught (and there is case history) is a man and a woman are married. The woman's brother owned a pharmacy, and the man had a medical practice. The woman's brother before Stark I (meaning before Stark II) "sold" half of his pharmacy to the man, and in turn, the man sold a proportionate amount of his medical practice to the brother. The legal question was the obvious conflict-of-interest provisions that came up when Stark II was passed in terms of having too familiar a relationship (the man would basically write new prescriptions as a one-time matter for the brother's patients who shopped at the pharmacy and one of those's patients primary care physicians took issue with it and reported it to the CMS district). The conflict was whether Stark II would take precedence or the prior standing ownership structure prior to Stark II would be honorable with a present day problem. Turns out that the prior relationship won, however, for new transactions past Stark II enforcement, CMS had priority and while they could not break up the family's arrangement, they could basically forbid the conflict-of-interest behavior from time. I actually worked for the particular administrator who dealt with the CMS representation and personally was ok with the arrangement so long as it did not continue.

I actually had a problem with this working for Walgreens and being part of a trust who owns some independents in Phoenix through the family, that was actually the reason I had to separate from the company and just be a contractor. If it weren't for long-term family greed, I would have probably still be a Deerfield miserably working for some Sicilians, such is life. I actually got harassed over this multiple times working for private industry in pharmacy, so that was one of the reasons I went academic and federal. Turns out that the federal conflict-of-interest laws are much laxer than corporate ones (as well as lacking the teeth to enforce should I be in the wrong which I am not for now). If you are wondering why I know Stark law very well, I am a living embodiment of some of the conflicts of interest (have family with ownership of pharmacies, have family who are in medical practice who also were pharmacists and kept both licenses, am the person who has formal knowledge of NAC contracts but yet has relationships with people who are on the other side). I suppose I should complete the circle of corruption and get in bed with the local 14k 438 or 415, but I make enough money anyway being legit.

 

[ExpressMaiL]

Your first mistake is getting into independent, regardless if your'e buying one (expensive or worthless license-only, take your pick) or starting from scratch. Better off opening a delivery company strictly for pharmacies.

 

[Pharmd77:)]

Yeah, the scenario I was taught (and there is case history) is a man and a woman are married. The woman's brother owned a pharmacy, and the man had a medical practice. The woman's brother before Stark I (meaning before Stark II) "sold" half of his pharmacy to the man, and in turn, the man sold a proportionate amount of his medical practice to the brother. The legal question was the obvious conflict-of-interest provisions that came up when Stark II was passed in terms of having too familiar a relationship (the man would basically write new prescriptions as a one-time matter for the brother's patients who shopped at the pharmacy and one of those's patients primary care physicians took issue with it and reported it to the CMS district). The conflict was whether Stark II would take precedence or the prior standing ownership structure prior to Stark II would be honorable with a present day problem. Turns out that the prior relationship won, however, for new transactions past Stark II enforcement, CMS had priority and while they could not break up the family's arrangement, they could basically forbid the conflict-of-interest behavior from time. I actually worked for the particular administrator who dealt with the CMS representation and personally was ok with the arrangement so long as it did not continue.

I actually had a problem with this working for Walgreens and being part of a trust who owns some independents in Phoenix through the family, that was actually the reason I had to separate from the company and just be a contractor. If it weren't for long-term family greed, I would have probably still be a Deerfield miserably working for some Sicilians, such is life. I actually got harassed over this multiple times working for private industry in pharmacy, so that was one of the reasons I went academic and federal. Turns out that the federal conflict-of-interest laws are much laxer than corporate ones (as well as lacking the teeth to enforce should I be in the wrong which I am not for now). If you are wondering why I know Stark law very well, I am a living embodiment of some of the conflicts of interest (have family with ownership of pharmacies, have family who are in medical practice who also were pharmacists and kept both licenses, am the person who has formal knowledge of NAC contracts but yet has relationships with people who are on the other side). I suppose I should complete the circle of corruption and get in bed with the local 14k 438 or 415, but I make enough money anyway being legit.

So in your scenario, Stark is only being violated because they sold half of their company to each other? If they did not exchange anything of value, the arrangement would have been okay? I'm only familiar with the basics of Stark.

 

[Chrish]

You can be silent partner and everything would be good as long as no one finds out about that. In other words, don’t tell no one. Also, don’t go there to fill in shifts.

You will be most certainly fired for violating the conflict of interest if they know about it

 

[UCSF2021]

I know a Walgreens PIC that also works part time at an independent. But it is a specialized inde so there is no conflict