Features

SAN FRANCISCO — A public interest group sued Kaiser Permanente on Wednesday, accusing the state’s largest HMO of jeopardizing patients’ health by prescribing them double dose-sized pills they must cut in half. 

“Kaiser’s mandatory pill splitting policy is an outrageous example of an HMO endangering its own patients to increase its own profits,” said Arthur Bryant, an attorney for Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, representing six patients and a doctor involved in the suit. 

The health care giant said its 8 million patients nationally were not endangered by the 7-year-old pill-splitting practice. Of the 1,000 medications it dispenses in pill form, only seven qualify for splitting, said Kaiser spokeswoman Beverly Hayon. 

Those seven medications are for conditions such as high blood pressure and depression, and include some antibiotics, she said. 

“We encourage patients to split those kinds of pills. It is voluntary but at the discretion of the physician,” she said, adding that Kaiser provides patients a pill splitter. Pill splitting, she said, is to counter the skyrocketing price of prescription drugs. Drug companies often charge the same for varied doses of medication. 

The suit said patients were forced to split pills, while Kaiser said the program was voluntary. 

Charles Phillips, a physician who worked at a Kaiser emergency room in Fresno, said that many patients suffering from severe hypertension, heart attacks and strokes received uneven dosages of their blood pressure medication because Kaiser told them to split pills. 

“As a doctor, I have a duty to prevent harm to my patients,” said Phillips, a plaintiff in the suit. 

The American Medical Association, the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists and the American Pharmaceutical Association oppose mandatory pill-splitting. Research shows that dosages may vary greatly, resulting in overdosing and underdosing. 

The suit, filed in Alamada County Superior Court, requests a court order demanding Kaiser cease the pill-splitting practice. The suit covers Kaiser’s 6 million California patients, but not the 2 million others nationally. 

The case is Timmis vs. Kaiser, 833971-7.