UHPA will make this page available the EUTF. Our intent is to gather our comments in one centralized area so that EUTF and its suppliers can review everyone's feedback in one central location.

I talked with NMHC about my questions today. The bottom line is that it is essential, in my opinion, for NMHC to be connected to the secondary insurer (HMSA in my case) in order for the benefits of my supplemental policy to be realized. At present, I have to pay all but $15 for each Rx filled locally, AND through mail order with NMHC (maintenance med). Then I bill my secondary policy. Before the switch July 1, HMSA and the on-line pharmacy seamlessly paid primary and secondary, and I never had to front the money and wait to be reimbursed. Please fix this as soon as possible.

Other problems with NMHC: 1. on line log in link bounced me to a "problem with this site's security certificate," and other links I tried did the same on their web page. (When I called them, NMHC told me there didn't appear to be a problem, and with repeated attempts I did finally get to the log in page)

1. I was told at the local pharmacy on July 20 that a prescription I filled was not a covered drug by NMHC. I paid for it myself. The NMHC person I talked to on the phone today told me that it WAS a covered drug, and to go back to the pharmacy and ask them to run it through again. She said their system was down that day, July 20.

There's more, but that's the gist. Please get the NMHC connected with the secondary policy so that I don't have to front the money for my medication, and so that I don't have to spend an hour on the phone untangling the glitches.

Aloha from Molokai. Our only pharmacy here had expected a seamless transition to the new plan. However, NMHC has refused to accept modem (electronic) claims. Therefore, the pharmacy is using their own staff to prepare and submit "paper" claims for customers like my husband, who has double coverage. Right now my husband has to pay his co-pay up front and wait until after the pharmacy staff and NMHC have done their respective paperwork for his reimbursement. Can NMHC reconsider their acceptance of modem claims? It would sure be easier on everyone. Mahalo.

To clarify the email regarding NMHC's not accepting electronic claims... NMHC IS accepting primary claims, NOT secondary claims. We are lucky that Molokai Drugs completes and submits the secondary claims paperwork to NMHC as a service to its customers while many pharmacies pass the forms over to the individuals. Mahalo

My doctor called in prescriptions to PrecisionRx the last week of June. They decided not to fill the prescriptions, they said, because they have up to 14 days to fill prescriptions. By their reasoning, we had no coverage from about June 16-30. I had to ask my doctor to resubmit the scripts to NMCH, and NMCH needed me to fill out a paper subscription form before they could fill prescriptions. I had numerous conversations with NMCH staff, all of whom seemed knowledgeable and were as helpful as possible. As for NMHC having access to refill information from PrecisionRx, they apologetically said this information was unavailable to NMCH (as we had been told it would be).

I have carefully followed the new EUTF's NMHC drug plan directions, both written and oral, but have received mixed messages from each and every person I have contacted at NMHC and have now had to turn this matter over to HR at UH-Hilo. My husband has a HMSA PPO health insurance with his former employer, which is a very good policy for both his and my drug coverage. I have added to that a dual HMSA policy from my employer, UH-Hilo. Prior to July 2007, we were able to go to our local pharmacy here in Kamuela on the Island of Hawaii and receive all of our usual prescriptions without any co-pay. However, since July 2007, even though we have both faithfully filled out the drug reimbursement forms, sent to us by NMHC, had them completed by our pharmacist, sent all other required proof of purchase, etc. and mailed them to NMHC, we have not received any reimbursement. At this time, our drug bills exceed $100. When I phoned NMHC just last week, they had no record of receiving any drug reminbursement forms from me or my husband, even though the first ones were mailed July 8, 2007. In fact, one man even argued with me that I was not registered with them at all.

In my attempts to be in compliance with the EUTF's NMHC new drug plan, it took me several hours to copy the form for both my husband me, copy our EUTF NMHC card onto the back of each form, create via the computer pre-addressed envelopes to NMHC for each mailing, and set up a filing system for copies of all drug reimbursement forms we sent and have sent. Then, we made copies of all of the proof of payment along with the drug reimbursement forms for each purchase of drugs we have made and sent to NMHC since July 2007. Finally, we have to add extra postage to the envelopes to NMHC to be certain the drug forms will be received by them. All of this is time consuming and costly for us, especially considering that we didn't have to do any of this prior to the NMHC drug plan implementation. when I asked NMHC if we could simply scan this information into a file and then email it to them, they were unwilling to allow that kind of easy and postage free submission of the drug reimbursement form(s). Our pharmacist is also confused about what is to be done and cannot get clear feedback from NMHC.

As a health care provider with concern for the ill and elderly, I am wondering just how this plan is being managed by all of those who are involved with EUTF? This can't be easy for those lacking computers, printers, copiers, and the ability to follow the vague and confusing directions offered by EUTF and NMHC regarding this drug plan.

I am really thinking that the two college degrees I hold in nursing are not really enough to help me fathom what in the world needs to be done to make this drug plan work for me. I am also thinking that this is a nefarious plan to keep state and county employees from getting reimbursed for their drugs in the hopes that they will just give up and pay for their medications out of pocket or worse yet, do without and suffer what might be fatal consequences. As an individual with diabetes and my husband having hypertension, we are not willing to play Russian Roulette with our health and desperately need some help with this new drug plan, because even with higher education, it is simply not enough to help me figure out how this system can work for me, and to date I am getting no clear feedback from anyone about this problem. A few years ago HMSA tried a plan such as this for off-shore drug reimbursement and it was soon discontinued or at least we were never asked to participate after a dismal attempt to purchase drugs from somewhere on the mainland. The NMHC drug plan is not working and may never work.

As of this date, there has still been no reply from NMHC, EUTF, or UH HR regarding the lack of input or any support for me at all regarding the "lost in space" format that now has me paying for all of my drugs when prior to July 1st, I had no co-pay at all. Supporting two drug policy premiums with HMSA continues to come out of my pocket, and I am paying for all of my own drugs, as well as my husband's. What is wrong with this picture?

From Barbara Leonard, Associate Professor of Accounting at UH Hilo: I looked up our new drug "benefits" company and found the following on their website. In short, the company is not doing well. Decide for yourself. They are hoping that the Hawaii State Employees will save their company. http://ir.nmhc.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=70715&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=997400&highlight=

NMHC Reports Fiscal Third Quarter 2007 Results PORT WASHINGTON, N.Y., May 08, 2007 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- National Medical Health Card Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: NMHC), a national independent pharmacy benefit manager ("PBM"), today reported its results for the 2007 fiscal third quarter. Jim Smith, president and chief executive officer, stated, "Third quarter 2007 results reflect the dynamics we experienced in the first half, with gross margin benefiting from higher generic use and favorable client mix trends but operating income impacted by lower rebate revenue, higher expenses and a decrease in the number of covered lives. We are pleased that the efforts we have devoted to our enhanced selling process continue to result in a growing pipeline of sales prospects. These efforts are yielding increasing final-stage opportunities for NMHC across a number of vertical markets resulting in several attractive wins, including the State of Hawaii which we announced yesterday. Our focus for the remainder of the fiscal year is on demonstrating the competitive advantages in NMHC's PBM, Specialty, Mail Order and Part D areas of expertise, and on closing more business that can contribute to fiscal 2008."

1. Fiscal Third Quarter Operating Results

Revenue for the 2007 fiscal third quarter decreased 33.1% to $145.0 million from $216.8 million for the same period last year. The decrease is primarily the result of a decrease in covered lives as compared to last year.

Gross profit for the 2007 fiscal third quarter was $21.3 million as compared to $22.4 million for the same period last year reflecting a decrease of 4.9%. The decrease in gross profit is primarily attributable to a $1.7 million reduction from the PBM segment, primarily related to a reduction in rebate revenue stemming from current trends in negotiations with NMHC's clients, offset by improvements in our client mix. This decrease was partially offset by a $592,000 increase in gross profit from our Specialty segment. Gross profit, as a percentage of revenue, increased to 14.7% for the 2007 fiscal third quarter as compared to 10.3% for the same period last year. Gross profit per estimated paid prescription increased to $3.87 from $2.77 for the same period last year. The 32.1% decrease in our script count was primarily offset by an increase in the gross profit per script.

Estimated adjusted paid prescriptions for the 2007 fiscal third quarter were 5.5 million as compared to 8.1 million for the same period last year. Estimated adjusted prescription volume equals prescriptions processed at our mail service facility multiplied by 3, plus retail prescriptions. The prescriptions processed at our mail service facility are multiplied by 3 to adjust for the fact that they typically include approximately 3 times the amount of product days supplied compared with retail prescriptions.

SG&A increased $2.1 million, or 10.9%, from $19.3 million for the 2006 fiscal third quarter to $21.4 million for the 2007 fiscal third quarter. This increase is primarily the result of an $1.5 million net increase in compensation and related items (inclusive of $293,000 of additional stock-based compensation recognized in accordance with the provisions of FAS 123R), a $466,000 increase in professional fees and insurance, and $137,000 net increase in other selling, general and administrative expenses.

Operating loss for the 2007 fiscal third quarter was $76,000 as compared to operating income of $3.1 million for the 2006 third quarter.

Our effective tax rate was (66.7%) for the three months ended March 31, 2007 as compared to 42.6% for the three months ended March 31, 2006. This benefit for the three months ended March 31, 2007 primarily resulted from a $439,000 reversal of a prior state tax reserve as the related statute of limitations expired during the quarter ended March 31, 2007 offset by lower pre-tax income combined with the effects of expensing employee stock options in accordance with SFAS No. 123R.

EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) for the 2007 fiscal third quarter was $2.5 million, a 49.0% decrease as compared to $4.9 million for the 2006 fiscal third quarter. EBITDA before stock-based compensation expense for the 2007 fiscal third quarter was $3.4 million as compared to $5.6 million for the same period last year, a 39.3% decrease. EBITDA per estimated paid prescription decreased to $0.45 during the 2007 fiscal third quarter from $0.60 during the same period last year. During the 2007 fiscal third quarter, NMHC did not pay $1.4 million of dividends on the series A preferred stock until April 2, 2007; during the 2006 fiscal third quarter, NMHC paid $1.4 million of dividends on the series A preferred stock.

Net loss available to common stockholders for the 2007 fiscal third quarter was $1.1 million, or $(0.20) per basic and diluted share, as compared to net income available to common stockholders of $510,000, or $0.10 per basic share and diluted share, for the same period last year. For the 2007 fiscal third quarter, the Company's weighted-average number of diluted shares outstanding approximated 5.5 million shares, as compared to 5.3 million shares for the same period last year. The 2007 fiscal third quarter calculation does not assume the conversion of approximately 7.0 million shares of redeemable convertible preferred stock or the outstanding options to purchase shares of common stock as they are anti-dilutive. For the same period last year, the calculation did not assume the conversion of approximately 7.0 million shares of redeemable convertible preferred stock as they are anti-dilutive.

Operating Results for the Nine Months ended March 31, 2007

Through the nine months ended March 31, 2007, revenue decreased 18.2% to $533.0 million from $651.4 million for the same period last year. The decrease is primarily the result of a decrease in covered lives as compared to last year.

Through the nine months ended March 31, 2007, gross profit was $66.2 million as compared to $69.7 million for the same period last year reflecting a decrease of 5.0%. This decrease is primarily the result of a $5.7 million reduction in rebate revenue from our PBM segment (exclusive of the $1.0 million Rebate Error as defined and discussed in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 ("First Quarter 10-Q")) due to the current trends in negotiations with our clients offset by improvements in our client mix. This decrease was partially offset by i) $506,000 net increase which consists of $1.5 million relating to the Claims Payable Error offset by $1.0 million relating to the Rebate Error as defined and discussed in our First Quarter 10-Q, ii) $794,000 increase in gross profit from our PBM segment, exclusive of the impact of the changes in rebates, and iii) $940,000 increase in gross profit from our Specialty segment. Gross profit, as a percentage of revenue, increased to 12.4% for the nine months ended March 31, 2007 as compared to 10.7% for the same period last year. Estimated adjusted paid prescriptions for the nine months ended March 31, 2007 was 19.4 million as compared to 25.6 million for the same period last year. Gross profit per estimated paid prescription increased to $3.41 from $2.72 for the same period last year.

Through the nine months ended March 31, 2007, SG&A increased $4.5 million, or 7.9%, from $56.9 million to $61.4 million for the same period last year. This increase is primarily the result of i) a $2.8 million increase in compensation and related items (inclusive of $992,000 of additional stock-based compensation recognized in accordance with the provisions of FAS 123R), ii) a $2.0 million increase in professional fees and insurance, and iii) a $247,000 net increase which consists of $831,000 relating to the Claims Payable Error offset by $584,000 relating to the Lease Error as defined and discussed in our First Quarter 10-Q. These increases were offset by a net reduction of $547,000 in other SG&A. Selling, general and administrative expenses as a percent of revenue increased from 8.7% for the nine months ended March 31, 2006 to 11.5% for the nine months ended March 31, 2007.

Our effective tax rate was 41.1% for the nine months ended March 31, 2007 as compared to 42.6% for the nine months ended March 31, 2006. The decrease in the effective tax rate for the nine months ended March 31, 2007 primarily resulted from a $439,000 reversal of a prior state tax reserve as the related statute of limitations expired during the quarter ended March 31, 2007 offset by lower pre-tax income combined with the effects of expensing employee stock options in accordance with SFAS No. 123R.

EBITDA for the nine months ended March 31, 2007 was $11.9 million, a 34.3% decrease, as compared to $18.1 million for the same period last year. EBITDA before stock-based compensation expense for the nine months ended March 31, 2007 was $14.9 million as compared to $20.1 million for the same period last year, a 25.9% decrease. EBITDA per estimated paid prescription decreased to $0.61 during the nine months ended March 31, 2007 from $0.71 during the same period last year.

Net loss available to common stockholders for the nine months ended March 31, 2007 was $1.2 million, or $(0.22) per basic and diluted share as compared to net income available to common stockholders of $3.2 million, or $0.63 per basic share and $0.61 per diluted share for the same period last year.

I had difficulty right after the conversion with a prescription for an over-18 dependant covered as a full time college student. The pharmacy said that her prescription was not covered because she had recently turned 20. When I called NMHC, they answered promptly and efficiently, but said that the problem was with EUTF--they needed to confirm coverage of the dependant. I called EUTF and got through immediately but they said they needed to check on the matter. I never heard back. When I received the email about the overloaded phone system, I did as directed and contacted EUTF by email. They never replied. Finally, in desperation, I went to pay for the prescription myself, only to find that coverage was now restored (it would have been nice to have been notified). It appears from all of this that the communication between EUTF and NMHC was not smooth and that EUTF is overwhelmed with queries from many subscribers encountering such difficulties.