Pharmacy Residents Sue ASHP, Hospitals, Over Wage Fixing

Two former pharmacy residents, on behalf of themselves and other pharmacy residents, have filed a class action lawsuit against the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), National Matching Services, and about a dozen hospitals—including Johns Hopkins, New York Presbyterian, Rush University Medical Center, and the University of Chicago Medical Center, accusing them of using match programs to keep compensation unfairly low and restrict the ability of residents to move to other programs.

Just the Facts

The case deals with ASHP’s Resident Matching Program (ASHP Match). The 1-year pharmacy residency is not required to be a pharmacist, but it is pursued by some pharmacy graduates in order to develop additional clinical skills. Residency experience is required for certain types of specialized pharmacy, such as infectious disease, emergency medicine, and oncology. Working in a hospital or clinical setting generally requires residency experience. Board certification in certain specialty areas requires at least 1 year of residency experience to sit for the certification exam. “Pharmacy residencies therefore open considerable new opportunities and career pathways for licensed pharmacists,” noted the complaint.

The complaint then goes on to allege that the ASHP match constitutes an anticompetitive agreement that “restrains competition for the employment of pharmacy residents and suppresses their compensation.”

ASHP is the sole nationally recognized body for accreditation of pharmacy residencies. The association requires every residency program that it accredits to offer all residency positions exclusively through ASHP Match. Pharmacists who want to apply for a residency program must do so via ASHP Match.

A pharmacist applies via ASHP’s portal. The application asks the pharmacist to rank residency programs in order from most desirable to least desirable. Both the residency programs and the pharmacists participating in the Match program must agree to rules which, the complaint alleges, restrain competition for the employment of pharmacy residents.

An algorithm is used to match the residents and the programs. The results of ASHP Match are contractually binding for both the pharmacist applicants and the residency programs.

The complaint alleges that ASHP fixed resident compensation at about half of what a pharmacist would be earning normally ($50 000 to $60 000 compared to over $100 000) and prevented residents from switching to other programs. In addition to lower pay, the plaintiffs claim pharmacy residents also have worse benefits than other pharmacists, including more expensive and inferior health insurance, retirement benefits, and life insurance plans. “Pharmacy residents also work longer hours on average than non-resident pharmacists with the same level of experience, even despite being paid about half as much and receiving inferior other employment benefits,” states the complaint.

What’s Next?

The plaintiffs are asking a judge to certify a class consisting of any person hired as a resident pharmacist from February 2021 through the date of the class certification. They are also seeking a jury trial. The outcome of this case may have significant implications for the structure and administration of pharmacy resident programs nationwide.

Reference

Alexis Albert; Mary Ann Hudgens v American Society of Health-System Pharmacists; National Matching Services Inc.; the Johns Hopkins Hospital; the New York and Presbyterian Hospital; the Methodist Hospital; Northwestern Memorial Hospital; Rush University Medical Center; the University of Chicago Medical Center; Allegheny General Hospital; University of Pennsylvania Medical Center; UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside; Leesburg Regional Medical Center, Inc. No 8:25-cv-00673-LKG. The United States District Court, District of Maryland; 2025. https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/znpnjblbapl/Albert%20v.%20American%20Society%20Of%20Health-%20System%20Pharmacists%20Inc..pdf