In Group Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Royal Drug Co. (1979) 440 U.S. 205, independent pharmacists brought an antitrust action against Blue Shield claiming that it was engaged in price-fixing of prescription drugs. The lawsuit attacked Blue Shield's use of "Pharmacy Agreements" between it and any pharmacy in the state that wanted to participate in its program. Under the agreements, a Blue Shield insured would pay the pharmacy $ 2 for a prescription, and Blue Shield would reimburse the pharmacy for the actual cost of the drugs dispensed. The agreements essentially limited the participating pharmacy's profit on any prescription to $ 2. (Royal Drug, supra, 440 U.S. 205, 209.) The issue in Royal Drug was whether Blue Shield's conduct in entering into the Pharmacy Agreements was "the business of insurance" and therefore exempt from the antitrust laws. ( Royal Drug, supra, 440 U.S. at p. 210 99 S. Ct. at pp. 1072-1073.) The court held that the Pharmacy Agreements were not "the business of insurance" under the act. The court first noted that "insurance" inherently involves the spreading of risk between the insurer and its insureds, and that the Pharmacy Agreements did not spread risk because they did not involve any contract between the insurer and its insured. Rather, Blue Shield assumed the risk providing its insureds with prescription drugs for $ 2, and the Pharmacy Agreements were simply the means of providing the promised benefit at a low cost. In the court's view, the Pharmacy Agreements were "indistinguishable from countless other business arrangements that may be made by insurance companies to keep their costs low." (Royal Drug, supra, 440 U.S. at p. 215.) Because of this, and because the agreements were between the insurer and entities outside of the insurance industry, the court held that McCarran-Ferguson did not protect the practice.