Posts Tagged ‘Pharmacy Benefit Cost Reduction’

PBM Consulting – New AWP Benchmark

Friday, August 20th, 2010

Here we are approaching the one-year anniversary (September 26, 2010) of the effective date of the McKesson AWP settlement, and unfortunately, little has changed.  At WBC (wbcbaltimore.com) we have followed this case from the get-go, through negotiation and settlement. We have helped our clients with their direct participation in the class action settlement, as well as active involvement in evaluating their PBM.   The question remains: where’s the new pricing standard that was anticipated?

As a refresher, part of the settlement involved the publishing of AWP by First DataBank, who along with McKesson Corp., were defendants in the action.  One of the remedies was for First DataBank to cease publication of this standard within 2 years of the effective date of the settlement.  Many thought a new benchmark would be introduced in short order to replace the perceived gap in a reliable and representative alternative.  Much was written about whether WAC, AMP or ASP would fill the void.  Several PBMs altered their benchmark and have adopted WAC in their pricing proposals.  So what happens? The vast majority of PBMs simply adjusted their pricing discounts to reflect a lower AWP.  They tauted it as “cost-neutral” to the client.  What they didn’t say was the adjustment. i.e. reduction in cost,  did not save the client any money.  They did, however, remind  clients that they weren’t going to be charged more!

To further delay the wheels of change, Wolters Kluwer, the publisher of Medispan, which is the largest competitor to First DataBank’s AWP’s Blue Book, has announced that they will continue to publish AWP “until relevant industry or governmental organizations develop a viable, generally accepted alternative.”  Interestingly, Medispan was a party in the settlement and had agreed to stop publishing by September 26, 2011.  Let’s see if Judge Saris, the judge who heard the case and approved the settlement, has anything to say.

There really is no national standard that has gained traction as a suitable alternative. A committee that was commissioned by the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs recommended that WAC be used as a replacement benchmark for single-source drugs, while no recommendation was made to cover multi-source products.  In our opinion, the best bet for future guidance seems to reside with our friends at CMS. They prefer AMP, and plan to begin publishing AMP pricing in October. We believe that if and when this occurs, the rest of the industry will fall into line within a year. It is a big “if” however, since the retail pharmacy associations don’t seem to want any part of more transparent pricing, at least as it applies to their pharmacy setting. When CMS announced a recent plan to produce pricing surveys and publish results with acquisition cost pricing, they were faced with a firestorm of resistance from the pharmacy lobbies.  Litigation has been promised if CMS continues to pursue this course, so we’ll have to wait and see what happens.  It may be a harbinger of things to come related to PBM pricing benchmarks.  Stay tuned!

PBM Consulting – Financial Incentives

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

Decisions decisions! Benefit managers and prescription benefit plan sponsors face the challenging balancing act of getting more members to take their medications while controlling their health plan costs. The logic appears intuitive: the more members stay compliant with their drug regimens, the fewer emergency room visits and in-patient hospitalizations.  Studies have shown that 25% of prescriptions go unfilled and almost 50% of patients don’t take their medications as prescribed.   The problems are that (1) more drug compliance means more up-front costs via increased drug spend; and (2) trying to determine what types of incentives or penalties need to be used in order to motivate members to take their medication is a work in progress.

At WBC (wbcbaltimore.com), we have found that the most popular technique being currently utilized is benefit design, the so called “value-based” benefit design. This is where co-payments are reduced or waived for those proven medications that help regulate health status for chronic conditions such as diabetes and asthma. But is that enough? Some plan sponsors don’t think so. They are trying a new incentive: a compliance lottery!  Here’s how it works: certain drugs are identified as being lottery-eligible. A special dispensing mechanism records which patients are taking their drugs and gives them the chance of winning a lottery prize ranging from $10 to $100 each day they are compliant.  Aetna is one of  the first health plans that is exploring this approach with some pilot programs.

Will it work? We don’t know, but we have our doubts. People do love lotteries, but research has shown that the penalty approach, i.e., the fear of loss, trumps the anticipation of gain as a motivational force. Maybe a better approach is to create a fear of not winning the lottery!  Plus, the current monitoring systems might be gamed. They can monitor dispensing, but it doesn’t neccessarily mean the patient is taking the medication.  

We’ll be watching the results to see if paying members to take their meds proves to be a viable option in our ongoing efforts to improve health status and quality of life while managing costs.

PBM Consulting – Access Based Network Design

Tuesday, June 29th, 2010

Never let it be said that Walmart doesn’t know marketing. In the aftermath of the CVS/Caremark/Walgreens turf battle, where the question of adequate member access was raised (Networked),  Walmart jumps right back into the frey and releases their low-price network option.  They are referring to it as *Access Based Network Design* and are touting it as a new strategy to “create a break in the cost curve and slows future cost increases by applying downward pressure on cost.   How, one might ask?  At WBC (www.wbcbaltimore.com), we know the answer.  It’s by finding the right-sized network to fit the access needs of the payor.

Walmart bases this strategy on three tenets of pharmacy cost containment:

  1. Leverage supply and demand to create competition among pharmacy providers;
  2. Build the right-sized network from the “bottom-up” determining the number of pharmacies the payor’s population needs rather than the number of pharmacies out there; and
  3. Offer financial incentives to plan members to influence steerage and offset any disruption or inconvenience.

Sounds promising so far.  I mean, is there really any reason to offer a 60,000+ store network? In some markets, there is literally a network pharmacy on every corner.  Most plan sponsors can get along just fine with a much smaller offering, something in the 20,000 store range.  Walmart makes the case that, rather than having incentives to keep prices as high as possible without getting kicked out of the network, the Access Based Network aligns the pharmacy’s interest with the payors, competing to be included by reducing their prices.

Building a right-sized network may be easier than the plan sponsor has been led to believe and without major disruption to their members.  Medicare, for example, has established an access standard that can prove very instructive for a commercial plan sponsor.  The Medicare standard is:

Urban Access- On average, at least 90 % of Medicare beneficiaries who live in an urban area must have access to a network pharmacy within 2 miles of their home.

Suburban Access – On average, at least 90% of Medicare beneficiaries who live in a suburban area must have access to a network pharmacy within 5 miles of their home.

Rural Access- At least 70% of Medicare beneficiaries must have access to a network pharmacy within 15 miles of their home.

As mentioned above, this standard can almost always be met with  20,000 or less pharmacies!

The financial incentives to members can be the final piece that puts this type of strategic plan design in play. A reduced co-pay to offset any inconvenience of driving a few more blocks could do the trick.  Many times, it does not have to be a huge enhancement.  Walmart suggests that a $10 co-pay could be reduced to $7, for example.

WBC has been a big proponent of right-sized networks for some time and this organized effort by Walmart is an aggressive step in the right direction.   That being said, Walmart does not hold an exclusive with this type of concept.   Keep in mind they are not trying to become a PBM.  They promote their efforts as PBM-agnostic. Just about any PBM worth their salt can design and manage a selective network of this type.  We think you’ll find it’s worth discussing with your PBM.

PBM Contracting – Big MAC is a Whopper

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010

PBM pricing is still a mystery to most plan sponsors of pharmacy benefits. At WBC (www.wbcbaltimore.com), we’re continually seeing spreadsheet comparisons of one PBM’s versus another.  Is that AWP-58% or AWP-62%?  Which one is better?  Which one represents lower cost of the plan sponsor? On the surface, a reasonable person might surmise that -62% is a deeper discount than -58%, thereby yielding a lower net cost.  Ah, but not so fast!

The answer to which is better. i.e., which costs less is “It depends.”  It depends on what the AWP price is that’s being reduced by the discount. This is particularly true when trying to compare costs of generics.  There may be 5 or 6 or more manufacturers of the generic drug that could be filled at the pharmacy, either at retail or mail.  Here’s an example: Fluoxetine (generic Prozac) has an AWP of  between $0.72 and $3.55  per pill when compared between five manufacturers of the generic. Obviously, taking 60% off of the $3.55 option yields a higher payment from the plan sponsor than a 58% discount off a $0.72 pill. One answer to this dilemma is the creation and application of a MAC list.

MAC is the acronym for Maximum Allowable Cost (“MAC”) and serves as a reference price to establish a maximum cost that the PBM will pay for a generic drug. Each PBM applies a “secret sauce” that they usually view as a proprietary methodology to come up with their MAC list and pricing, but for simple illustrative purposes, think of it as an arithmetic mean to reach a price (i.e., five manufacturers with pricing ranging from $.72 to $3.55, add up the individual prices and divide by 5).  In the example of the Fluoxetine, the MAC price may be $2.22. This will be the maximum cost that a PBM would pay to the pharmacy.

Simple enough, and pretty straight forward if this is where the story ends. Again, not so fast!  Many PBMs confuse the solution by creating multiple MAC lists.  Each one may represent different pricing and a different number of drugs.  Some lists may only include a relatively small number of drugs (300 for example), while others can be very broad (over 2,000 drugs).   It serves the interest of the plan sponsor to receive the broadest possible MAC, since the MAC pricing represents the largest equivalent AWP discounts (some MAC pricing is equal to AWP-95% or more).  When a generic drug is not on the MAC list, it will receive a much lower discount and may be as low as the brand discounts (AWP-18% for example). Some PBMs have what are known as the “Bill MAC” and the “Pay MAC.”   This may come as a shocker to the plan sponsor, but a PBM may submit one Bill MAC to the plan for payment and turn around and use a Pay MAC to the pharmacy, which has entirely different and higher pricing. The PBM pays a lower price to the pharmacy, but bills the client and inflated cost, creating a pricing spread that makes the PBM’s shareholders very happy.

Another Big Mac attack is when the PBM only applies MAC pricing at retail, leaving mail order generics as their holy grail for PBM profit potential. For PBMs that provide a true pass-through pricing model, it doesn’t matter, because you will receive whatever the discount turns out to be.  Under traditional pricing, however, MAC pricing at mail will reduce the plan sponsors cost through that channel. The PBMs typically don’t volunteer to offer MAC at mail. The plan sponsor has to request or negotiate it as a feature in their PBM contract.

What’s the take-away to this story? First, decide if undisclosed pricing spreads are acceptable to your view of vendor relationships; second, make sure your PBM offers you a broad MAC list; and third, if you use a PBM that has your plan on a traditional pricing model, require that MAC pricing be applied at mail.

The Okra Effect – Reducing Pharmacy Benefit Costs

Monday, February 8th, 2010

Diabetes as a consequence of American lifestyles continues to rage in epidemic proportions. According to statistics from the American Diabetes Association (www.diabetes.org), 23.8 million people have diabetes (10.7% of the population over Age 20 and an additional 57 million people who are in a pre-diabetes stage). If current trends continue, 1 out of 3 children born in the year 2000 will develop diabetes by 2050! Throw in the complications of diabetes including heart disease, kidney disease, high blood pressure, nervous system disease, stroke and blindness and the total healthcare costs are staggering.

This healthcare crisis has not gone unnoticed by some influential folks. Of course, one of the biggest namestemp in “cause awareness” is Oprah. It was recently announced that she is helping raise diabetes awareness by promoting free blood glucose screenings at Walgreen’s (Free-Blood-Glucose-Screening-at-Walgreens).

Hopefully people will hear the message and respond. Many in the media refer to it as “The Oprah Effect” and the need is huge. There are 5.7 million that have diabetes and have not yet been diagnosed.

While this is a great effort and getting folks in to be tested will save lives, it may not have much of an immediate effect on reducing pharmacy benefit costs.  In fact, short-term costs will escalate while potentially reducing  the overall costs of healthcare over a more mid-term period.

In addition to screening, we would like to see Americans get serious about their dietary and exercise habits in order to turn the tide on this deadly trend. We’re thinking of it as “The Okra Effect”,Okra one which incorporates fresh fruits and vegetables as a bigger component of our menu. The fact is that okra (as just one example) is great for you, and  that the mucilage and fiber in okra helps adjust blood sugar by regulating its absorption in the small intestine.

So this should be an easy recipe: more fruits and vegetables; mix in a heaping portion of moderate exercise (like walking); yields better glucose control with reduced dependency on manufactured pharmaceutical products; and equals less pharmacy benefit spend!

AWP Settlement – Should Change Everything

Sunday, September 27th, 2009

Finally, September 26th has come and gone, the effective date of the new AWP settlement changes. Your PBM is still processing claims.  Members are still having their drug cards honored at the image pharmacy counter and if you are a drug benefit plan sponsor, you’ll be receiving adjusted invoices to reflect this momentous event.  The problem is that for most plan sponsors, all this “normalcy” is a bad thing!

The adjustments that many had hoped would happen as a result of the settlement, have been altered in a way that creates no economic improvement for the pharmacy benefit plan sponsor! The AWP settlement involved a roll-back of the AWP benchmark pricing for 1,400 drugs that had been artificially inflated. If you were a plan sponsor that relied on an AWP benchmark provided by First DataBank or Medi-span, then you were entitled to file an application to be part of the class action settlement fund. One would think that an adjustment to pricing that lowered the cost of drugs should be  benefiting  the folks who pay for those drugs, i.e., the plan sponsors and their members.  However, most PBMs have included language in their contracts that enables them to make an adjustment in their pricing, so that the “original economic intent” of the contract is maintained.

Most of these same PBMs have sent letters to their clients asking them to sign amendments acknowledging these changes. The requested change is usually in one of two forms: either a reduction in contractual discounts; or a decision by the PBM to maintain their own AWP benchmark that keeps the same markup to wholesale acquisition cost (“WAC”) thereby re-creating the same AWP that was in effect prior to September 26th!

Rather than just let this practice slide as a”business as usual” routine, WBC thinks it should be a great watershed event in the evolution of pharmacy benefit management. When pricing improvements such as this one occurs, a plan sponsor should use the moment to re-qualify their PBM. Is the PBM committed to a mission of serving the exclusive benefit of the plan and their members, or do they have an overriding imperative to serve their own shareholders?

Adjustments to maintain the “economic intent” are designed to maintain the PBMs net margins and  comes at the expense of the plan.  We believe that this pricing event creates the perfect environment to challenge the validity of the whole “AWP Discount” model.  It should be compared to true acquisition cost pricing as a form of direct contracting, an approach that refines the role of a PBM and enables the plan sponsor to dramatically reduce the cost of prescription drugs to the plan and their members.