Posts Tagged ‘Prescription Drug Benefits’

PBM Consulting – Top 15 Therapeutic Classes

Monday, July 26th, 2010

IMS Health data for 2009 creates an interesting picture of global drug sales and growth in specific therapeutic classes. WBC (wbcbaltimore.com) has taken a look and found that the global picture is clearly different when compared to  U.S. pharmacy benefit plan sponsor drug spend.  In the U.S., antipsychotics were the leading therapeutic class with $14.6 billion in sales. Antilipididemics (like Lipitor, Crestor, simvastatin, etc.) with $14.3 billion is number two; acid reflux (Nexium, Prevacid, etc.) with $13.6 billion in sales comes in at number three; and antidepressants (Cymbalta, Effexor, etc.) holds down the number four spot with $9.9 billion in sales. Surprisingly, oncology agents, while number one globally in sales, ranks number six in the U.S.

Here are the global sales and growth numbers for 2009:

Drug Class

2009 Sales (billions)

Annual Growth

Oncologics

$52.37

8.8%

Lipid Regulators $35.28 4.9%
Respiratory Agents $33.59 11.0%
Antidiabetics $30.40 13.4%
Anti-ulcerants $29.61 0.6%
Angiotensin II Antagonists $25.20 11.4%
Antipsychotics $23.24 4.6%
Antidepressants $19.41 -1.3%
Autoimmune Agents $17.96 18.0%
Platelet Aggr. Inhibitors $14.60 9.0%
HIV Antivirals $13.75 14.9%
Anti-epileptics $12.99 -19.8%
Narcotic analgesics $11.23 8.6%
Non-narcotic analgesics $11.17 7.3%
Erthropoietins $10.80 -4.1%

Data source: IMS Health

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 Consulting – War of the Worlds

Friday, June 11th, 2010

Round Two (or  is that Round Three)  of the CVS vs. Walgreens knockdown has gotten folks attention. Walgreens came out swinging, both fighters felt each other out, and CVS counter punched with the announcement that, rather than wait for contract renewals to have Walgreens leave the Caremark network, they will take a proactive stance and end the network participation in 30 days. (http://bit.ly/bTUZfU)

For the original story, See *PBM Consulting – Networked?* at http://www.wbcbaltimore.com/blog/

This frontpage slugging back and forth between these two heavyweights has also captured the attention of Congress. The PBM industry has long avoided federal scrutiny and oversight. Their business practices and market conduct are juicy targets for a Congress and an Administration hungry for power and control. No crisis (real or contrived) is going to go unnoticed these days.  Reps. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, and Peter Welch, D-Vermont, have started the inquiry by sending a letter to three powerful House committee and subcommittee chairmen, calling for enhanced congressional oversight of the PBM industry and  requesting a hearing on current industry practices!

Seems like Congress may just be waking up to what approximately 30 State Attorneys General have already started, that is,  an attempt to bring some real transparency to the PBM world.  Many pharmacy benefit plan sponsors have wondered why  “traditional” PBM business practices have continued under the radar for so long.  After all, Third-Party Administrators (“TPAs”) who are paid to process medical claims on behalf of health plan sponsors, would be shuttered and their officers indicted if they ran their businesses in a fashion similar to many PBMs!

Here’s a link for more details of Congressional interest:  http://bit.ly/9iFGOl

WBC will continue to follow these developments to keep you informed regarding PBM news that may effect the operation of your plan.  Visit us at www.wbcbaltimore.com

Pharmacy Benefit and Healthcare Reform – “It’s Alive”

Saturday, March 6th, 2010

“Officials announced today that passing the Senate’s version of healthcare reform will end heart disease, cure cancer and increase every family of four’s net worth by $1 million dollars over the next ten years.”  And so it seems as one unbelievable claim after another is trumpeted as justification to launch this monstrous piece of legislation onto the American public. Frankenstein MonsterAnd like the Frankenstein Monster (huge, ugly, but really just misunderstood) this healthcare ”thing” will be very difficult to kill once it has been given life.

Loyal readers may be wondering how pharmacy benefits will be impacted by this tale from the crypt (wait, is that Frankie or Harry Reid?). Here’s how:

Pharmacies will begin to restrict access by refusing to accept Medicaid payments. Walgreen’s announced today that they will no longer be accepting new Medicaid patients in Washington state after April 16th. 2011367936_walgreens18m.html Expect others to jump on board, both in other jurisdictions as well as other chains. With millions of newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries, this will prove problematic, not just for getting scripts filled, but as a barometer of access problems in the physician provider community as well.

Employer plan sponsors will also begin to drop coverage as soon as they find out that the cost of continuing their programs far exceeds the penalty they will have to pay by opting out. Medical benefits as well as Rx plans, will be transferred to the The Insurance Exchanges that will be established to offer subsidized individual coverage for non-corporate plan participants, and who will ultimately drive private insurers from the arena.

What remains to be seen are the issues related to formalizing a program of pharmaceutical re-importation, allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to negotiate prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, or authorizing a regulatory pathway that will lead to FDA approval of generic biologicals.

What’s known is we will wind up with far less competition, reduced access, higher costs and a staggering, unsustainable new unfunded entitlement program!

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!

PBM Consulting – The Big Three?

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

The Big ThreeAsk most pharmacy benefit plan sponsors to name 5 PBMs and most come up shy at around three. Not surprisingly, this market dominance has earned the exalted stratification of becoming known as “The Big Three.” Repositioning the aforementioned question to “Name the Big Three” and most plan sponsors fill in the blanks,not with Bird, Parish and McHale, but with Medco, CVS/Caremark and Express Scripts.  They are shocked to learn that there are actually over 60 PBMs currently competing for their business.  What’s more shocking is when the data shows that the PBM troika they thought they knew turns out to be the wrong answer. Here’s the facts regarding market share by covered members and total scripts:

Top 25 Pharmacy Benefit Management Companies and Market Share
By Membership, as of 1st Quarter 2009

Atlantic Information Services compiles these data from pharmacy benefit management companies and other publicly available information sources. Published by PBMI.

Company Rx Covered Lives Market Share
CVS/Caremark Rx, Inc. 82,000,000 12.02%
Walgreens-OptionCare 75,000,000 10.99%
ICORE Healthcare, Inc. 60,000,000 8.79%
Medco Health Solutions, Inc. 60,000,000 8.79%
Express Scripts/CuraScript 55,000,000 8.06%
NovoLogix (formerly Ancillary Care Management) 40,000,000 5.86%
WellPoint NextRx 35,049,000 5.14%
Argus Health Systems, Inc. 28,600,000 4.19%
MedImpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. 27,000,000 3.96%
HealthTrans 15,300,000 2.24%
Prime Therapeutics, LLC 14,700,000 2.15%
Provider Synergies, LLC 14,000,000 2.05%
ACS, Inc. 14,000,000 2.05%
Health Information Designs, Inc. 12,000,000 1.76%
RxStrategies, Inc. 12,000,000 1.76%
ScriptSave 12,000,000 1.76%
Prescription Solutions 11,754,249 1.72%
Aetna Pharmacy Management (APM) 11,000,000 1.61%
First Health Services Corporation 10,000,000 1.47%
Walgreens Health Services Division 9,700,000 1.42%
CIGNA Pharmacy Management 6,400,000 0.94%
Catalyst Rx 6,028,140 0.88%
RESTAT, LLC 6,000,000 0.88%
Sanovia Corporation 5,000,000 0.73%
Axium Healthcare Pharmacy, Inc. 5,000,000 0.73%
39 other pharmacy benefit industry participants 54,807,060 8.03%
SOURCE: Atlantic Information Services’ (AIS) exclusive quarterly survey of pharmacy benefit management companies conducted by Drug Benefit News during the 1st quarter of 2009.   METHODOLOGY: Survey conducted by AIS researchers and supplemented by publicly available information sources. Survey includes companies that describe themselves as PBMs, pharmacy benefit administrators, specialty pharmacy providers and others providing pharmacy benefit services. Membership=lives covered under any/all pharmacy benefit contracts served by the company; members may be served by multiple contracts held by a single company or by multiple companies, and so may be counted more than once. Company market shares calculated as percentage of total industry-wide membership identified in this database.

Now lets see the contenders based on total number of scripts:

Top 25 Pharmacy Benefit Management Companies and Market Share
By Annual Prescription Volume, as of 1st Quarter 2009
Atlantic Information Servicescompiles these data from pharmacy benefit management companies
and other publicly available information sources.

Company Total Rx/Year Market Share
CVS/Caremark Rx, Inc. 594,999,120 15.09%
Medco Health Solutions, Inc. 586,000,000 14.86%
Argus Health Systems, Inc. 578,000,000 14.66%
Express Scripts/CuraScript 420,400,000 10.66%
WellPoint NextRx 267,651,000 6.79%
Prescription Solutions 254,091,612 6.44%
ACS, Inc. 250,000,000 6.34%
MedImpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. 170,400,000 4.32%
First Health Services Corporation 148,500,000 3.77%
Prime Therapeutics, LLC 120,000,000 3.04%
HealthTrans 97,330,000 2.47%
Aetna Pharmacy Management (APM) 89,709,989 2.27%
Walgreens Health Services Division 84,105,927 2.13%
CIGNA Pharmacy Management 75,000,000 1.90%
Catalyst Rx 51,170,234 1.30%
SXC Health Solutions, Inc. 39,362,980 1.00%
RESTAT, LLC 24,000,000 0.61%
ScriptSave 17,000,000 0.43%
FutureScripts 13,182,861 0.33%
PerformRx 9,771,216 0.25%
National Pharmaceutical Services 8,500,000 0.22%
Navitus Health Solutions, LLC 8,000,000 0.20%
BioScrip 7,735,710 0.20%
RegenceRx 5,237,234 0.13%
NovoLogix (formerly Ancillary Care Management) 4,800,000 0.12%
32 other pharmacy benefit industry participants 18,572,029 0.47%
SOURCE: Atlantic Information Services’ (AIS) exclusive quarterly survey of pharmacy benefit management companies conducted by Drug Benefit News during the 1st quarter of 2009.

Of course, combining the Express Scripts numbers with their newest acquisition of NextRx and you get a really goliath market presence. Interestingly, market share alone, does not necessarily dictate the best deals for the plan sponsor. Each PBM has a different concentration, whether traditional or transparent business model, and each must be evaluated based on the needs and circumstances presented by and for the individual plan sponsor client.

Audit Your PBM

Saturday, November 28th, 2009

Now, more than ever, plan sponsors should look to evaluate their pharmacy benefit manager’s performance.

Plan sponsors go through the time and expense to try and maintain a competitive vendor contract. Here’s the drill: decide that you want to solicit new bids from vendors who want to compete for your pharmacy benefit management business; go through the procurement process of writing, scoring and evaluating an RFP and selecting a finalist; negotiate the terms and pricing of your new contract, and finally, execute the deal and implement the new program.

imageThe problems occur when there is no practical way to validate the performance of your PBM.  What good is negotiating the best contract if there is no accountability. For too many years, plan sponsors have depended on their PBM to let them know how they are doing! Strong audit rights negotiated in your PBM contract are necessary in order to safeguard your position.

PBMs have been reluctant to volunteer real transparency as it relates to their pricing, guarantees and rebates.  They cite confidentiality concerns and competitive trade secrets as their rationale. Plan sponsors have not only a right, but an obligation, on the part of their plan and its members to validate and verify their vendor’s performance.

Here are some of the major restrictions that can typically be found in a standard PBM contract and that should be addressed under your audit rights:

  • Giving the PBM the ability to ”co-select” your auditors;
  • Limiting the type of information that the auditor can review;
  • Restricting the auditor from sharing their findings or pertinent information from the plan sponsor;
  • Prohibiting the auditor from copying any information or data that would be necessary for the plan sponsor to review;
  • Preventing the recovery of funds that are due the plan sponsor.

PBMs typically want to include language that requires a “mutually acceptable” auditor.  Many times they want the auditor to be a “Big 4 accounting firm.” This can lead to more expense than is necessary and the plan sponsor may have to settle with an auditor that is not as specialized as could be. We believe that eliminating some of the most experienced an effective auditors that specialize in PBM audits is unacceptable. If the auditor has demonstrated appropriate expertise, professional experience, adequate insurance, willingness to abide by a reasonable confidentiality agreement then that auditor selection should be at the discretion of the plan sponsor.

PBM Contracting – Big Gorilla in the Room

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

Reviewing pharmacy benefit management (“PBM”) contracts has become just as much art as science. Sure, you can create a checklist of contractual definitions and provisions, and you can negotiate the financial and legal issues, but sometimes it boils down to how much does the vendor really want your business? That’s where the “art” comes into play.

The consultant must be able to present the client opportunity as the kind of account that the PBM wants and needs. Some are obvious to the vendor, while some other smaller accounts need some finesse.  The “Big 3″ remain only three because of their ability to accept risk that many of their smaller competitors refuse to assume.image It really can put them in the position of the 800-pound gorilla.  As consultant “artists” we need to read beyond the standard checklist and get to the heart of the matter, i.e., will the vendor provide our client with not only great pricing, but provide adequate protection in the event of things going south for the plan and its members as the result of PBM error, negligence or malfeasance.

For example, one of our recent clients had us negotiate their PBM contract with a new vendor. The pricing was substantially better than any of their competitors and we negotiated all of the significant contractual provisions that can wreck havoc on finalizing a deal. It came down to how much risk did the vendor want to assume. The answer was not enough to give the client comfort.

The trade-offs remain. The large public PBMs have scale and will usually acquiesce to provide greater contractual protections. Yet, by being public, they must operate in a much higher net profit margin-per- script environment in order to meet their expected quarterly earnings reports for Wall Street. As a result, their pricing and net costs presented to clients are usually not as competitive as some of their smaller rivals.  Private PBMs, on the other hand, can operate on much smaller margins and are more likely to offer true pass-through or acquisition cost pricing as their competitive difference. However, they generally don’t want to expose themselves to liability that outweighs the value of the account. Why go on the hook for millions if they are only earning $150K for providing services? Additionally, some of them are controlled by a few shareholders who can accept or reject business based on their own personal whims or bias.  And there lies the rub.

Plan sponsors need to have their consultants understand that price alone or protection alone does not provide a “one size fits all” solution. Striking an artful balance usually wins the day. At least until market forces or regulation drives all of the PBMs to follow one business model and market conduct for servicing their clients.

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.