Posts Tagged ‘Pharmacy Benefit Cost Reduction’

PBM Consulting – Express Scripts / Medco Deal Approved

Monday, April 2nd, 2012

The FTC announced their approval of the Express Scripts acquisition of Medco. As readers of this blog know, WBC (wbcbaltimore.com) has predicted for months that this would be the outcome.

In a  3-1 vote to end its investigation, the FTC said its probe “revealed a competitive market for PBM services characterized by numerous, vigorous competitors who are expanding and winning business from traditional market leaders.”

The FTC said it is confident the Medco buyout won’t change those dynamics and it sees little risk of the merged Express Scripts/Medco exercising monopoly power.

Capitalizing on the nation’s health care mania, Express Scripts played all the right cards. “Our merger is exactly what the country needs now,” Express Scripts CEO George Paz said in a statement. “It represents the next chapter of our mission to lower costs, drive out waste in health care and improve patient health.”  Music to the ears of influencers in Washington that made this deal happen.

Now the company has to deal with pending litigation over the transaction.  The community pharmacist association and drugstore trade groups have filed suit. Also, several states have their AG’s bringing action. All of this activity does seem like much ado about nothing after the FTC announcement. We believe that these legal actions are designed to extract some pricing concessions and will not ultimately prevail.

Here’s one vote for George  as industry executive of the year. This is quite the coup! Let’s see how it actually gets put into practice.


PBM Consulting – Medco/Express Scripts Deal Almost Ready

Thursday, March 8th, 2012

The clock is ticking and it looks like the Express Scripts acquisition of Medco is almost ready to be approved. At WBC (www.wbcbaltimore) we been telling our readers for some time now not to believe the negative hype. This was a strong story that supports legislative efforts to reduce health care costs. Reducing pharmacy benefit costs is a big piece of the puzzle and the combined strengths of two solid pharmacy benefit titans is too good to pass up. Wall Street has warmed to the anticipated reality driving Medco stock to recent new 52-week highs. Not to mention the stampede to  Medco after their recent earnings call where Mr. Snow was giddy in announcing RECORD performance in all financial metrics!

Our Inside-the-beltway sources have told us that the deal is eminent, contingent on a couple of adjustments.  The main issue is a requirement that the newly formed “Expredco” will shed one of it’s Specialty pharmacy units.  You remember Specialty. Still the fastest growing component (20% trend) in a plan sponsor’s pharmacy drug spend.  Well, the powers that be have to throw the howling wolves (NACDS and NCPA)  a bone, so the sacrificial lamb will be Accredo, Medco’s superb Specialty management company.  Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater!  But that seems to be the price they must pay to get the deal done.  Recent press releases showed, for the first time, a softening of position by the community pharmacists, who said they could live with the new environment, as long as they get to participate in filling Specialty scripts.  We’ll see how it plays out.  As usual, stay tuned!

PBM Consulting – More Medco / Express Scripts Merger Thoughts

Wednesday, February 8th, 2012

The minions in the press of those who do not want the Express Scripts acquisition of Medco to occur have been burning up their keyboards! At WBC (wbcbaltimore.com), we’ve been working the phones to gain better insight to the status of this transaction.  Will the new proposed “Expredco” actually help reduce prescription drug costs or will it reduce consumer choice? These are the issues being debated in Washington.

Lots of stories about skepticism of the deal are being floated by those who oppose it in order to try and gin up more lemmings to follow their lead. Lobbyists are working overtime to reach their favorite Congressional contact.  Let’s face it,  lobbyists get paid to put the kabossh on deals their clients don’t like.  Supermarkets and community pharmacists say no!  We knew the deal was headed for approval when the press releases issued this week by various supermarket spokespeople  were “this deal will put an end to our ability to offer $4 generics.”   Ha!   That sounds like a panic statement.

We tend to agree with Fitch’s assessment that the deal will get done. Fitch believes that the broader consumer interests of creating better pricing concessions and thus, help reduce health care costs, will ultimately win the day and enable the FTC to approve the deal. ESI is prepared to divest some business operations (particularly in the Specialty area) if that becomes a condition of approval.

As we’ve stated previously, the  combined companies still only represent around 30% – 35%  of all Rx’s being filled, so it’s far from the mega-monopoly that is being presented by organizations such as the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the National Community Pharmacists Association and the Food Marketing Institute.  The FTC is expected to announce their decision by the end of February of very early in March.  Stay tuned!

PBM Consulting – Medco/Express Scripts Union Looks Good

Wednesday, January 11th, 2012

Buzz has it that the much anticipated, and in some corners, shunned union of PBM giants Medco and Express Scripts is almost a done deal. Shareholders have overwhelmingly approved the acquisition and ESI is raring to go!  WBC (www.wbcbaltimore.com) has opined from the initial announcement that this marriage would receive FTC blessing, and on the latest report from confidential sources, they are ready to pull the trigger.

The ESI P.R. machine has been pushing out releases over the last several months touting the benefits to consumers and health plan payors of the new mega PBM represented by this super-sized combo. This position is sharply contrasted by several community pharmacy associations who fear the negotiating club that would be wielded by “Expredco.”

Unlike the AT&T deal for T-Mobile, which received a thumbs down from the FTC,  ESI/Medco, while potent, would still only represent 30% of the prescription drug market.  Expressed (no pun intended) another way, 7 out of 10 Rxs will still be managed by competitors.

The return for investors in a combined organization looks sweet, and ESI is making a strong case that cost savings will be significant.  The question remains whether these savings generated through operational synergies and ability to negotiate with manufacturers gets passed through to plan sponsors or is simply reserved to keep a smile on stockholders faces.  We’ll see.

PBM Consulting – Managing Your Pharmacy Benefit Manager

Thursday, August 4th, 2011

Relationships, like fine wine, sometimes spoil when mishandled. This is true with family, friends and business partners. At WBC (wbcbaltimore.com) we know that Pharmacy Benefit Managers (“PBMs”) can be added to that list.  Many times, a plan sponsors’ relationship with their PBM sours as a result of negotiating agreements with incomplete or inaccurate information. PBM consulting that offers terms, conditions, and pricing that an  Rx plan sponsor thinks they have bargained for to reduce prescription drug costs can turn out to be quite a bit different in practice!

PBM operations have been one of the best kept secrets in managed care. As a result of litigation over the past few years, many otherwise little-known business practices have come to light.  Stories regarding multiple pricing lists, huge pricing spreads, underreported rebates and non-compliance with contracted discounts have become rampant.  WBC  helps our clients and blog subscribers become better informed as to the PBM business practices that will influence their ability to control prescription drug costs. Our clients know what to look for in a PBM contract and why incorporating contract validation and audit provisions are so important!  We also help them better manage their PBM relationships which will directly reduce their overall drug spend.

The question then becomes “who is managing whom?”  If plan sponsors are the object of PBMs desire, shouldn’t the sponsor be in a position to, if not dictate terms, at least know the rules of engagement?  Unfortunately, too many plan sponsors have been willing to accept the four most damaging words in the PBM lexicon: “It’s standard industry practice.”  By accepting these “standard” practices, plan sponsors have allowed their PBMs to profit, some would argue, unfairly, at the expense of the plan and their members.

The first decision that a plan sponsor should make is to select a PBM business model that is consistent with the sponsors’ own operating philosophy.  There are typically three choices: Traditional; Transparent; and Pass-Through. Traditional is the most elusive.  The PBM will quote a pricing framework, including discounts and dispensing fees, along with shared rebates. Under this choice, little is actually disclosed about cash flows that are generated through the account and the majority of contractual features are left open for the PBM to interpret. The second option, Transparent, is really more opaque than clear. The PBM will declare some level of “disclosure” and will share some of their former windfalls, but they are still not handing over the keys to the kingdom. They may still be bound to achieve their own financial forecasts that are generated based on the financial underwriting assumptions they make when pricing a client account , particularly those PBMs that are publicly traded and have to meet analysts quarterly earnings expectations. The third option, Pass-Through, means that 100% of all sources of revenue generated through the plan sponsors prescription drug purchases,  is passed along to the plan sponsor.

Each of these three choices carries its own advantages and drawbacks. WBC believes that it is the responsibility of the benefit consultant to make sure the plan sponsor is fully informed.  It’s interesting when a PBM will tell the plan sponsor that they will offer all three types of options.  They will also claim that it doesn’t matter to them which offer the client elects, because it’s the same financial outcome to the PBM, based on how they have structured their pricing and administrative fees. This outcome seems philosophically incongruent and demonstrates the financial manipulation at the disposal of the PBM.   In our view, a PBM should offer one over the others.

Visit us again as we cover the additional crucial components for managing your PBM relationship in order to reduce your pharmacy benefit costs.

PBM Consulting – Walgreens and Express Scripts Feud

Friday, July 1st, 2011

When Walgreens announced that it would not be a part of the Express Scripts (“ESI”) network in 2012, waves of uncertainty reverberated throughout the PBM world.  Would this development help or hurt plan sponsors’ efforts to reduce pharmacy benefit costs?  Would a restricted pharmacy network drive ESI clients away? Will Walgreens take a similar tact with Medco? What impact will it have on the ESI selling season?  At WBC (www.wbcbaltimore.com), we saw it coming and are fascinated with the implications.  Our PBM consulting for those plan sponsors interested in reducing pharmacy benefit costs can demonstrate that this development may actually prove useful.

Last summer, Walgreens and CVS/Caremark caused sparks with the announcement that Walgreens was leaving the Caremark network. That separation was short-lived, however, as cooler heads prevailed and saw it was a losing proposition for both parties.  Some have opined that the current lover’s quarrel involving Walgreens is just a negotiating ploy and will also work itself out so that the two parties can continue to do business.  The relationship brings a handsome chunk of change Walgreens way to the tune of $5.6 billion in annual Rx’s.  Of course, that may be wishful thinking and this dispute may have some bite to its bark!

To re-cap, Walgreens walked away from negotiating an extended deal with Express Scripts. The bones of contention centered on three stated issues.  According to the Walgreens press release, the issues are:

1.  The desire by Express Scripts to define contract terms, including what a brand drug is and what should be declared a generic (Note to plan sponsors: if it’s this important to ESI and Walgreens, it should be evident that it should be important to you in your PBM contract);

2. The request that Walgreens be notified in advance when Express Scripts decides to transfer a prescription to another network pharmacy; and

3. A reduction in reimbursement rates to a level that Walgreens felt was unacceptable.

The loss of Walgreens retail outlets would be a significant dent in the Express Scripts network, particularly in key markets, such as NY Metro and Chicagoland.  Losing the Duane Reade chain (a Walgreens subsidiary) in NY may prove particularly painful to the Express Scripts block of labor business. Plus, we can’t believe the huge Department of Defence (“DOD”) contract held by ESI would passively allow Walgreens to jump ship without throwing a fit.  They would/should be exerting heavy pressure on their ESI account managers to “fix it.”

So where is the silver lining in this melodrama? Well, it gets plan sponsors to start thinking about the merits of a restricted network, one that we like to call “right-sized.”  We haven’t met the plan sponsor who truly needs the 64,000 store variety. The vast majority would do just fine with a network half that size or smaller.  So the reduction to 55,000 or so really shouldn’t prove a major obstacle for Express Scripts clients. This right-sizing allows the PBM to perform a disruption analysis and present their case to their clients. Does the plan really need a pharmacy on every corner? Will their members have adequate access with the reduced version?  If they discover that a “select” network meets their needs,  then opting for a smaller network with  better discounts may prove more beneficial to the plan.

How this plays out remains to be seen. We believe both sluggers have more to lose than to gain by parting ways. Wall Street seems to agree, yet the Street appears to be siding with ESI.  Their stock is slightly up, while Walgreens is still down  almost 6%  since the announcement.  Stay tuned for some real summer fireworks!

PBM Consulting – Validation is not an Audit

Tuesday, May 24th, 2011

This is the time of year that plan sponsors are reviewing PBM consulting services to help negotiate  new PBM contracts. At WBC (www.wbcbaltimore.com) we see all sorts of consulting requests to help reduce the cost of prescription drugs. One that hasn’t been utilized as much as it should is invoice validation of a plan’s monthly PBM bill. What good does spending lots of time and money on negotiating the best PBM contract if there is no way to validate the delivery of the contract terms?

The PBM relationship can be a strange one. Where else does the customer not know what their purchases will cost; where the vendor can change pricing at any time, and at their discretion; and where the customer has to depend on the vendor to tell them how they are doing?  This fox sure knows a good deal when they can get it!

Every two weeks in the U.S., more than $12 billion in pharmacy benefit claims (PBM invoices) are paid by plan sponsors without review! Mistakes due to systems problems, coding errors, complexity of PBM contracts and ever-changing pricing discounts lead to errors that create payment confusion for the plan sponsor.  Without concurrent invoice review, a plan sponsor is probably paying significantly more than they should.

Fortunately, technology is now available that enables the review and analysis of unlimited claims data files in very rapid order. What use to take weeks can now be done in a few hours.  This is particularly meaningful when most PBM contracts require payment submission within 48 hours of receipt.  The platforms are PBM-agnostic, so any PBM’s invoice can be reviewed.  WBC helps plan sponsors with this critical prepayment validation service for prescription claims.  Our clients receive an immediate ROI with the first invoice we review.  The review includes:

  • Ingredient costs
  • Duplicate claims
  • Effective discount rates
  • Dispensing fee validation
  • Member cost share
  • Invalid NDC’s
  • Eligibility review
  • Med D subsidy
  • Regulatory compliance
  • Fraud, waste and abuse

A review system should be fully scalable, easily handling large or small claims volumes. Unlike end-of-year contract audits that are difficult to gain recoveries, our monthly monitoring provides cash flow controls and near real-time reporting delivered within hours of obtaining the necessary data feeds.  Discrepancies can be fully documented and deducted from that month’s invoice. Plus, this review is not an audit and should not trigger onerous audit  language found in many PBM contracts.

Adequate financial oversight is not just a compliance afterthought, it’s a necessity!  A comprehensive invoice review will help reduce fiduciary liability by improving regulatory compliance for Sarbanes-Oxley, Medicare Part D, GASB 45 or FAS 106.  Systems should have the ability to maintain a parallel reconciliation process aligned with internal audit and finance reporting calendars.

PBM Consulting – Reducing Pharmacy Benefit Costs, Part 2

Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011

The PBM contract remains the key element in reducing pharmacy benefit costs. At WBC (wbcbaltimore.com) we know that creating a favorable “client-focused” contract takes some work.  When challenged over language that sounds open-ended or uncertain, many PBMs rely on what I’ve come to call “The 4 most dangerous words in the PBM lexicon.” Those four words are “It’s Standard Industry Practice” and unfortunately, in many cases, it’s true.  Just because a large portion of the industry has been able to retain fuzzy language that doesn’t provide the client with well-defined and unambiguous guidance on key operational areas such as pricing, claims and audit rights to name a few, doesn’t mean that it’s right, or that it should continue.

Plan sponsors need to ask themselves whether the business philosophy deployed in their PBM Services Agreement is serving the needs of their  organization, or of the PBM and their shareholders. The PBM contract is one of the few business agreements that clients enter where they really don’t know what the product will cost; where the  vendor can adjust the price at any time; and where they have to ask the vendor “how are we doing?”

Just about every PBM contract begins with a definitions section and sets the stage for how the plan will operate.  Some of these terms look familiar and the plan sponsor would think, pretty straight forward, but that’s not always the case.  Here are a few key contract terms and definitions to consider:

  • AWP. Means Average Wholesale Price for a standard package size of a prescription drug from the most current pricing information provided by First DataBank or such other drug database supplier “as determined by the PBM at any time.”  Of course, the standard package size they mean is 100 units, regardless of the size that is filled, unless it’s a smaller size.  This enables the PBM to create pricing spreads based on different size quantities and to use multiple pricing sources, at their discretion.
  • Claim. Means those prescription drug claims processed through the PBM’s on-line claims adjudication system, but what about errors, duplicates and reversals?  Without clarification, the plan sponsor could be billed for everything, and if there is a per click admin. fee being charged, this can really add up. These “false claims” can represent as many as 20% of total claims!
  • Brand and Generic Drug.  Sometimes it’s not even mentioned in the contract.  In which case, the PBM is free to classify any prescription as one or the other, and then, reverse themselves, when advantageous.  For example, a single-source generic may be designated as a generic when the PBM calculates their generic fill rate (“GFR”) to meet contract guarantees, yet they may adjudicate the claim as a brand in order to assign a lower discount rate (the brand discount).
  • Rebate. Means monies the PBM receives from pharmaceutical manufacturers for formulary access and/or market share increases.  Many contracts, however, also say “excluding any other payments or fees.” What about all the other revenue streams that are payable by a pharma manufacturer?  In addition to base and market share rebates, these should include sales target incentives, prompt-pay discounts, data selling fees, administrative fees and rebates on specialty drugs.

There are many more definitions and contract provisions to consider when negotiating a PBM services agreement. The plan sponsor is well-served to include contractual language requirements as part of the RFP response, where vendors understand and accept the terms and conditions being requested.  That way, they can underwrite their pricing offer to reflect client requirements and should agree to be bound to the terms defined.  The client gains the advantage of using the leverage inherent in the RFP procurement process.

PBM Consulting – Reducing Pharmacy Benefit Costs, Part 1

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011

The most important document for reducing the cost of prescription drugs in the pharmacy benefit is the PBM contract.  At WBC (www.wbcbaltimore.com)  we know that this document or agreement for PBM services ultimately determines what the plan sponsors’ drug spend will be, and is driven by the key terms, definitions and provisions in the contract.

Actually, there are two contracts in a PBM relationship that are material for understanding how a sponsors’ plan will operate.  First, is the contract with the payor or plan sponsor.  This is what the PBM will invoice the plan sponsor for covered drugs used by plan members; and second, the contract between the PBM and the pharmacy. The second contract determines how much the PBM reimburses the pharmacy for filling the prescription. In many cases, the “buy” is not the same as the “bill.”

When selecting a PBM, a plan sponsor needs to understand the relationship between the business models used by the PBM and the impact that it has on your services agreement or contract.  A plan sponsor needs to ask themselves whether the goals and objectives as expressed in the type of services contract they receive, are aligned with their business needs and  objectives.

The first thing a plan sponsor needs to do when reviewing a contract for PBM services is to fully understand the 3 basic business models that are used by PBMs and will dictate which type of contract the plan sponsor will receive.

Traditional.  The oldest and most recognized in the PBM world and is built on the idea of spread-pricing.  This means that the PBM will pay a lower reimbursement to the pharmacy (whether retail or mail) and invoice the plan sponsor a higher amount.  The difference (or spread) is kept by the PBM for its efforts.  In addition to spread pricing, the traditional PBM model generates different sources of cash flow (rebates, data fees, manufacturers incentives, etc.) from the plan sponsors’ account and may or may not share any of  it with the plan sponsor.

Transparent. Has evolved from the Traditional model and tends to share more information regarding plan cash flows with the plan sponsor.  It really is more opaque than transparent, however, since the disclosure that  occurs usually involves telling the plan sponsor what they will not receive. 

Pass-Through.  Is the latest model which, as the name implies, passes through to the plan sponsor costs and revenues without creating pricing spreads or retaining hidden cash flow.  The only profit center for the PBM is in the form of an administrative services fee, which may be presented as either a per script transaction fee or on a PEPM basis.

Why is this so important? Aren’t all contracts pretty much the same? Well, they can be if the plan sponsor doesn’t know what to identify as potential problem areas and then, what to ask for in their contract. Also, make sure that if the plan sponsor is using a broker or consultant, that the broker/consultant is also subject to the same level of disclosure and transparency that is expected of the PBM. In many cases, the broker/consultant is being paid a transaction fee by the PBM that is selected.  Not only is this a flagrant opportunity for conflict of interest, it also may prevent the sponsor from seeing other competitive proposals from PBMs that are not invited to participate because they would not agree to undisclosed transaction fees.

 As previously mentioned, the contract does control the overall drug spend, and left unchecked, the plan sponsor will receive an Agreement with tons of “wiggle room” that allows the PBM maximum discretion and the ability to pretty much interpret key provisions anyway they want,  and usually in their favor.

PBM Consulting – Trouble at the Caremark Corral

Tuesday, October 5th, 2010

Six independent pharmacies in Texas have decided to sue CVS Caremark under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act, charging that the company’s Caremark pharmacy benefits management (“PBM”) division engaged in racketeering and violated HIPAA by gaining control over patient data and eliminating competition out of the retail pharmacy market. Pretty heavy stuff when the RICO card gets played!

WBC (wbcbaltimore.com) has been following this story with great interest. The CVS/Caremark saga has been something of an ongoing soap opera, with charges and counter-charges between industry rivals being leveled in a steady barrage since the companies merged.  Many plan sponsors, however, have sworn by the Caremark model, expressing great satisfaction with the integration of retail and PBM services along with the member convenience of Maintenance Choice, their 90-Day @ Retail option. 

The lawsuit claims CVS Caremark violates the firewall between the retail pharmacy and the PBM that was expressed and required by the FTC when they approved the 2007 merger of the companies. Instead, the combined company built an information technology platform that  captures in-depth patient data from all business units for marketing and other purposes in violation of HIPAA patient privacy laws. Additionally, the lawsuit claims that CVS/Caremark violates the Texas “Any-Willing-Provider” law by requiring prescriptions be filled at a CVS retail outlet.

The lawsuit also details  how the company plans to develop a “Consumer Engagement Engine” with “a comprehensive view of the patient.” This “Engagement Engine” is a detailed profile that would show the patient’s name, demographics, drug history, prescribers, health behavior, adherence patterns and communication preferences.

In response,  Carolyn Castel,  CVS/Caremark vice president for corporate communications, sent an e-mail regarding the lawsuit to a reporter last Friday. “We have learned that a new lawsuit has been filed, but we have not yet had a chance to review its contents,” she said. “CVS/Caremark is confident that its business practices and service offerings, which are designed to reduce health care costs and expand consumer choice, are being conducted in compliance with applicable antitrust, privacy and other laws.”

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are board members of American Pharmacies, a for-profit, member-owned pharmacy wholesale buying group. American Pharmacies is financing the lawsuit. Click (Here) for a copy of the complaint.

A review and whitepaper on how to select your PBM can be downloaded at our website (wbcbaltimore.com).