Posts Tagged ‘Prescription Drug Costs’

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 – Express Scripts/Medco Lawsuits

Friday, March 30th, 2012

The Express Scripts acquisition of Medco is just around the corner and new lawsuits appear to try and muddy the water. At WBC (wbcbaltimore) we been telling readers for months that this deal would succeed, despite protests by the community pharmacists and drugstores associations, NACDS and NCPA. Express Scripts hoped to have approval from the FTC by the middle of next week, or certainly by their annual Outcomes Conference in the 3rd week of April. It would certainly ad to the festive mood in St. Louis!

Now, a federal lawsuit filed by these trade associations in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania tries to block what seems to be a fete accompli. This action, joined by the announced actions of several state Attorneys General, shows how serious these opponents of the expected “Expredco” are!  The same rhetoric is being used now as during the FTC review process: that this mega merger will create a huge new middleman that stands between patients and pharmacies and hurt competition.

It is unlikely, however, that after withstanding FTC scrutiny and winning approval, that these 11th-hour legal attempts to block the transaction will have much chance of prevailing.  It could be that these efforts are being attempted to negotiate some concessions in advance of having to actually negotiate beyond the courthouse steps.

The truth is, this “mega middleman” as claimed in lawsuits, really isn’t such an anti-competitive controlling force. As identified in earlier WBC blog posts, the combined entity of ESI and Medco represents approximately 31-32% of Rx’s filled (not the 40% claimed by opponents). Here’s the actual breakdown:

PBM Market Share By Annual Rx Volume

  1. Medco                               17.07%
  2. ESI                                    15.13%
  3. CVS/Caremark                 13.49%
  4. Argus                                 11.76%
  5. Optum Rx                          7.61%
  6. ACS                                   5.77%
  7. SXC                                   4.79%
  8. MedImpact                      3.93%
  9. Magellan                         3.43%
  10. Humana                           3.36%
  11. Catalyst/Regence          3.29%
  12. Aetna                                2.64%
  13. Other PBMs                     7.72%

Source:   AIS’s Quarterly Pharmacy Benefit Survey. Reported volume by 56 PBMs as of 4Q2011.

 

As usual, stay tuned as this story is the gift that keeps on giving!

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 – 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 – 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 – Specialty Drug Costs

Thursday, April 7th, 2011

Specialty drug costs will continue to grow and  dominate a plan sponsors’ drug spend if left unchecked (expected to grow from approx. 20-25% today to 45% of drug spend by 2030).  Surprisingly, as many as 50% of all Rx plan sponsors have not yet acted to implement a coordinated Specialty Drug Strategy(“SDS”). 

At WBC (wbcbaltimore.com) we’ve created a model program to help plan sponsors address this growing problem.

First, let’s define what we’re referring to as specialty drugs. These are infusion, injectable or oral medications that have:

  • High Cost ($600 or more per month or per dose; some treatments are >$1 million annually);
  • High Complexity (biotech process  of complex large molecules made from proteins);
  • High Touch (requires special handling and patient instruction).

They are used primarily to treat cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, MS, hemophilia and Hepatitis “C”, to name a few. Most of these conditions are impacting a relatively small patient population, but new biotech drug therapies are being developed to treat common chronic conditions such as diabetes and heart disease. What started as approx. 30 drugs in the 1990s has grown to over several hundred today with over 600 in the pipeline!

Challenges Faced by Plan Sponsors

First challenge, dealing with huge future cost increases. This will be due to dramatic increases in utilization and the ability for single-source manufacturers to set prices at whatever they want. The average “regular” Rx is approximately $700 annually; in specialty, it’s $18,000.

Second, there a big data collection challenges in order to understand true utilization. Only approx. 45% of a plan sponsors specialty drug spend is touched by their PBM.  The other 55% is processed through the medical plan benefit.  Very few plan sponsors can quote their total specialty drug PMPM cost.  As the wise old Rx sage once said “you can’t control what you can’t count.”

The last challenge of managing specialty drugs comes from the fact that this is a “high-touch” business. It requires knowing a lot about the patient and being able to assist with education, monitoring and compliance. Some plan sponsors worry that plan members or employees will object to this type of medication therapy management (“MTM”) as too intrusive.  

All of these challenges can be addressed  with the right strategic plan. When reviewing or negotiating your contract for PBM services, make sure that it includes a patient-centric approach with a real description of how specialty drugs will be managed. This should focus on the details on pricing discounts, waste control and management, distribution channels, education materials and monitoring services.

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!

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!