[Click to Enlarge]

Can payers save money on increasingly expensive prescriptions by setting prices based not on drugmakers’ wishes, but on how well the medicines control, contain or cure disease?

The notion of tying drug payments to results, called “pay-for-performance pricing” or “value-based pricing,” already is being tested by some health insurance companies, some pharmaceutical companies and Medicare. And just last week, the Oregon Health & Science University announced it will undertake a large-scale research project to examine how states could apply the concept to Medicaid.

Tyrone’s comment:  If all the savings are passed-back then great! But, value-based pricing is rife with hidden cash flow opportunities for non-fiduciary pharmacy benefit managers. Traditional or non-fiduciary PBMs are aware of the attention being paid to existing pricing arrangements or overpayments (see ESI, Anthem dispute) so this new pricing arrangement could serve a dual purpose; to show an effort to control costs AND protect their margins. Put another way, pay-for-performance arrangements provide an opportunity for non-fiduciary PBMs to protect margins while giving the “appearance” of reducing drug costs. How will a payer know when a drug has failed and just as important what happens to the revenue when a manufacturer credits it, for example? Remember this, better doesn’t necessarily mean good. The concept is both brilliant and misleading so close the loopholes!

If payers are able to adopt a workable performance- or value-based pricing system on drugs, they may be able to hold down spiraling Medicaid spending, said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors.

Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance plan for the poor, is staggering under escalating prescription drug prices just as patients and private insurers are, and the costs are straining state budgets. On average, roughly a quarter of a state’s budget goes to Medicaid spending.

Medicaid spending on prescription drugs for Medicaid recipients rose 24.3 percent between 2013 and 2014, in part owing to an increase in enrollment under the Affordable Care Act. That was nearly double the increase in total U.S. prescription drug spending in that same period, according to federal data.

And there’s every reason to think the increase in spending will continue as drugmakers prepare to introduce dozens more “specialty drugs,” high-priced, complex medications developed from living cells to treat chronic conditions such as hepatitis C, HIV, cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis.

Although they barely existed a decade ago, last year specialty drugs accounted for nearly a third of Medicaid spending, or about $16.9 billion. Specialty drugs make up just 1.5 percent of claims, but they could play a big role in the rise of Medicaid spending on drugs.

Something has to give, said Jeff Myers, CEO of Medicaid Health Plans of America, the trade association representing Medicaid managed care plans. “A system in which the manufacturers are pricing to get the most money out of taxpayers isn’t workable,” he said.

Pay-for-Performance

Currently, Medicaid and federal health plans such as Medicare and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs are constrained in bargaining with manufacturers over drug prices.

Pharmaceutical companies enter into agreements with the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on what drugs all state Medicaid programs will make available to patients. In return, the pharmaceutical companies agree to give the states fixed discounts off their average price.

But those prices are set by the manufacturers, and the manufacturers are not governed by any price ceilings, nor are the prices based on the drugs’ success, such as whether they control or cure a patient’s disease.

Pay-for-performance or value-based pricing would change that. It would tie payments for prescription drugs to their effectiveness, whether they did what they were designed to do.

How well do medications for high blood pressure or cholesterol, for example, keep patients in healthy ranges for each? How well do medications control symptoms of autoimmune diseases? How much do cancer drugs extend life? And how much do the drugs save the health care system by enabling patients to avoid medical treatments they no longer need?

How to Price

Evaluating the effectiveness of a drug will be essential to pricing under the concept. One tool health plans could use for evaluating cancer drugs to establish a price has been developed by the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, in New York.

Called the “DrugAbacus,” the tool creates a price for cancer drugs based on how many years of additional life they provide, the severity of their side effects, the rarity of the disease and the novelty of their chemistry.

<< Read More >>

Step #1:  Obtain a price list for generic prescription drugs from your broker, TPA, ASO or PBM every month.


Step #2:  In addition, request an electronic copy of all your prescription transactions (claims) for the billing cycle which coincides with the date of your price list.

Step #3:  Compare approximately 10 to 20 prescription claims against the price list to confirm contract agreement.  It’s impractical to verify all claims, but 10 is a sample size large enough to extract some good assumptions.

Step #4:  Now take it one step further. Check what your organization has paid, for prescription drugs, against our pharmacy cost then determine if a problem exists. When there is a 5% or more price differential (paid versus actual cost) we consider this a problem.

Multiple price differential discoveries means that your organization or client is likely overpaying. REPEAT these steps once per month.

— Tip —

Always include a semi-annual market check in your PBM contract language. Market checks provide each payer the ability, during the contract, to determine if better pricing is available in the marketplace compared to what the client is currently receiving.

When better pricing is discovered the contract language should stipulate the client be indemnified. Do not allow the PBM to limit the market check language to a similar size client, benefit design and/or drug utilization. In this case, the market check language is effectually meaningless.

Note: Prices listed herein are gross thus do not account for rebates, discounts or other purchase incentives which ultimately reduces the net cost.

Step #1:  Obtain a price list for generic prescription drugs from your broker, TPA, ASO or PBM every month.


Step #2:  In addition, request an electronic copy of all your prescription transactions (claims) for the billing cycle which coincides with the date of your price list.

Step #3:  Compare approximately 10 to 20 prescription claims against the price list to confirm contract agreement.  It’s impractical to verify all claims, but 10 is a sample size large enough to extract some good assumptions.

Step #4:  Now take it one step further. Check what your organization has paid, for prescription drugs, against our pharmacy cost then determine if a problem exists. When there is a 5% or more price differential (paid versus actual cost) we consider this a problem.

Multiple price differential discoveries means that your organization or client is likely overpaying. REPEAT these steps once per month.

— Tip —

Always include a semi-annual market check in your PBM contract language. Market checks provide each payer the ability, during the contract, to determine if better pricing is available in the marketplace compared to what the client is currently receiving.

When better pricing is discovered the contract language should stipulate the client be indemnified. Do not allow the PBM to limit the market check language to a similar size client, benefit design and/or drug utilization. In this case, the market check language is effectually meaningless.

Note: Prices listed herein are gross thus do not account for rebates, discounts or other purchase incentives which ultimately reduces the net cost.

[Click to Enlarge]

Douglas Adams wrote in Mostly Harmless, “a common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.” I’m reminded of this each time I read something about the Anthem, Express Scripts dispute or Wells Fargo.

This slide is a sledge hammer on the status quo and it will enable you to create a compelling case for change. It’s also the exact message non-fiduciary PBMs don’t want you to hear. Want to know more?

Register: https://attendee.gototraining.com/rt/3034343502849349634
  
A snapshot of what you will learn in this 30 minute webinar:

• Hidden Cash flows in the PBM Industry
• The definition of binding transparency (hint: there is no standard industry definition for transparency)
• How to calculate cost of pharmacy benefit manager services or CPBMS
• Why Anthem, Inc. sued Express Scripts Holding Co.
• The difference between actual acquisition cost and MAC 

See you Tuesday September 13 at 3:00 PM ET!

Sincerely,
Tyrone D. Squires, MBA  
TransparentRx  
2850 W Horizon Ridge Pkwy., Suite 200  
Henderson, NV 89052  
866-499-1940 Ext. 201

P.S.  Yes, it’s recorded.  I know you’re busy … so register now and we’ll send you the link to the session recording as soon as it’s ready.

Step #1:  Obtain a price list for generic prescription drugs from your broker, TPA, ASO or PBM every month.


Step #2:  In addition, request an electronic copy of all your prescription transactions (claims) for the billing cycle which coincides with the date of your price list.

Step #3:  Compare approximately 10 to 20 prescription claims against the price list to confirm contract agreement.  It’s impractical to verify all claims, but 10 is a sample size large enough to extract some good assumptions.

Step #4:  Now take it one step further. Check what your organization has paid, for prescription drugs, against our pharmacy cost then determine if a problem exists. When there is a 5% or more price differential (paid versus actual cost) we consider this a problem.

Multiple price differential discoveries means that your organization or client is likely overpaying. REPEAT these steps once per month.

— Tip —

Always include a semi-annual market check in your PBM contract language. Market checks provide each payer the ability, during the contract, to determine if better pricing is available in the marketplace compared to what the client is currently receiving.

When better pricing is discovered the contract language should stipulate the client be indemnified. Do not allow the PBM to limit the market check language to a similar size client, benefit design and/or drug utilization. In this case, the market check language is effectually meaningless.

Note: Prices listed herein are gross thus do not account for rebates, discounts or other purchase incentives which ultimately reduces the net cost.

Step #1:  Obtain a price list for generic prescription drugs from your broker, TPA, ASO or PBM every month.


Step #2:  In addition, request an electronic copy of all your prescription transactions (claims) for the billing cycle which coincides with the date of your price list.

Step #3:  Compare approximately 10 to 20 prescription claims against the price list to confirm contract agreement.  It’s impractical to verify all claims, but 10 is a sample size large enough to extract some good assumptions.

Step #4:  Now take it one step further. Check what your organization has paid, for prescription drugs, against our pharmacy cost then determine if a problem exists. When there is a 5% or more price differential (paid versus actual cost) we consider this a problem.

Multiple price differential discoveries means that your organization or client is likely overpaying. REPEAT these steps once per month.

— Tip —

Always include a semi-annual market check in your PBM contract language. Market checks provide each payer the ability, during the contract, to determine if better pricing is available in the marketplace compared to what the client is currently receiving.

When better pricing is discovered the contract language should stipulate the client be indemnified. Do not allow the PBM to limit the market check language to a similar size client, benefit design and/or drug utilization. In this case, the market check language is effectually meaningless.

Note: Prices listed herein are gross thus do not account for rebates, discounts or other purchase incentives which ultimately reduces the net cost.

Devised to shoulder some of the cost burden of prescription drugs, manufacturer co-pay card programs have been tied to improved adherence rates and reduced barriers to the discounted medications. At the same time, payers — insurers and PBMs alike — are crying foul.

While some industry veterans sing the praises of co-pay assistance programs, others are eager for a more evenhanded and efficient solution that will achieve the same degree of cost savings. In fact, the co-pay card appears to be stirring the controversy pot more than ever. Indeed, the question seems to have become: What will make it boil over?

UNHAPPY PAYERS

Click to Enlarge

But after more than a decade as an industry staple, the instant-rebate tactic has come under fire. Andrew Miller, VP of operations at pharmacy benefits manager MeridianRx, has grown increasingly concerned with the damaging effects of co-pay cards on payers. Consider insured patients who have been prescribed AbbVie’s Humira for their rheumatoid arthritis at $4,000 per month. After insurance and co-insurance kick in, they’re on the hook for $1,000 a month. But wait — the manufacturer just happens to have a co-pay coupon, which reduces the cost to zero.

What’s the problem, you ask? The insurer and the PBM didn’t get the memo. After six months of taking and paying for the medication, the PBM’s records show the patient paying $6,000 and capping out his out-of-pocket maximum — when, in fact, the patient has paid nothing — the drug company picked up the tab. “There needs to be collaboration to flag that a co-pay coupon has been used,” Miller stresses.

————————-

Tyrone’s comment: In the interest of full disclosure I know Andrew personally so my comments will not come as a shock to him. My position is that co-pay cards are a good thing for patients and plan sponsors but not so much for non-fiduciary PBMs. 

Here’s a quick story.

A few months back my mom shared with me that she was not on speaking terms with my uncle so I asked why. They often have these disagreements and all is back to normal in a few days. Apparently, she hired my uncle to repair her washer. Something had gone wrong such that it wouldn’t turn. It was an old top loading washer; my mom is frugal like that and won’t spend money on anything new unless it’s the last resort. 

They had agreed on a price of $100 plus parts. Turns out my uncle looked at the back of the machine adjusted some sort of wire and the job was done in 30 seconds!  My mom believed she overpaid and didn’t want to fork over the $100. She is wrong just like Andrew and here’s why.

1) The payer has agreed to its share of the cost so why be concerned with how the patient delivers their end of the bargain hence the washer story. Payers need to be more concerned about the manufacturer revenue PBMs are earning [and not passing back] than the assistance patients are receiving for drugs which don’t qualify for rebates in the first place. This leads me to bullet number two.

2) This is more about the rebate dollars PBMs aren’t getting. Manufacturers offer incentives (rebates, fees, discounts, expenses etc..) in exchange for market share (preferred formulary tier) and when they don’t get market share they don’t pay rebates or not nearly as much. So when a patient is prescribed a non-preferred medication it is likely in lieu of one that is preferred which means the PBM gets zero or less rebate dollars. Instead of paying the money (rebates) to PBMs, manufacturers are reallocating it to patients in the form of lower out-of-pocket costs to boost market share. 

3) Insurers will say they are still paying the same high prices with co-pay cards. The truth is they aren’t paying the same high prices because the tier determines their cost share. Tier 1 might be 80% cost to the insurer while Tier 3 is 50%, for example. If a plan sponsor’s formulary isn’t at least four tiers that is the problem not the co-pay cards. It is true rebates reduce net plan costs. But, so too do lower cost shares. 

4) The less money patients pay out-of-pocket the less likely they’re to be non-adherent which theoretically means reduced physician and hospital costs for the plan sponsor. 

As a fiduciary PBM, I could care less if a manufacturer is willing to fork over $1000, on a patients behalf, for a product we didn’t prefer or left completely off the formulary. We manage our formularies for outcomes and cost-effectiveness not for profit. Any revenue we receive from a manufacturer is passed back 100% to the plan sponsor which ultimately reduces net plan costs.

When two parties enter into an agreement one shouldn’t get upset how the other lives up to their end of the bargain provided it is done ethically and legally. Plan sponsors who don’t like co-pay cards probably agree with my mother’s initial reaction and have been influenced, either directly or indirectly, by non-fiduciary PBMs. My mom eventually paid the $100 now her and my uncle are again on good terms at least for now. 

————————-

THE ROCKY BACKGROUND

As prescription drug prices skyrocket, most notably for specialty medications, some consumers have simply been priced out of certain treatments. In theory, the co-pay card seems the perfect fix, lowering out-of-pocket expenses for commercially insured or cash-paying patients and, in doing so, expanding their treatment options.

“Adherence to doctor’s orders is one of the biggest challenges in the industry,” says Mike Boken, managing partner at BioCentric. And cost is arguably one of the biggest barriers to medication adherence. In fact, 27% of insured patients report a medication’s cost as the main reason for not filling a prescription, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll.

It’s difficult to measure just how much cost affects a patient’s ability — or willingness — to follow through with a prescribed medication. According to Boken, cost may be a major influence, but it’s not the only driver affecting adherence rates. “Sometimes adverse events can affect the numbers. Sometimes a patient simply doesn’t like taking a medication,” he says.

Either way, medication cost is an issue for providers, too. Physicians often factor in the depth of a patient’s pockets when prescribing a new medication — and therefore they have been among the biggest and most vocal supporters of co-pay coverage programs. In a CMI/Compas study of promotional preferences, physicians surveyed across nine specialties placed a higher value on patient assistance programs than sample and voucher programs.

Millennial physicians, in particular, are hardwired to think about pricing and often pepper sales reps with questions about coverage and patient costs. “Younger docs grew up with these programs,” Boken says. “They’re still trained to use generics first, but they’re open to co-pay programs.”

But Boken stresses that cost is neither a singular nor an isolated driver. “Newer products usually have some points of differentiation from the generic older products, but the clinical benefit has to be there,” he adds. “Sometimes when we talk about co-pays and payer issues, we lose sight of that.”

Bob Hastings, VP of marketing at co-pay program provider TrialCard, counters that co-pay cards give physicians more flexibility in treatment options. “Physicians are trained to be the experts. We prefer they make a therapeutic choice on behalf of a patient rather than on the formulary’s wishes.”

Read more >>