Reference Pricing: “Net” Invoice Cost for Top Selling Generic and Brand Prescription Drugs (Volume 106)

Why is this document important?  Healthcare marketers are aggressively pursuing new revenue streams to augment lower reimbursements provided under PPACA. Prescription drugs, particularly specialty, are key drivers in the growth strategies of PBMs, TPAs and MCOs pursuant to healthcare reform. 

The costs shared below are what our pharmacy actually pays; not AWP, MAC or WAC. The bottom line; payers must have access to “reference pricing.” Apply this knowledge to hold PBMs accountable and lower plan expenditures for stakeholders.

How to Determine if Your Company [or Client] is Overpaying


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.

PBM Tools Play Key Role in Managing Specialty Drug Costs

The increasing utilization and costs of specialty drugs will have a substantial impact on overall health care costs during the next decade.

Pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) tools that have successfully controlled costs in the traditional small-molecule drug categories will be critical to manage the increasing costs and requirements of the specialty drug category, according to a study published by sPCMA, a division of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association.

Financial Impact of Specialty Drugs: Current and Projected
In 2014, more than 500,000 Americans filled prescriptions with a value of at least $50,000. This data represents a 63% increase from 2013.

Specialty drugs, primarily biologic agents—such as adalimumab (Humira), sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), and glatiramer (Copaxone)—that treat inflammatory conditions, hepatitis C, and multiple sclerosis (respectively), among others, increasingly account for a significant proportion of overall health care spending.

It’s been estimated that by 2020, 9 of the 10 best-selling drugs (by revenue) will be specialty drugs that treat conditions such as those illustrated in Figure 1. The estimates also indicated that specialty drug spending could reach $400 billion, or 9.1% of national health spending.

However, revised estimates point to the increasing prevalence of biosimilars in the market. Biosimilars are anticipated to curtail the overall biologic market value growth by reducing specialty drug spending to $262 billion by 2019, according to sPCMA.

Specialty benefit design and management tools employed by PBMs will also play a significant role in controlling specialty drug spending, as well as ensuring optimal patient care and support.

[Click to Enlarge]


Specialty Benefit Design and Management
Specialty drugs frequently have unique shipping and storage needs, as a result specialty pharmacies are better equipped to procure, store, and dispense these treatments than traditional retail pharmacies. Furthermore, pharmacists and personnel at specialty pharmacies provide patient education and clinical support beyond the capabilities of a retail pharmacy.

The tools in the PBM arsenal are critical to ensure appropriate care for patients needing specialty drugs while managing the often extraordinary costs. A brief sampling of key tools follows:

  • Formulary management: Effective use of formularies can minimize overall medical costs, improve patient access to more affordable care, and provide patients improved quality of life.
  • Access and utilization management: Drug utilization review, prior authorization, step therapy, quantity or dose limits, and comparative effectiveness reviews can limit a patient’s exposure to inappropriate drugs and lower the high cost of treatment by favoring clinically effective, lower price products.
  • Adherence and compliance: PBMs use these programs to improve patient outcomes and reduce the overall cost of care.
  • Site of care optimization: Hospital outpatient is one of the most costly settings for the infusion of specialty injectable products.
  • Alternative sites of care: Site-of-care management, such as strategies to direct patients to more convenient and less costly sites of service, are critical and can save between 12% and 34% percent — up to $1.7 billion nationally per year.
  • Preferred specialty pharmacy networks: PBMs optimize drug distribution via specialty pharmacy networks to reduce inappropriate utilization, improve patient adherence, improve clinical outcomes, and reduce non-drug medical costs.

Summary
Comprehensive management approaches that monitor and balance patient care outcomes and costs will help PBMs ensure that new, innovative medications are readily available and affordable to the patients who need them most.

See more at http://www.ajpb.com/articles/pharmacy-benefit-manager-tools-play-key-role-in-managing-specialty-drug-costs.

Reference Pricing: “Net” Invoice Cost for Top Selling Generic and Brand Prescription Drugs (Volume 105)

Why is this document important?  Healthcare marketers are aggressively pursuing new revenue streams to augment lower reimbursements provided under PPACA. Prescription drugs, particularly specialty, are key drivers in the growth strategies of PBMs, TPAs and MCOs pursuant to healthcare reform. 

The costs shared below are what our pharmacy actually pays; not AWP, MAC or WAC. The bottom line; payers must have access to “reference pricing.” Apply this knowledge to hold PBMs accountable and lower plan expenditures for stakeholders.

How to Determine if Your Company [or Client] is Overpaying


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.

Hospitals launch specialty pharmacies to curb drug costs

With specialty drug spending soaring 60% in the past five years, large health systems have jumped into the specialty pharmacy business to assert some control over those costs by dispensing the drugs to their patients and covered employees.

Health systems say those pharmacies help them better manage outpatient drug costs. A growing number of insurance contracts and Medicare initiatives tie payments to quality metrics that reach beyond hospital stays to hold providers accountable for patients’ total medical costs, including drugs.

It’s also a robust business for those systems that can successfully negotiate with manufacturers and health plans so they can compete with the bigger players.

“It you want us to be responsible for the cost of care, allow us to be able to care comprehensively for these patients,” said Dick Schirber, a spokesman for ExceleraRx Corp., a for-profit specialty pharmacy services company owned by six health systems. Comprehensive care, Schirber said, includes managing the very expensive prescriptions that patients take at home for cancer or chronic diseases, so that providers have more control over waste as well as complications.

ExceleraRx provides services to system-owned specialty pharmacies, such as negotiating with drugmakers and handling data reporting.

Phoenix-based Banner Health started its own specialty pharmacy last year, taking its business away from Premier, which acquired Commcare Specialty Pharmacy in 2010 for $35.9 million. Banner employees enrolled in the system’s health plan were the pharmacy’s first customers.

“For everyone, everywhere, the pharmacy expense is increasing,” said Pam Nenaber, Banner’s CEO of pharmaceutical operations.

Banner Health hired three clinical pharmacists, three patient advocates and three staff members to support operations. The system also spent $1 million on a drug-dispensing robot for the specialty pharmacy’s new home-delivery service. The robot fills pill bottles, which are verified by a pharmacist before being shipped. Clinical pharmacists also talk to patients at home to answer prescription questions.

In the first year, Banner shaved about 1% off its specialty drug spending for about 1,200 workers and their families covered by the system’s employee health plan.

Health systems that own specialty pharmacies argue they can do a better job overseeing the use of the drugs they dispense. That’s because their pharmacies can easily access medical records, laboratory results and physician notes, allowing pharmacists to closely monitor the effectiveness of the drugs prescribed and react quickly when something goes wrong or patients need help.

“They know if the patient is getting the value for the high-cost drug,” said Steven Rough, director of pharmacy for the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, which began handling transplant drugs in 2006 and expanded its specialty pharmacy in 2011.

Launching a specialty pharmacy does not require significant capital investment, and the high prices of the drugs—even sold at slim margins—make it possible to quickly see a return on that investment.

“It’s a quite viable business,” said Scott Knoer, chief pharmacy officer at the Cleveland Clinic, which opened its specialty pharmacy roughly a year ago, and advises other systems to do the same. “Get on it and get on it fast,” he said.

That’s true even as the Ohio health system expands its operations. The pharmacy is hiring more staff because the volume of prescriptions has increased about 10% a month. It now employs 25 workers, and that number is expected to reach 66 employees within three years.

New drugs last year boosted spending for specialty pharmaceuticals 25% over the prior year, IMS Health reported in April. Specialty drugs to treat diseases such as cancer, multiple sclerosis and hepatitis C now account for one-third of drug spending. Sovaldi and other new treatments for hepatitis C boosted spending by $12.3 billion, IMS said.

Pharmaceuticals still account for just 10% of U.S. healthcare spending, but a 12.3% surge in 2014—including $12.6 billion spent on new specialty drugs to treat hepatitis C—contributed to the year’s uptick from the record-slow health spending that started with the Great Recession.

That growth makes dispensing specialty drugs an increasingly important piece of healthcare delivery, as well as an attractive business line, said John Ransom, a managing director of healthcare research at Raymond James. “It’s riding the wave of where the innovation is,” he said.

But systems will face fierce competition as they try to ride that wave, Ransom said. “It can be a tough business.”

They will have to vie with national pharmacies like CVS Health, Express Scripts and Diplomat Pharmacy to be included in health insurance networks. CVS and Express Scripts also own pharmacy benefit-management companies, so they “have a vested interest in limiting the network of specialty pharmacies because they are specialty pharmacies,” Ransom said.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers also limit shipping of some of their drugs to a handful of pharmacies, in what are called limited-distribution networks.

Getting a spot in drug manufacturers’ limited networks requires intense negotiation, and the capacity to report quality and use data back to drugmakers.

ExceleraRx, launched in 2012 with investment from Minneapolis-based Fairview Health Services, helps its owners and clients with those tasks. Englewood, Colo.-based Catholic Health Initiatives, which opened its own specialty pharmacies in Kentucky and Nebraska last year, invested in ExceleraRx to “supercharge” the new business line, said Nick Barto, the health system’s senior vice president for capital finance.

However, another danger for providers is that patients may begin to see them as “the organization that’s providing the drugs that you can’t afford,” said Benjamin Isgur, director of thought leadership at PriceWaterhouseCoopers’ Health Research Institute.

But health system executives say they’ve hired staff to help patients identify discounts, coupons and other financial aid for drug costs not covered by insurance. And health systems can further market their independence from shareholders and the pharmaceutical industry.

PBMs Provide Policy Solutions to Reduce Rx Costs, Increase Competition

Testifying before Congress, Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) President and CEO Mark Merritt outlined market-based policy solutions to help increase competition and lower prescription drug costs. The Committee is examining “methods and reasoning behind recent drug price increases” at a hearing titled, “Developments in the Prescription Drug Market.”
PCMA is the national association representing America’s pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs).  PBMs administer prescription drug plans for more than 266 million Americans who have health insurance from a variety of sponsors including: commercial health plans, self-insured employer plans, union plans, Medicare Part D plans, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), state government employee plans, managed Medicaid plans, and others.
PBMs are projected to save employers, unions, government programs, and consumers $654 billion—up to 30 percent—on drug benefit costs over the next decade according to new research.  PBMs reduce drug costs by:
  • Negotiating rebates from drug manufacturers.
  • Negotiating discounts from drugstores.
  • Offering more affordable pharmacy channels.
  • Encouraging use of generics and more affordable brand medications.
  • Managing high-cost specialty medications.
  • Reducing waste and improving adherence.
“The pricing tactics discussed today are just one piece of a much larger puzzle. The key to reducing costs is through competition. The challenge is we need more of it,” said PCMA President and CEO Mark Merritt. “There is also a growing use of bait-and-switch copay assistance marketing programs that encourage patients to ignore generics and start on more expensive brand drugs.”
Unlike programs for the poor and uninsured, copay offset programs are designed to encourage insured patients to bypass less expensive drugs for higher cost branded drugs.  Such practices are considered illegal kickbacks in federal programs and have long been under scrutiny by the Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG).
PCMA outlined several potential solutions for high drug prices that policymakers could consider, including:
Tyrone’s Comment:
There is no mention by PCMA (a lobbying arm of legacy PBMs) to cut PBM service costs by eliminating the hidden cash flows from which traditional PBMs hugely profit. The focus is seemingly always “high drug cost” which is somewhat misleading.  A pharmacy benefit is inherently expensive, but even more so when PBMs drive incremental revenue through arbitrage. The solutions outlined below by PCMA are all self-serving and here’s why.
  • Accelerating FDA approvals of me-too brands against drugs that face no competition. Puts traditional PBMs in a better negotiating position for larger rebates.
  • Accelerating FDA approvals of generics to compete with off-patent brands that face no competition. Generic drugs provide traditional PBMs higher gross margins, compared to brand drugs, and are more likely to be refilled (more volume) by patients.
  • Creating a government “watch list” of all the off-patent brands so potential acquirers are aware that policymakers can monitor these situations. This is related to Martin Shkreli and is nothing more than an attempt to curry favor with politicians and to divert attention away from the real issue; the lack of transparency traditional PBMs provide.
  • Making copay coupons an illegal kickback for all insurance that receives any federal subsidy. Pharmaceutical manufacturers often use co-pay coupons to skirt PBM formulary decisions especially when these decisions don’t favor (i.e. tier 3 or non-formulary) the manufacturer. Traditional PBMs want to protect rebate dollars from those Tier 1 and Tier 2 brands which pay said rebates. 

NCPA to Congress: Scrutinize PBM Corporations as Part of Drug Cost Review

Increased transparency into the business practices and potential conflicts of interests of pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) corporations could provide tangible benefits to payers, patients and pharmacists, the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA) said in comments submitted to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which held a hearing today on the prescription drug market.
“The current business climate seems to be one in which market power is increasingly concentrated in an ever-shrinking number of corporate entities,” NCPA said in its comments. “In particular, the overly concentrated and largely unregulated PBM industry exerts immense influence over how prescription drugs are accessed by the majority of Americans.

Given the fact that the federal government is the largest single payer of health care in the United States, it makes financial sense for Congress to demand increased transparency into this aspect of the prescription drug marketplace in order to identify potential savings.”

NCPA raised the following issues for the attention of committee members and staff:
Source: 2014 ERISA Advisory Council
  • The powerful PBM market is concentrated and dominated by three large corporations that each reap staggering annual revenues and are not subject to industry-wide regulation.
  • The lack of transparency allows PBM corporations to collect lucrative rebates from pharmaceutical manufacturers and “mark up” the cost of medication, charging the health plan more than the pharmacy is reimbursed. Increased PBM transparency may provide plan sponsors with a greater ability to negotiate more competitive contracts with these vendors in the first place, reducing costs.
  • Independent community pharmacies must agree to “take it or leave it” contracts from PBMs to continue serving longstanding patients, due to the large corporations’ disproportionate market power.
  • Community pharmacists have zero insight or transparency into generic drug reimbursement rates and routinely incur losses when those rates do not cover pharmacy acquisition and dispensing costs, jeopardizing patient access to community pharmacies and prescription drugs.
The National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA®) represents the interests of America’s community pharmacists, including the owners of more than 22,000 independent community pharmacies. Together they represent an $81.4 billion health care marketplace and employ more than 314,000 individuals on a full or part-time basis.
To learn more, go to www.ncpanet.org.

Reference Pricing: “Net” Invoice Cost for Top Selling Generic and Brand Prescription Drugs (Volume 104)

Why is this document important?  Healthcare marketers are aggressively pursuing new revenue streams to augment lower reimbursements provided under PPACA. Prescription drugs, particularly specialty, are key drivers in the growth strategies of PBMs, TPAs and MCOs pursuant to healthcare reform. 

The costs shared below are what our pharmacy actually pays; not AWP, MAC or WAC. The bottom line; payers must have access to “reference pricing.” Apply this knowledge to hold PBMs accountable and lower plan expenditures for stakeholders.

How to Determine if Your Company [or Client] is Overpaying


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.

New York requires PBM contracts to include dispute resolution provisions

Image result for legislationOn Dec. 11, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo signed Senate Bill 3346-B, requiring contracts between pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and pharmacies (or pharmacies’ contracting agents) to include a mechanism for appeals for contract disputes relating to multi-source generic drug pricing.

Pharmacy benefit management contracts must include the following provisions regarding appeals:

The right for a pharmacy to appeal for 30 days following an initial claim submitted for payment;
a telephone number through which a network pharmacy may contact the PBM for the purpose of filing an appeal and an electronic mail address of the individual who is responsible for processing appeals;

  • The PBM must send an email acknowledging receipt of the appeal and respond in an email to the pharmacy (and/or the pharmacy’s contracting agent) filing the appeal within seven business days indicating its determination. If the appeal is determined to be valid, the maximum allowable cost for the drug shall be adjusted for the appealing pharmacy effective as of the date of the original claim for payment. The PBM must require the appealing pharmacy to reverse and rebill the claim in question in order to obtain the corrected reimbursement;
  • If an update to the maximum allowable cost is warranted, the PBM or covered entity shall adjust the maximum allowable cost of the drug effective for all similarly situated pharmacies in its network in NY State on the date the appeal was determined to be valid; and
  • If an appeal is denied, the PBM must identify the national drug code of a therapeutically equivalent drug, as determined by the federal Food and Drug Administration, that is available for purchase by pharmacies in NY State from wholesalers registered under NY law at a price which is equal to or less than the maximum allowable cost for that drug as determined by the PBM.
Tyrone’s Comment –
From a plan sponsor perspective, this legislation is important because it sheds a bright light on spreads or the difference in what PBMs charge plan sponsors to fill prescriptions and what they in turn pay pharmacies to dispense those prescriptions. This difference often leads to greater profits for the PBM at the expense of plan sponsors. The spread is a prime contributor to why one pharmacy may charge your plan very little and another may charge very much for the same generic medication.
  1. Contracted rate is the reimbursement rate that a specific pharmacy or pharmacy chain contractually agrees to accept for processing prescription drug claims on behalf of a specific PBM
  2. Effective rate is the actual blended performance rate of discount for the AWP, accounting for differences in reimbursement rate among individual pharmacies and the net effect of drugs that process at a customary level (the pharmacy’s retail price of a drug), which may be lower than the negotiated AWP discount
According to reporting by Fortune magazine reporter Katherine Eban, Meridian Health System audited its spending on employee medications to learn the scope of spread pricing. For the antibiotic amoxicillin, Meridian was billed $92.53 when an employee filled the prescription, but its PBM paid only $26.91 to the pharmacy to fill the same prescription. That amounted to a spread of $65.62 for only one prescription.
In another instance, Meridian was billed $26.87 for a prescription of azithromycin. The PBM paid the pharmacy $5.19 to dispense the prescription, creating a spread of $21.68. While the PBM continually promised savings, Meridian paid $1.3 million in unnecessary prescription benefits costs to this vendor due to the spread, according to Eban.

Senate Bill 3346-B will be codified as NY Public Health Law § 280–A and takes effect March 10, 2016.

By  Serj Mooradian

Reference Pricing: “Net” Invoice Cost for Top Selling Generic and Brand Prescription Drugs (Volume 103)

Why is this document important?  Healthcare marketers are aggressively pursuing new revenue streams to augment lower reimbursements provided under PPACA. Prescription drugs, particularly specialty, are key drivers in the growth strategies of PBMs, TPAs and MCOs pursuant to healthcare reform. 

The costs shared below are what our pharmacy actually pays; not AWP, MAC or WAC. The bottom line; payers must have access to “reference pricing.” Apply this knowledge to hold PBMs accountable and lower plan expenditures for stakeholders.

How to Determine if Your Company [or Client] is Overpaying


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.

Employers Turn to Deductibles, Out-of-Pocket (OOP) Limits to Manage Prescription Drug Costs

dbn1701.jpg
[Click to Enlarge]

A new survey report from the Pharmacy Benefit Management Institute (PBMI) finds that the use of pharmacy deductibles and annual out-of-pocket limits is rapidly rising among employers. But as plan sponsors look for ways to manage mounting drug costs, the report identifies several opportunities to improve cost management and/or clinical management without having to shift additional costs to members.

According to PBMI’s 2015-2016 Prescription Drug Benefit Cost and Plan Design Report, sponsored by Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 36% of employers reported having a prescription drug benefit deductible in 2015, compared with only 14% the year before. Plan sponsors are also shifting more costs to members through annual out-of-pocket limits, which were used by 33% of employers in 2015, up from 18% in the prior year’s survey. The survey results are based on the responses of 302 U.S. employers representing 16.3 million lives.

Sharon Frazee, Ph.D., vice president of research and education at PBMI, says the 22-percentage-point jump in deductible use is particularly “striking” given that deductibles have historically been much more common in the medical benefit, but not surprising since employers want to continue to provide an affordable benefit without raising premiums. “Consumers are not accustomed to this, and it’ll be interesting to see what happens as far as member satisfaction and in terms of clinical impact,” she suggests to DBN.

Meanwhile, several opportunities exist for greater plan sponsor adoption of utilization management tools such as reference-based pricing, pill-splitting and step therapy, observes PBMI. “Step therapy is really one of the bread-and-butter kinds of things for cost management and it’s something I think most consumers are used to, but it’s only used by 60% of smaller employers,” Frazee points out, referring to the 155 survey respondents with 5,000 or fewer covered lives. By comparison, nearly 80% of larger employers reported using step therapy in 2015. And reference-based pricing was used by only 11% of employers overall, compared with 12% the year before.

Tyrone’s Comment:  For those organizations seeking to lower pharmacy benefit service costs, reference pricing is one of the most overlooked tools. Every week I publish a list of prescription drugs and their true acquisition costs along with reference pricing instructions. It is a simple and inexpensive way to conduct effective data-mining without the huge overhead associated with big data analytics software. Companies willing to allocate 8 hours, per month, for reference pricing analysis can realize a significant reduction in PBM service costs seemingly overnight. Managing pharmacy related costs is no longer just an HR responsibility; it is a fiduciary one.    

The report also identified opportunities to squeeze out additional savings through pharmacy network innovation. For example, 29% of respondents in 2015 report using a preferred pharmacy network, while only 13% were using a limited network (i.e., eliminating at least one major pharmacy chain). Meanwhile, 60% of employers offer a 90-day-at-retail option, but only about one-third of them require that members obtain their 90-day supply of maintenance medications from a limited network pharmacy.

SOURCE: The Pharmacy Benefit Management Institute 2015-2016 Prescription Drug Benefit Cost and Plan Design Report, sponsored by Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Click here to download the report.