Tuesday Tip of the Week: Price Isn’t the Only Driver of Pharmacy Costs
![]() |
Click to Learn More |
![]() |
Click to Learn More |
![]() |
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.
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.
So, what is the difference between a fiduciary PBM and one that isn’t? There are some very big differences.
![]() |
Click to Register |
How many businesses do you know will voluntarily cut their revenues in half? This is the reason non-fiduciary pharmacy benefit managers are reluctant to offer radical transparency. Instead, they opt for hidden cash flow opportunities to foster growth. Want to learn more? Here is what some participants have said about the webinar:
“Thank you Tyrone. Nice job, good information.” David Stoots, AVP
“Thank you! Awesome presentation.” Mallory Nelson, PharmD
“Thank you Tyrone for this informative meeting.” David Wachtel, VP
“…Great presentation! I had our two partners on the presentation as well. Very informative.” Nolan Waterfall, Agent/Benefits Specialist
A snapshot of what you will learn during this 30-minute webinar:
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.
![]() |
Click to Learn More |
Jeenal Patel, PharmD, BCGP, a formulary manager for WellDyne, said pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and employers are increasingly turning to formulary exclusions to control the rising cost of drugs.
Tyrone’s Commentary:
The human resources department should anticipate some backlash from employees when formulary exclusions are adopted to help manage costs. The frustration associated with formulary exclusions can be alleviated by communicating the benefits to employees before adoption. Use multiple mediums to communicate with employees such as welcome letters, mobile notifications, member portal inbox messages, and SPDs, for example. If executed properly, formulary exclusions work without sacrificing patient outcomes. The good news is employees are smart and usually make the adjustment within 90 days or so.
Formulary exclusions are gaining popularity as a means of managing the type and cost of medications used. “Many times when you have an excluded or not-covered product, it’s perceived to be a stronger deterrent to usage versus having the product placed on a higher tier, controlled by prior authorization or step therapy,” Patel said.
Even in the specialty arena, we’re starting to see limited drugs available on formulary for narrow therapeutic areas and unique oncology indications, for example. We’re seeing decreased redundancy across the board in broader categories, such as psoriasis and arthritis,” Patel said. PBMs are finding exclusions “one of the more attractive ways to lower costs” and develop a more competitive pricing landscape, she said.
![]() |
CLICK TO ENLARGE |
The balancing of a plan sponsor’s rights in accessing valuable claims information and know-how and the PBM’s need to hide cash flows is dictacted, in large part, by the pharmacy services agreement. The contract nomenclature, and the clauses it prescribes, must provide a mechanism by which a proper balance between radical transparency and reasonable profits to the PBM may be struck.
Plan sponsors should not have to pay for their own data. If a PBM suggests it is their policy, it is a money grab nothing more. That cost and service should be built into their administartive fee. Oh wait, did you agree to the $0 admin fee and $0 dispensing fee? If yes, then this is the price you might pay in exchange for the artifically low administrative fees.
A radically transparent or fiduciary-model PBM makes money just one way – the administrative fee. When the administrative fee is artificially low (less than $4 per claim) the likelihood of your PBM being radically transparent is slim to none. In some form, it is generating huge overpayments or mark ups via hidden cash flow.
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.