Effective January 1, 2014, the community rating provision of Healthcare Reform goes into effect for small employers. Experience tells us that costs will increase. Lets take a look at what it may mean to you in dollars and cents. Most have heard that the new Healthcare Reform bill was projected to cost $850 billion. Many of us have heard the revised estimate of $1.2 trillion. Not many of us can explain $1.2 trillion in layman’s terms. The government hasn’t shared specifics about the cost in any meaningful way. So for many, the “cost of healthcare reform” becomes a point of conversation without much reality connected to it. We know the reform will level the playing field in terms of cost. Generally, rating will be based on broad geographical areas with little ability to modify the rates to account for differences in risk. This rating strategy is called “community rating”. Let’s compare community rating to the way groups are currently rated in Ohio (our primary warehouse location). There is general scuttlebutt that the Blue Cross plans will fare the best and gain the most in the healthcare reform implementations. It may or may not be a coincidence that Blue Cross of Michigan also “community rates” their coverage. In Ohio, many groups fall under a formula of rating that takes employee and dependent health into the formula to calculate rates for insurance coverage. In Ohio there are 36 rating tiers. Tier 1 is reserved for the healthiest risk. Tier 36 is the maximum rate applied to the worst risk. Let’s compare the same company as if it were located in Toledo, Ohio, on Alexis Road (1/2 mile south of the Ohio/Michigan border) and then re-rate the same group, except assume the company is located in Lambertville, Michigan, on Smith Road (1/2 mile north of the Ohio/Michigan border). In Ohio they could have a range of rates, from Tier 1 to Tier 36, depending on the health risks present. In Michigan … just one mile north, all companies would pay the same rate because of the community rating system. Here is a rate comparison for a $3000 deductible HSA plan:                                                              Ohio Tiered Rate                               Michigan                                                Best Risk                      Worst Risk           Community Rating Employee Only: $245 $343 $303 Employee/Spouse: $486 $681 $727 Employee/Child: $339 $474 $727 Employee/Children: $485 $678 $878 Family/Child: $580 $812 $878 Family/Children: $726 $1017 $878 Calculate the total premiums of your group to see the cost comparison between tiered and community rating. Most find that community rating is about 50% more expensive than the Tier 1 (best risk) rate and almost 7% higher than the Tier 36 (worst risk) rates in Ohio. Of course, the employer’s dependent status will vary by employer. It is difficult to understand how costs will be less under the new healthcare reform program. This comparison is a casual look at what employers may expect in term of costs. Poor procedures cost thousands… The price…

As a valued reader of the Payors Guide to Pharmacy Benefit Managers, we are happy to provide you with this week's newsletter - It's News to me!  We are focused on your success and thankful for the partnership to provide helpful cost-saving solutions and information.  Have a great day! Discount Prescription Drug Coupons No BargainWith the popularity of daily-deal sites such as Groupon, it probably shouldn't be surprising another industry is capitalizing on the concept.  As the cost of prescription drugs soars, more patients are turning to online coupons, drug company discount cards and promotional offers in magazines to save money. Read more (USA Today) Top 100 Drug Store Markets: Dueling formatsIn the battle for market share among chain drug retailers, store formats are pre-empting numbers.  Rather than seeking to dominate metropolitan areas by saturating them with new stores, drug chains are seeking to draw shoppers with distinctive retail concepts.  Read more (Chain Drug Review) Healthcare Collaboration Strategies Gaining GroundWith looming budget, pressures and payment penalties, one would think most executives of high-performing organizations wouldn't eagerly share their “secret sauce” for better outcomes and lower costs, lest it give competitors an edge.  Read more (Health Leaders) Medication Bar-Coding Reduces Errors, Ushers Big SavingsA newly implemented medication bar-coding system at the Michigan-based Beaumont Health System helped the organization prevent some 23,500 possible drug errors within a six-month time period, officials announced Friday.  Read more (Healthcare IT News) Emerging Trends Shaping the Future of Medication AdherenceBased on recent patient and prescriber research and extensive experience in implementing comprehensive adherence solutions, the trends identified suggest that effective solutions must address the underlying barriers to adherence with integrated solutions designed to modify behavior.  Read more (Journal of Patient Compliance)

Large employers and insurers such as Blue Cross & Blue Shield, United Healthcare and Aetna are offering telemedicine as a way to lower overall healthcare costs.  Specifically, physician visits are cheaper thus reducing the total costs for new and refill prescriptions, if applicable.  Supporters also see it as a way to fight the impending doctor shortage.  Some, however, are concerned about the trend. Opponents say getting medical advice over a computer or telephone is appropriate only when patients already know their doctor.  Others are concerned that lower co-payments, and other incentives, will spur consumers to see doctors or nurses online just too save money.  The argument is that people will choose the more economical option, even if it is not the option they want.  Employers, however, will reap the most benefit. Employees appreciate the low cost, convenience and efficiency.  Online consultations can run as low as $10 compared to $100 for a face-to-face visit.  The global telemedicine business is projected to almost triple to $27 billion in 2016, according to BBC Research.  Virtual care is a form of communication whose time has come and can be instrumental in lowering costs. One major obstacle remains.  Many state medical boards make it difficult for doctors to practice telemedicine, especially interstate care, by requiring a prior doctor-patient relationship, sometimes involving a prior medical exam.  The situation in these states is getting worse, not better.  In 2010, the Texas Medical Board effectively created a rule which blocks a physician from treating new patients via telemedicine. The only exception is if the patient has been referred by another physician who evaluated him or her in person.  The Texas Medical Board insists on licensing doctors in their state so that if something goes bad, a patient is injured, they have means to help.  From my point of view, this is a fair argument provided it is true.  Some medical boards are reducing restrictions, in mostly rural states, such as Nevada and New Mexico easing the licensing process. The most common problems treated online are routine sinus and bladder infections, pinkeye, upper respiratory illness and minor skin rashes.  The patient completes a questionnaire (takes about 15 minutes) then connects with a physician via webcam, Internet connection and microphone.  The physician then sends an electronic prescription to the pharmacy that can be picked up in minutes. NowClinic and Virtuwell are just two companies that currently offer this type of service to employers. Telemedicine is not intended to replace the intimacy of a patient-doctor relationship instead the intent is to supplement it through efficiency and lower costs.  Every self-insured employer should be taking a serious look into telemedicine for both its employees and bottom line.

Of all the deceptive practices employed by health insurers, affecting both patients and plan sponsors, out-of-network coverage or lack there of may stand high above the rest.  In 2009, health insurers were accused of manipulating data which ultimately resulted in overpayments [patient] amounting too several hundred million dollars. The insurers settled and agreed to set up an objective database of doctors' fees that patients and plan sponsors could rely upon.  However, the settlement didn't require insurers to use it.  Instead of using the new $95 million database, all of which was paid for by insurers, they pulled the classic bait and switch.  Insurers began determining out-of-network reimbursement rates based upon Medicare rates. In most instances, a policy mimicking Medicare rates reduces reimbursement more drastically than the initial rates regulators were trying to increase.  Doctors receive lower payments for services rendered and patients have significantly higher out-of-pockets costs.  I don't defend insurers' exorbitantly low out-of-network rates, but can you can see the hypocrisy from regulators in so far as Obamacare? Today, most health plans have one level of benefits for care rendered by an in-network provider and a lower benefit for services from an out-of-network provider.  Insurance carriers encourage use of in-network providers because doing so helps control claim costs. In-network providers have contracted with the insurance companies to provide medical care at reduced prices.  In exchange, the insurance companies direct patients to the in-network providers.  The arrangement increases business for the providers and decreases claims cost for the insurance company. Treatment out-of-network is a different story.  Out-of-network providers have no agreement or incentive to reduce prices and control cost.  At times, however, they may provide a level of care or service that a particular patient needs or wants.  Patients seeking care out-of-network need to be aware of the way their benefits will be calculated.  There is more to it than the out-of-network deductible and co-insurance. Insurance policies have clauses and exclusions against treatment that is not medically necessary. There are also provisions that the carrier only allows the Usual, Customary, and Reasonable (UCR) charge for a service provided.  Over the last few years, many carriers have begun to define their allowable charge or UCR limit as the amount negotiated with in-network providers.  The difference can be substantial.  For instance, if the retail price of a surgery is $4000, the discounted amount could be $2500, a $1500 discount. When his son, Ethan, was a baby, doctors said he had a rare liver disease.  The family, which was in a health maintenance organization, had to appeal three times to get approval for the out-of-network surgery that saved the boy, now 10.  So Mr. Glaser was overjoyed two years ago when his employer switched to a PPO that promised out-of-network coverage.  Including premiums and deductibles, he and his employer paid about $14, 600 a year for family coverage.  But he discovered that at 150% of Medicare rates, it still fell far short.  In the case of a $275 liver check up, for example, the balance due was $175. (NY Times 4/24/2012) Jennifer C. Jaff said she…

Express Scripts – Incumbent PBM Total Retail Retail Brand Generic RX COUNT 7,257 2,769 4,488 AWP $809,015.64 $513,092.61 $295,923.03 INGREDIENT COST $587,723.37 $429,827.37 $157,896.00 DISPENSE FEE $8,799.05 $4,065.80 $4,733.25 GROSS COST $596,522.42 $433,893.17 $162,629.25 MEMBER COPAY $50,959.29 $29,030.77 $21,928.52 PLAN COST $545,563.13 $404,862.40 $140,700.73 AVG. DISCOUNT 27.00% 16.00% 47.00% TransparentRx, LLC Total Retail Retail Brand Generic RX COUNT 7,257 2,769 4,488 AWP $809,015.64 $513,092.61 $295,923.03 INGREDIENT COST $517,006.90 $432,483.51 $84,523.38 DISPENSE FEE $17,672.50 $6,712.50 $10,960.00 GROSS COST $534,679.40 439.196.01 $95,483.38 MEMBER COPAY $50,959.29 $29,030.77 $21,928.52 PLAN COST $483,720.11 $410,165.24 $73,554.86 AVG. DISCOUNT 36.00% 16.00% 71.00% PER YEAR NOTE SPREAD SAVINGS $61,843.02 Identified spread (the difference between the PBM pharmacy contract and the PBM plan contract) typically retained by the PBM. REBATES $18,142.50 The average expected Rebate is $2.00 to $3.00 per claim. GENERIC UTILIZATION RATE 62.00% $34,000.00 Estimated savings on four targeted Generic/Therapeutic Switches. MAIL-ORDER DISPENSING RATE 25.00% $29,000.00 Estimated savings when 35% of Rx's dispensed via retail change to our mail-order program. TOTAL SAVINGS $142,985.52 - $36,461.31 PEPM* = $106,524.21 *PEPM or per employee per month fee.

Alecia Beth Moore made an insightful comment during a recent interview.  You may know Alecia better by her stage name Pink, the pop music star.  Alecia recently gave birth to her first child and like most new parents is very protective of her first born. Asked if she would like her child to become a pop star she stated very succinctly, "I just want her to be talented because the world is cruel too those whom lack talent."     I'll take this one step further and say those who lack information and/or knowledge are at the mercy of the world.  This is true in all walks of life and the pharmacy benefit management industry is no exception.  In the past few days several events have occurred where a lack of knowledge would have deemed me as a patsy.   On Wednesday September 26, 2012 I picked up a rental vehicle from the Cleveland airport.  The original reservation called for a mid-size automobile.  Since I was driving approximately 100 miles to our warehouse, I wanted to keep gasoline costs reasonably low.  Hence the request for a small automobile.  Those of you whom travel quite a bit I'm sure appreciate the Hertz Gold and Avis Preferred services.  As I approached the space where my vehicle was parked I noticed that it was not a Chevy Cruze but instead a SUV!    My first thought was, "wow a complimentary upgrade."  Then it dawned upon me that no one is renting these vehicles due to the high cost of gasoline.  A few years ago I couldn't get a free upgrade even if I got on my knees and begged for it.  Now Avis is giving away free SUV upgrades. I, with a smug, walked to the customer service counter and kindly requested a compact or mid-size automobile.  This saved our company $100 in unnecessary travel cost during the four day rental.    This past Sunday, September 30, 2012, I spent with friends at a local bar watching the football games.  All went as planned including my having to pay for the tab.  Because most of my friends are single women, this isn't a big deal.  All that changed when the bartender handed me the bill.  I knew he was a shady character from the outset and like many people in a business transaction will dupe you if the door is left open. I had been watching the bartender all evening and noticed he was pouring drinks for customers different from what they originally ordered.  I'm assuming his logic was they've been drinking all day so no one will notice the difference between Smirnoff and Grey Goose.  So, I'll charge you for the Grey Goose and pocket the difference. Nonetheless, my bill was a lot higher than it should have been and included a tip! I told him exactly what I owed -and why- saving myself $75 in the process.  Lastly, I purchased an 8 x 4 cork board from TigerDirect.com for $145.00.  I was able to find this product…

As prescription drug costs continue to increase, plan sponsors are looking for ways to cut said costs such as reducing spouse and dependent coverage.  While total health care is predicted to rise 5.3%, to $11,507 per employee in 2012, the increase is slowing. More recently, employers have been increasing employee premiums, although this tactic can only be pushed so until diminishing returns begins to rear its ugly head [decreased employee retention]. Also, if healthy employees opt out of coverage self-insured employers might lose money.  That is why most companies keep premium increases in line with their cost increase. Among other changes to improve prescription drug costs employers should consider these options for 2013 and beyond: The adoption of account-based health plans, which include health savings accounts and health reimbursement accounts.  The higher deductibles in these plans shifts more of the cost to employees.  In many cases, the only costs are attributed solely to prescription drugs. Some companies, 38%, will reduce spouse and dependent coverage, while 29% will use spousal waivers or surcharges. As employees have to pay more to cover family members it may be more economical for the husband to be under one plan and the wife under another. Limit company reimbursements for prescription drugs to only generic and specialty medications.  While brand medications help successfully treat many diseases, their generic counterparts prove to be therapeutically equivalent where efficacy is the primary concern. Some might say generics don't work and in this case my suggestion is too try another. A different manufacturer's product will do the job in many cases. Offer telemedicine consultations next year.  It is cheaper to contact a doctor by phone, e-mail and Skype rather than go to an office.  And an employee doesn't have to leave the workplace.  It's most often used for acute ailments such as flu and allergies.  It is not considered as a substitute to a doctor's visit.  When a prescription is required the doctor may simply forward an e-script to the employee's pharmacy of choice. Eliminate prescription drug coverage all together and instead pay for access to some sort of discount program or online pharmacy. Web sites like PrescriptionGiant.com may negotiate significant savings over chain drug stores and discount cards.  Employers could potentially eliminate huge mark-ups, administrative fees and other hidden costs that tend to be significant.  Obviously, PPACA guidelines will have to be considered in this scenario. Most employers we surveyed, 90%, are committed to offering health care benefits.  They know it's needed to attract and retain the best employees.  Still that leaves 10% whom are not committed.  If just one multi-national corporation stops offering health benefits then that will trigger other employers to follow suit even though most "say" they are committed to offering it.

You've seen them in junk mail, doctor offices and grocery stores.  Prescription drug discount cards are ubiquitous and said to offer up to 75% savings on prescription drugs at retail pharmacies.  Is this really true?  Of course not.  In fact, prescription drug discount cards are one of the most misleading facets of the consumer drug industry. Prescription drug discount cards are targeted for two sets of people:  uninsured and under-insured patients. Typically, no personal information is required as the cards are prepared in advance with all the necessary information.  For the purpose of this post, I consider participants of a HSA or other CDHC (consumer-directed health care) plan as under-insured. It's not too difficult for drug discount card companies to gain access to large pharmacy networks of 55,000 or more.  Furthermore, many of these drug discount card companies don't have much infrastructure at all.  In some cases, they are run from a home office giving one the impression they're a huge company with hundreds of employees and equal buying power.  Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is how the prescription drug discount card works.  One simply picks up a card at their doctor's office, grocery store or dry cleaners - there is no registration required.  If a particular card requires registration undoubtedly the information is used for marketing purposes and not to activate the supposed discount guarantee.  At the time of a new or refill prescription, the card is taken to the pharmacy and presented to the pharmacist for any applicable discount.  The pharmacist or pharmacy technician will then enter the BIN, Group and Member ID numbers. Now the bait and switch begins.  The discounts promised by the cards are in many cases accurate. But, the starting point (original cost) is misleading.  The discount is based upon AWP or average wholesale price.  AWP is not the cost of the drug for the patient, pharmacy or manufacturer.  It is an arbitrary price used, in my opinion, to mislead the public and other non-informed purchasers of prescription drugs. For example, the AWP for Metformin 500 mg x 90 is $125.00, but the actual cost to the pharmacy is only $6.50.  Your discount card offers 50% off ($62.50) Metformin and you think wow I saved $62.50 ($125 - $62.50)! Unbeknownst to you is Joe's Corner Pharmacy, without a card, would've agreed to a negotiated price of $12.50.  That difference or $50 is essentially a shared profit between the card issuer and network manager.  You've effectively been hustled. In the past, it was hard work; sweat and tears which gave people a big advantage.  Today, it is knowledge.  Those who have it win and those who don't get duped.  Think of the AWP as MSRP or manufacturer's suggested retail price.  Would you ever pay MSRP for a new automobile?  Strive to be well-informed about all your health care purchasing decisions and you'll avoid being a patsy.

This week I was faced with an interesting dilemma. One that I've advised many clients recently, but it takes a different dynamic when it affects you personally.  I pride myself on the do as I do, not as I say philosophy. During the past year, I've been in the market for a new pharmacy management software system. My research has concluded thus two options remain; Mckesson Enterprise or QS/1. The Mckesson software package offers all the bells and whistles plus the ability to easily scale as our business continues to grow. That a company with over $50 billion in annual revenue offers such a product is not surprising. In addition to the standard features expected in a pharmacy management system, Mckesson Enterprise also has integrated credit card processing, electronic PDMP reporting, and workflow management.  Unfortunately, it also comes with a mandatory cost of $7,000 for on-site training and purchase of one PC workstation. The QS/1 system is installed with every feature required:  SaaS or web-based, PDMP reporting, DUR, and claims submission. Yet, there is no additional expense for training or purchase of a PC workstation.  The QS/1 account manager recommended on-site training (at an additional cost), but I inquired about remote training and my request was happily granted.  Furthermore, the monthly maintenance fee was almost 50% less than that of the Mckesson product saving us another $4,000/year! Why does Mckesson not offer remote training?  More important, why would a company pay significantly more for a product it can attain elsewhere at a much more inexpensive price point? Consider the Benefit Pyramid below. Mckesson has a great deal of brand awareness and equity.  Mckesson's clients will often times pay a premium for this brand recognition. Consequently, Mckesson is able to charge clients a huge premium for two very distinct reasons:  the Benefit Pyramid and Cognitive Modification. Managers are burdened with so much work that they often times make poor decisions only to avoid having more work added to their to do list.  Managers fall in the Pain Avoidance and Preservation stages of the benefit pyramid.  They are not as concerned about profitability as say an owner or CEO. As a result, bad purchase decisions are often made which lead to drastically overpaying for products and services.  A person with direct financial interests will balk and many times walk away.  Hence, my decision to go in a different direction. Companies of all sizes are paying far too much for PBM services; much of it attributed to managers wanting to avoid more work as opposed to looking out for the company's financial performance.  On the other hand a CEO or owner is concerned first about financial performance thus his/her position at the top of the benefit pyramid. A CEO or Lieutenant should always be directly involved, from beginning to end, in the decision to select a pharmacy benefit manager. I almost made the decision to purchase Mckesson's product even though it was more costly.  I created, in my mind, all sorts of reasons why…

Medicare Part D is the prescription drug program that has been in effect since the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act became law in 2003. Annually, employers offering any type of prescription drug benefit must notify Medicare eligible participants whether their coverage is creditable or not. Additionally, employers must make certain disclosures to the CMS within 60 days of the start of the plan year. Determining who must receive the notice is a challenge for employers. It is more complicated than simply looking at birth dates. Individuals also become Medicare entitled through disability, having End-Stage Renal Disease or being a qualified railroad retirement beneficiary.  Required recipients include not only Medicare enrolled employees and retirees, but also COBRA beneficiaries, their spouses and dependents. Thus, in order to avoid overlooking any participants who may be eligible for Part D, prudent employers should send the notice to all participants rather than engage in a time-intensive fact-finding exercise to determine the appropriate distribution list. These notices must be provided at the following times: • Before the start of each year’s election period (October 15) • Before an individual first enrolls in the employer’s plan • If plan coverage goes from creditable to non-creditable, or vice versa • Upon the individual’s request • Before an individual’s personal Medicare initial enrollment period For assistance with this obligation, please contact your Benefit Manager.