What Is Pharmacy Benefit Management?

What Do We Mean When We Talk About the Pharmacy Benefit Management (PBM) Industry? – The sector known as pharmacy benefit management, or PBM for short, is comprised of a set of businesses that operate as go-betweens for pharmacies, insurance companies, and the pharmaceutical firms that make the drugs.

Is PBM the same as insurance?

What Do We Mean When We Talk About the Pharmacy Benefit Management (PBM) Industry? – The sector known as pharmacy benefit management, or PBM for short, is comprised of a set of businesses that operate as go-betweens for pharmacies, insurance companies, and the pharmaceutical firms that make the drugs.

How do PBMs contract with pharmacies?

PBMs enter into contractual agreements with pharmacies on behalf of health plans and employers to provide patients with services by constructing networks of pharmacies that are favored. Pharmacies and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) will discuss the sorts of contracts to be used, the payment rates for pharmaceuticals, and the duties of both sides as part of the process of becoming a preferred network supplier.

• These criteria are agreed to by pharmacies in order for them to be able to take part in high-quality networks, get involved in value-based initiatives, and enhance their market share.
• Maximum Allowable Costs, abbreviated as MAC, are the standards by which generic medication payments are often determined.

These standards determine the maximum amount of money that may be paid for equivalent generic pharmaceuticals and are based on the typical acquisition costs of an efficient pharmacy. A MAC list is a common cost management tool that is developed from a proprietary survey of wholesale prices currently existing in the marketplace.

Why is PBM good?

The pharmaceutical industry has been quite successful in transferring the burden for high medication costs onto the shoulders of the middlemen, particularly pharmacy benefit managers, in the continuing discussion around the cost of pharmaceuticals. Pharmacy benefit managers are now a contributor to the issue because to the way in which they operate.

However, if the incentives were restructured, pharmacy benefit managers might play a more significant role in limiting the spiraling costs of prescription pharmaceuticals. They should also take on this responsibility. PBMs originated with the concept that they could use their purchasing power to drive down the cost of medical care and then pass those savings on to their customers.

They function as massive purchasing networks for pharmaceuticals, representing customers from a variety of employers and insurance companies. In terms of economics, they are responsible for the accumulation of demand, which provides them with leverage in the market.

PBMs are able to reduce the overall cost of medications by utilizing their purchasing power in conjunction with various usage management tactics. They have had a significant amount of success including: The vast majority of payers, at least up until fairly recently, had opted to manage medication procurement externally through contracts with pharmacy benefit managers rather than on their own.

PBMs are utilized by commercial insurers, Medicare for the administration of its Part D benefit, and the Medicaid program, most notably by Medicaid managed care organizations. PBMs are also utilized by state Medicaid programs. advertisement Moreover, in a market with competitive alternatives, such as multiple name brands and generics, pharmacy benefit managers should be able to switch patients from more expensive brand drugs to less expensive versions and extract lower prices by playing brands off of one another.

This is possible when the market contains both generics and multiple name brands. Although net costs are often lower than list prices, the exact cost to the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) is frequently obscured due to the rules of engagement that govern interactions between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers.

And this is when the PBM model starts to exhibit some of its problematic behavior. The insurers that are served by these businesses are expected to benefit from the formulary power, management tools, and price concessions that these companies offer. The insurers, in turn, are expected to pass the savings on to their customers in the form of more generous benefits and lower premiums.

In general, pharmacy benefit managers have access to three different sources of revenue: fees from the supply chain, rebates from manufacturers, and “spreads” from pharmacies, which refers to the difference between what they pay for pharmaceuticals from a pharmacy and what they are reimbursed by the insurer.

advertisement In recent times, this approach has been the subject of considerable criticism, and for good cause. It has come to the attention of commercial insurers that pharmacy benefit managers are not passing along the rebate income that they should be.

Concerns have been repeatedly voiced by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission over the possibility that pharmacy benefit managers in Medicare are not selecting the medications with the lowest costs. In addition, findings from recent research conducted by 46brooklyn reveal that pharmacy benefit managers are charging Medicaid managed care organizations, sometimes known as MCOs, significantly more for generic pharmaceuticals than they are paying pharmacies.

The question is, therefore, what exactly did pharmaceutical benefit managers get wrong? Regarding the following three aspects: consolidation, revenue through rebates, and transparency. Consolidation has occurred across the board in the health care industry, including among pharmacy benefit managers.

1. There are presently three significant PBMs that account for more than 70 percent of the total number of claims.
2. These PBMs include CVS, Express Scripts, and Optum, which is owned by UnitedHealth.
3. A smaller but more concentrated market share should make it easier for pharmacy benefit managers to negotiate better discounts with manufacturers and the rest of the supply chain.

However, because of the strength of the market, a defective business model has been able to persist, and payers have found few alternatives to the shared rebates. The issue of refunds is the second obstacle. To align the interests of a middleman and a buyer, many different businesses provide financial incentives in the form of shared savings.

1. A fixed-price contract cannot be realistically negotiated between parties when a multiyear contract is being negotiated since payers do not know in advance which pharmaceuticals and in what volumes they will require.
2. However, the current system of refunds is skewing the incentives.
3. Pharmacy benefit managers could just provide the prescription that has the largest rebate, as an alternative to include the medication with the cheapest price on the formulary and then passing the savings on to the insurers.

The pharmaceutical industry contends that rebates drive up list costs. They will not be effective in reducing premiums either if the savings are not passed on to insurers. However, discounts are not the only factor contributing to the rise in the cost of medications.

1. For instance, the costs of medications that do not provide rebates and in markets that do not provide rebates, such as Medicare Part B, are quite expensive and continue to rise.
2. Which takes us to the topic of openness.
3. The market for the price of drugs is cloaked in mystery.
4. There is an opinion held by some economists that price discrimination, which occurs when no one is aware of what the prices others are paying, results in greater reductions in cost.

The cost of this is comparable to that of plane tickets. When purchasing tickets, the vast majority of passengers do so without any knowledge of the prices paid by other passengers for different seats on the same aircraft. If the drug makers are able to conceal the amount of the discounts and do not have to provide them to every other pharmacy benefit manager, then pharmacy benefit managers could be able to negotiate deeper discounts from the firms that make the drugs.

1. Despite this, economists maintain that openness is one of the essential components of a market that operates efficiently.
2. Complete openness is required for the majority of government procurement.
3. If medicine costs were more transparent, it may spur more competition and motivate manufacturers to lower their prices in order to win market share, particularly for pharmaceuticals that compete with one another within the same class.

The fact that the whole system of out-of-pocket spending is dependent on list prices makes the already hard problem of covert pricing much more difficult to solve. After all, it is impossible to construct a copay model that is based on net costs if those prices are not visible.

Copay models are often based on percentages of the net price. Patients are forced to overpay because the cost of goods sold to consumers is based on a made-up pricing that is used to keep pharmacy benefit managers’ negotiation position strong. The weaknesses in the system have reached the point where they can no longer be ignored.

Anthem filed a lawsuit against Express Scripts for $15 billion, alleging that the latter failed to pass on discounts that it had received. Because to problems with spread pricing, the state of Ohio recently cancelled its contracts with pharmacy benefit managers.

1. While this is going on, some people are trying to internalize the disagreement between the PBM and the insurance by reintegrating.
2. Cigna is reportedly interested in purchasing Express Scripts, while CVS Health is in the process of acquiring Aetna.
3. The business model of pharmacy benefit managers has to become more closely linked with the interests of patients and payers in order to be able to deliver considerable value.

If the PBM model were to collapse, the pharmaceutical industry would rejoice because it would then have the option to charge higher prices by bargaining with customers who are less experienced and fewer in number. There have been suggestions made that all rebates should be done away with and that pharmaceutical benefit administrators should just collect fees instead.

However, how exactly would payers evaluate the performance of the PBMs? Incentives were intended to be centered around discounts when the shared rebate system was developed. It is necessary to create a new pricing model that, when compared to existing ones, brings the interests of consumers, insurers, and pharmacy benefit managers closer together.

What is a PBM?

It is possible that foundations should provide their assistance to the establishment of a nonprofit PBM that is managed by its clients, in a manner analogous to the nonprofit generic drug firm that is now being established. Pharmacy benefit managers can use value-based pricing, which was developed with the support of the Laura and John Arnold Foundation and was developed by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

• This pricing method allows pharmacy benefit managers to choose medications that maximize patient value rather than choosing medications based on the size of the rebate.
• CVS just just made the announcement that it will be using ICER pricing when it is developing its formulary.
• It is simple to portray pharmacy benefit managers as the villains of the drug pricing debate; nevertheless, if they were to make certain adjustments to their fundamental business model, they may become the customers’ greatest chance for keeping the prices of medicines in check.

In 2010, John Arnold and his wife Laura established the Laura and John Arnold Foundation as co-founders of the organization.

Who are PBM clients?

CVS Caremark provides assistance to a wide range of clients in the pharmacy benefit management (PBM) industry, including businesses, unions, health plans, and government payors, in an effort to curb the ever-increasing cost of pharmaceuticals. Our PBM clients have a variety of alternatives available to them to select from in order to compensate us for the services that we provide, and we collaborate with our clients to negotiate price options that best satisfy their needs as well as the needs of their members.

• In one version of the business model, customers commit to paying not just the price agreed with the pharmacies, which is subject to change based on the ebb and flow of prices in the market, but also a separate administrative charge for the services that our company provides.
• The majority of the time, our customers opt for a different model, which involves them entering into a contract for predictable drug costs throughout the year and allowing the PBM to keep the difference between this fixed amount and the amount paid to the pharmacy that dispenses the drugs.

We find that this model is the most popular among our customers. This second alternative, which is typically referred to by its popular name, “spread pricing,” is frequently misinterpreted. Spread pricing is simply a term that is used to describe the difference in pricing between what we are paid and what we reimburse our network pharmacies.

1. This is similar to the way that any other company makes a profit on the difference between what it pays to acquire goods and what it charges the end user for those goods.
2. Spread pricing is not unique to our company.
3. Because it offers our customers with consistency and predictability regarding the prices of their medications, this approach is often requested by our customers, including a significant number of the managed Medicaid plans that we serve.

We earn a profit on certain pharmaceuticals using this technique, while we incur a loss using it for others.

Who owns the PBM?

Following mounting criticism of the middlemen and their involvement in contributing to an increase in the cost of prescription pharmaceuticals in the United States, the Federal Trade Commission has decided to begin an inquiry into the sector of pharmacy benefit management.

On Tuesday, the regulators announced that they will be requiring the six largest PBMs in the United States — CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, OptumRx, Humana, Prime Therapeutics, and MedImpact Healthcare Systems — to turn over extensive information and records regarding their business practices, dating back five years.

The information and records will cover a period of time beginning in 2013. According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the investigation will investigate a variety of topics, including the fees and clawbacks that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) charge pharmacies that are not affiliated with them; methods to steer patients toward PBM-owned pharmacies; the prevalence of administrative restrictions such as prior authorizations; the impact of rebates and fees from drug manufacturers on the design of formularies; and the costs of prescription drugs for both payers and patients.

1. The revelation was met with jubilation by pharmacy advocacy organizations since it overturned a decision made earlier this year by FTC commissioners not to probe the pricing and contractual practices of PBMs.
2. An OptumRx spokesman, after being contacted with requests for comment, referred Healthcare Dive to the PBM trade group so that they could provide a response.

In an interview with Healthcare Dive, a spokesman for CVS said, “We look forward to working collaboratively with the Federal Trade Commission.” Express Scripts did not answer. In the past, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), which are companies that establish medication formularies, negotiate rebates and fees with drugmakers, and reimburse pharmacists for prescriptions, have asserted that they save money by negotiating down the exorbitant pricing of pharmaceuticals.

However, in recent times, the business model utilized by PBMs has been subjected to significant criticism from various provider and pharmacy organizations, as well as government regulators and lawmakers. Critics are sounding the alarm over the middlemen’s role in rising health spending, complicated and often opaque contracts, controversial business practices, and vertical consolidation, which has resulted in the largest PBMs being integrated with the largest health insurance companies.

In addition, critics are concerned about the middlemen’s role in vertical consolidation, which has resulted in the largest PBMs being integrated with the largest health insurance companies. Nearly 80% of the market for prescription drugs is controlled by the three largest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), which are CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and OptumRx.

These PBMs are owned by CVS (which also owns the payer Aetna), Cigna, and UnitedHealth (which operates the payer UnitedHealthcare), respectively. In addition, Congress has taken note: This past week, two senators from different political parties introduced legislation that, among other things, would prohibit pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) from engaging in business practices such as clawing back fees or overcharging pharmacies, and would require PBMs to report more financial data.

In response to the investigation, the Chairwoman of the Federal Trade Commission, Lina Khan, stated in a statement that “while many people have never heard of pharmacy benefit managers, these powerful middlemen have significant influence over the U.S.

prescription medication system.” “The findings of this study will provide light on the business practices of these organizations and the impact those activities have had on pharmacies, payers, physicians, and patients.” The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published a request for information about pharmaceutical benefit managers back in February, and to this day, they have received more than 24,000 responses from the general public.

After a vote in which FTC commissioners were split 2-2 on a proposal to initiate an investigation into PBMs, a request for information was issued after the vote. Khan had stated that she would want another vote on the matter at the time it occurred. On Tuesday, the commissioners announced that they had decided 5-0 to begin the investigation.

• Khan and Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter both voted in favor of the motion, while Alvaro Bedoya, who was sworn in as a commissioner in May, also voted in favor of the motion.
• Commissioners Noah Phillips and Christine Wilson, who had previously voted against the investigation, voted in favour of it on Tuesday.

They noted in a joint statement that the inquiry proposed on Tuesday is more targeted than the one that was presented in February. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued an order requiring the six pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to provide it with a wide range of information, including how PBMs determine payments to other companies, how they limit participation in pharmacy networks, the formularies and prescription drug lists for the plans that they administer, instances in which a branded drug is placed on a more favorable formulary tier than a generic or biosimilar equivalent, annual pharmacy reimbursement data, and every rebate contract.

1. The corporations will have a period of ninety days to reply to the order after they have received it.
2. The chief executive officer of the National Community Pharmacists Association, Douglas Hoey, said in a statement that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) had “escaped meaningful examination for far too long,” but that this report will “bring their dirty laundry out into the light.” “We’re grateful to Chair Khan and the commissioners for considering these concerns and approving this study,” said Hoey, whose group represents about 21,000 pharmacies across the United States.

“We hope this will result in meaningful reforms to merger and acquisition reviews and, of course, to the insurer-PBMs themselves,” Hoey said in conclusion. “We’re grateful to Chair Khan and the commissioners for considering these concerns and approving this study.”