The prescription drug distribution chain is complex and involves several stakeholders. There are generally six in the supply and demand of prescription drugs: pharmaceutical manufacturers, health insurers (including self-insured employers), pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), pharmacies, wholesalers, and patients.
These stakeholders’ contracts determine how much a patient’s health insurance pays for prescription drugs and the patient’s out-of-pocket costs. Pharmaceutical manufacturer rebates are one of the key drivers that influence how health insurers cover prescription drugs. Rebates affect the finances of all stakeholders involved in the prescription drug distribution chain.
Prescription drug rebates are generally paid by a pharmaceutical manufacturer to a PBM, who then shares a portion with the health insurer. Rebates are mostly used for high-cost brand-name prescription drugs in competitive therapeutic classes where there are interchangeable products (rarely for generics), and aim to incentivize PBMs and health insurers to include the pharmaceutical manufacturer’s products on their formularies and to obtain preferred “tier” placement.
The May 2018 “American Patients First: The Trump Administration Blueprint to Lower Drug Prices and Reduce Out-of-Pocket Costs” from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services targets rebates as part of its goal to lower prescription drug prices. In this article, Milliman’s Gabriela Dieguez, Maggie Alston, and Samantha Tomicki explain the finances associated with rebates and their impact on health insurer coverage decisions.
In recent years, pharmacy costs have been a hot topic. Plan sponsors must remain vigilant and stay current on industry strategies used to manage pharmacy costs. In this article, Milliman consultant Ajanthan Balasinkam outlines a number of important considerations for plan sponsors, including plan design, contracts, the opioid crisis, and the specialty pipeline.
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 enacted key changes to Medicare Part D that will affect the program’s coverage gap—the “donut hole”—starting in 2019. The changes to the coverage gap have several financial implications for Part D stakeholders. In this article, Milliman consultants Adam Barnhart, Gabriela Dieguez, and David Mike explain the financial impact the bill will have on beneficiaries, employers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, the federal government, and plan sponsors.
Even though the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) does not use prescription data in assigning risk scores, Rx data can still be a valuable resource for Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. Because the revenue for an MA plan each year is based on member diagnoses incurred in the prior year and submitted within 13 months of the end of that period, MA plans have a meaningful period of time to ensure complete and accurate coding as well as to identify members for disease management and potential drug adherence outliers. Milliman consultants Corey Berger and Brooks Conway provide perspective in this paper.
In this A.M Best video, Milliman consultant Brian Anderson discusses strategies for managing pharmaceutical drug costs. Among the strategies he talks about are limited pharmacy networks, consumerism through copay assistance programs, and price shopping.
Employers and other plan sponsors have the option of carving in or carving out their pharmacy benefit programs from their medical benefits. There are a number of important factors that should be considered when deciding whether or not to carve out pharmacy benefits. This article identifies the advantages and disadvantages of both options and raises important questions to consider when contemplating a move to carve-out.
When the pharmacy carve-in approach is used, the employer contracts directly with the medical health plan vendor for medical and pharmacy benefits. The vendor will either administer the program in-house or contract with a pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) vendor to process pharmacy claims and administer the pharmacy program. Because the employer contracts directly with the medical health plan vendor, there is no direct relationship with the PBM.
A pharmacy carve-in is typically used under the fully insured model. In 2015, the Pharmacy Benefit Management Institute (PBMI) reported 23% of smaller employers (less than 5,000 lives) and 7% of larger employers (greater than 5,000 lives) were fully insured. Under the fully insured model, the employer pays a premium to the insurer and the insurer assumes the risk of the total claims amount rather than the employer.
When the pharmacy carve-out approached is used, employers contract directly with a PBM vendor to administer their pharmacy benefits program.
A pharmacy carve-out is typically used under the self-insured model. In 2015, PBMI reported 77% of smaller employers and 93% of larger employers were self-insured. Under the self-insured model, the employer assumes the risk and benefits from managing costs. Pharmacy stop-loss insurance may be purchased to mitigate the risk of total claims amounts going over a certain threshold. A pharmacy carve-out can also be used with the fully insured model, although this is less common.