Oct
23

Work comp drug fee schedules – what’s going to happen?

No one knows just yet, not even the regulators and legislators who are the ones tasked with coming up with a mechanism to replace AWP – which is going away in less than eighteen months.
More accurately, the First Databank/Medispan version is going to disappear; the Redbook version will still be around.
One option is to use Redbook as the standard, and there are some indications from some states that they are looking at Redbook. But Redbook has its issues – folks who know more than I about these things say it is not updated as frequently as Bluebook, and while it covers more medications, this ‘delay’ may make it problematic for PBMs who may well get into disagreements with retail pharmacies over the reimbursement level.
Beyond that ‘quick fix’, here’s how the changes may roll out. States with fee schedules set by their legislatures may well find themselves hard-pressed to meet the deadline; some, like Texas, aren’t due to meet until 2011, and others have a rather full legislative agenda with a lot more important stuff to deal with than work comp drug fee schedules. Thus, it is entirely possible that some states may not be able to address the issue before the clock runs out.
In that case, PBMs and payers will likely have to use the last version of the FDB AWP file for repricing pharma bills. That’s fine if the delay in selecting a new benchmark is a matter of days or perhaps weeks, but if it goes much beyond that we’ll see problems as prices charged by pharmacies will change while the reimbursement levels don’t. Litigation will likely ensue…
States that manage fee schedules via regulatory process are (likely) going to be a bit better off, as these processes are not dependent on the legislative process and complications thereof. Several states are already carefully evaluating alternative methodologies, and from my interaction with a number of regulators at the IAIABC conference last month, they are goign about this thoughtfully and with their eyes and ears wide open.
The real risk is if fee schedules are changed to match the Medicaid reimbursement rates.
This would be a disaster, as it was in California when physician dispensing exploded, and drug costs actually increased after the fee schedule was linked to Medi-Cal. In NY, where the State also set WC reimbursement at Medicaid, every PBM sent letters to the Chairman of the Workers Comp Board relaying their intention to exit the state if rates were not revised. Fortunately for all parties, they were successful in their efforts.
Unlike workers comp, there is no eligibility problem with medicaid – all recipients have a card. The formulary and DUR processes are well known and electronically administered. In comp, many claimants don’t know who their PBM is, and the only drugs that are approvced have to be directly related to the occupational injury or illness. These are just a couple of the distinctions, but they serve to illustrate the fundamental, and real, differences between comp and Medicaid.
Stay tuned – it is likely the big group PBMs and payers will move to another pricing benchmark, and like it or not, that will become the de facto ‘standard’.


Aug
27

CORRECTION – The big PBMs and changes in AWP

My post yesterday about the coming changes to the AWP pricing formula for drugs included the statement

Understandably, the pharmacies, both independents and chains, are asking the big PBMs to change their contracts to account for the change by reimbursing the pharmacies a few points higher then their current rate.
Word is the big PBMs – Medco, Express – have politely declined.

The second sentence is wrong. Sources indicate the pharmacy chains/independents and the big PBMs are working thru the issue, or have already agreed to terms intended to preserve “cost neutrality” for the pharmacies.
I don’t have all the details on this yet, but wanted to correct my mistake as quickly as possible. More information to follow…
I apologize for the error.


Aug
25

My firm, Health Strategy Associates, has conducted a survey of prescription drug management each year for the last five. I’m well into the survey portion of the Sixth Annual Survey, and here are some preliminary findings.
1. Drug cost inflation appears to show signs of rebounding after five years of decreases in the rate of increase. The data is by no means complete, but most of the respondents to date reported cost inflation was higher in 2008 than the previous year.
2. More respondents are tracking their first fill capture rate this year than last. There appears to be a significant focus on this metric, based at least in part on the sense that the earlier the PBM can get involved in a claim, the more likely it will be able to minimize over-prescribing and inappropriate dispensing.
3. Respondents are more aware of the actual strengths and weaknesses of specific PBMs than they were in the past; the buyers with strong knowledge of and experience in this niche are pretty savvy.
4. The primary cost driver remains utilization – too many of the wrong type of drugs dispensed by too many physicians, especially for pain.
5. Clinical management programs are increasingly important to payers (see 5. above), and they are getting smarter about these programs, what works and what doesn’t, and why. Marketing pitches aren’t cutting it any more; these folks want to see programs in action, study the reports, and understand the logic.
The report will be out next month. If you’d like to download copies of the previous reports, click here.


Jun
12

RiteAid is back in the FirstScript PBM network

Well done, RiteAid.
Industry sources indicate RiteAid and workers comp PBM FirstScript have worked out their differences; RiteAid is again accepting FirstScript claimants.
While no one would speak on the record, reliable sources reported that the deal came together when FirstScript agreed to stop accessing group health reimbursement contracts for their claimants (in comp, patients are claimants, not members). This was the very large bone of contention that led RiteAid to boot FirstScript out of their stores several weeks ago.
This is good news – not only for FirstScript, but also for all retail pharmacy chains. As I noted in an earlier post, retail stores charge more for comp scripts because it costs them significantly more to identify the correct payer, establish eligibility, and comply with utilization review edits and processes. That’s entirely reasonable and appropriate.
Price compression in the comp PBM business has driven down margins, and is likely behind the RiteAid-FirstScript ‘disagreement’. As PBMs compete for business in what is a rapidly-maturing market, they make price concessions to get new deals. This drive for share has come smack up against the reality that the PBMs’ cost of goods sold is pretty consistent across all PBMs; thus the ones that want to continue to slash price to gain share have to figure out another way to reduce their cost.
In violation of their contacts with the chains, some (but by no means all) PBMs have been accessing group health/Medicare contract rates.
RiteAid’s tough stance has paid off for the retail giant; good for them. Now we’ll see if other retail chains also do the right thing and get tough with WC PBMs that are circumventing their contract obligations.
If they do, we’ll see a level – and fair – playing field for WC PBMs. If the retail chains don’t get tough with the PBMs using group contracts they’ll lose revenue and force the PBMs that are complying with their contracts to either lose business to the unethical PBMs or join the ‘bad guys’.
Note – as mentioned ad nauseum I’d welcome a response from firstscript or their parent but my requests have been ignored.


May
27

Update – RiteAid-FirstScript kerfuffle

I had a chance to speak with the PR folks from RiteAid this morning, who were responding to my request for additional information about RiteAid’s decision to terminate its relationship with work comp PBM FirstScript.
RiteAid is still participating with other work comp PBMs, just not with FirstScript. Sources also indicate that California-based work comp PBM WorkComp Rx has also been terminated by RiteAid for the same reason – processing comp scripts through group health contracts.
As this is a contracting matter, RiteAid will not comment on it publicly, and I won’t characterize my conversation with their corporate PR staff.
However, other internal sources have confirmed that RiteAid has term’ed their relationship with FirstScript. And I’m also hearing that FirstScript has told at least some of their payer customers that they should have their claimants start using other pharmacy chains. FS is obviously doing this in an effort to force RiteAid back into their network; by threatening to pull customers out of stores, FS is trying to hit the big retailer where it hurts most.
Other PBMs are watching very, very closely – as are other retail chains. If RiteAid backs down (which to date it has shown no intention of doing) expect other PBMs to start using group health contracts to process work comp scripts. If they hold firm, and if other chains follow their lead rather than seeking to benefit from RiteAid’s principled position, order will be restored to the market, rule-abiding PBMs will no longer be penalized, and rule-ignoring PBMs will get their comeuppance.
Hang in there, RiteAid. And to the rest of the chains, do the right thing.


May
26

Work comp pharmacy news – RiteAid dropping FirstScript

Retail pharmacy giant RiteAid is no longer accepting work comp claimants administered by PBM FirstScript. RiteAid, which owns almost ten percent of all retail pharmacies in the nation, decided to terminate their relationship with FirstScript due to a dispute over processing of work comp scripts.
Despite reports to the contrary, RiteAid is still working with other work comp PBMs.
FirstScript uses CVS/Caremark’s network of pharmacies;FirstScript was allegedly processing work comp scripts through the CVS/Caremark group health network, thereby getting lower prices than if the scripts had been identified as workers comp. This has long been a bone of contention among PBMs and retail chains alike, as those PBMs that use work comp contracts typically pay significantly more for their drugs than they would pay under group health (or Medicare) contracts. PBMs that play by the rules (only processing comp scripts via their comp contracts) contend that some PBMs do not play by the same rules, a situation that puts the ‘rule-abiding’ PBMs at a distinct disadvantage.
Retail stores charge more for comp scripts because it costs them significantly more to identify the correct payer, establish eligibility, and comply with utilization review edits and processes. That’s entirely reasonable and appropriate.
Price compression in the comp PBM business has driven down margins, and is likely behind this alleged conflict. As PBMs compete for business in what is a rapidly-maturing market, they make price concessions to get new deals. This drive for share has come smack up against the reality that the PBMs’ cost of goods sold is pretty consistent across all PBMs; thus the ones that want to continue to slash price to gain share have to figure out another way to reduce their cost.
RiteAid is still in the business of filling work comp scripts – just not for FirstScript claimants.
The chain continues to work with other workers comp PBMs, including ScripNet, Progressive, Cypress Care/Healthcare Solutions, Express Scripts/MSC, Aetna, Modern Medical, PMSI/Tmesys, Cogent Health, and MyMatrixx.
Of note, FirstScript claims their network includes 61,000 retail pharmacies. This may not have been updated to reflect the RiteAid termination, as it is next to impossible to have that many retail outlets without RiteAid.
Sources indicate other chains are closely monitoring this situation, as they too have been frustrated by PBMs processing work comp scripts under their group health pricing arrangements. Industry watchers (including your author) have been waiting…and waiting…and waiting for the chains to actually do something to stop this practice. Perhaps other chains will follow RiteAid’s lead and force compliance with their contracts.
Their failure to do so has – and continues to – penalize(d) those PBMs and payers that complied with their contracts.
Kudos to RiteAid for stepping up. About time.


May
15

AWP and the pending changes to pharmacy pricing

This is more of a question than anything else.
AWP (average wholesale price) as a pricing mechanism for drugs will eventually go away (due to a court order). There is an intense, if not very objective or helpful, debate re what should replace AWP.
In a conversation this morning with Jim Andrews of Cypress Care, he provided more insights into the options on the table (MAC, WAC, etc) and opined that getting rid of AWP may sound good, but the real question is, “so…then what?”
The Feds will cut reimbursement for Medicare/Medicaid, likely to the same rates the VA pays, or instead require a substantial rebate (15% – 20%) on all purchases. That’s going to happen, as Obama et al need to create savings to fund the expansion of coverage (which will cost about $1.2 trillion).
Pharma and the various intermediaries between manufacturers and patients (wholesalers, PBMs, retail stores, distributors) will have to figure out how to make up for the lost margin/revenue and/or get more efficient to reduce costs. But no matter how efficient they get, we are still looking at reduced profits for manufacturers, which they will look to make up by increasing prices to non-governmental entities. (admittedly that’s conjecture, but pretty educated conjecture)
Which brings us back to pricing. When AWP goes away, the issues inherent in pricing based on some ‘standard’ will not. However, the standard that is selected may result in more, or perhaps less, confusion than that already existing with AWP.
What does this mean for you?
Likely a headache and desire for Friday afternoon to come even faster.


May
13

Drug cost trends – the big picture

Drug utilization declined slightly in 2009, while prices for brand drugs jumped eight percent. And specialty drugs, although a tiny portion of the total number of scripts, drove sixty percent of the overall growth in drug costs.
The net? Medco’s overall drug spend grew 3.3 percent in 2008. Removing specialty drugs from the calculation results in a 1.3% trend rate.
The decline in utilization appears to be driven in large part by two factors – drugs that were only available by prescription (think Claritin, Zyrtec, Prilosec et al) are now over the counter, and some folks are avoiding other prescription drugs over concerns about safety,
These results are contained in PBM giant Medco’s 2009 Drug Trend Report, released this morning. The company has sixty million members, so the data does provide insight into broader, national trends.
Over the next two years, Medco is projecting annual spending growth of 4% – 7%, with specialty drugs’ inflationary influence overcoming significant patent terminations for brand drugs. That said, illnesses such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and the resulting heart disease are having a major impact on drug spend, as well as overall medical inflation.
These are all heavily influenced by obesity, a problem that continues to get worse – and worse.
Notably, Medco’s analysts don’t believe the weak economy had as much of an impact as these other factors, although there was a bit of an uptick in generic utilization (now at 64.1% of all scripts). As noted above, the big driver was specialty drugs, which rose at an annual rate of 15.8%. Their influence is going to increase, as about a third of all medicines in the pipeline are specialty drugs. Their share of total spend, driven by price increases more than utilization, is now at 12.8%; one-eighth of all drug costs are for these highly-specialized medications.
Of interest to those in the work comp space, narcotics and anti-seizure meds each accounted for about 2.7% of total spend, a marked contrast to their overwhelming presence in the comp space.
Nationally, drug costs were projected to increase 3.5% in 2008; in contrast physician expenses were up 6.2% and hospital costs jumped the most – 7.2%.


May
5

So, which PBM has ‘better’ results?

A couple weeks ago the good folks at PMSI sent a copy of their excellent Drug Trends Report over for a preview before the ‘official’ release at RIMS. There’s some interesting stuff in the Report, lots of good info about cost drivers, the impact of re-branding OxyContin; the effects of price and utilization on total drug costs, and other wondrously fascinating material (I know, get a life…)
A few days ago the fine people at ExpressComp (the workers comp PBM unit of PBM giant Express Scripts) published their Drug Trend Report – and while it is noticeably shorter than their friendly competitor’s, it is nonetheless packed with insights and information.
But don’t make the mistake of trying to compare the two PBMs’ reports, as their client bases, analytical methods, data definitions, and analytical methodologies tend to be different – in some ways, quite different.
Here’s a couple ways the Express Scripts business may show different results from PMSI’s.
1. ESI services some of the largest state funds – including California and New York. With significant variation in prescribing and dispensing patterns across the country, it would be surprising if their data did NOT show differently than PMSI’s (which has some significant market share in the southeast as well as extensive national coverage).
2. PMSI doesn’t include out of network transactions; others do. Neither methodology is good or bad, they just reflect a different approach. Yet this can skew the data significantly, and make a PBM look ‘better’ or ‘worse’ depending on how you view the data.
3. Some payer clients are more sophisticated, employing strong prior auth and clinical drug management programs, and thereby reducing utilization for expensive drugs. Other payers are lazy and/or indifferent. PBMs don’t control payer behavior, rather they have to adapt to that behavior. I’m NOT saying ESI’s customers or PMSI’s are more or less savvy, just that they are undoubtedly different. And that difference is reflected in the results delivered by each PBM.
On the positive side, both companies use the same title for their publication…”Drug Trend Report” – demonstrating that consistency can actually lead to more confusion!
What does this mean for you?
When comparing two programs, or two vendors, dig deep into the data to make sure you really understand the methodologies and definitions. Otherwise you’ll not have the right info to make the correct decision.
PostScript
CompPharma LLC has been asked to help develop standardized data definitions and methodologies to enable PBMs to produce reports that will allow inter-company comparisons. If the PBM members agree to pursue this, expect the standards will be out in time for next year’s Reports.
(note I am affiliated with CompPharma)


Apr
28

FDA move to hit workers comp hard

In one of those all-but-unnoticed moves that could have a dramatic effect on workers comp, the FDA has moved to ban a number of currently-dispensed pain medications, medications that are currently prescribed to many work comp claimants.
These aren’t the wildly expensive, oft-abused drugs like Actiq and Fentora, rather the list includes many old stand-bys, drugs that have long been used to manage chronic and acute pain. The list covers drugs “that include high concentrate morphine sulfate oral solutions and immediate release tablets containing morphine sulfate, hydromorphone or oxycodone.” The FDA’s concern appears to be that these drugs were in use before the current approval process became mandatory. The “Agency has serious concerns that drugs marketed without required FDA approval may not meet modern standards for safety, effectiveness, quality, and labeling.”
George Rontiris, PharmD and partner at Titan Pharmacy in New York gave me the heads’ up. George has been a strong advocate for injured workers for years; he’s one of the good guys. Here’s his take:
“There will be some manufacturers still able to make some of these drugs. The majority will be gone. This has already created huge shortages. A bottle of Oxycodone 30 mg that we used to be able to buy for $5.14 per bottle of 100 is now up to $ 39.50.
The so called increase in price due to a lack of supply is just the tip of the problem. Many of the people who have been handling their pain with these cheap generics, now cannot find them anywhere. The alternative that their doctors have come up with is switching them to other forms of medication, and unfortunately the ones that they go for are very expensive.
Our dispensing of Oxycontin (both brand and generic) has exploded. Worse yet is the explosion of Opana and Opana Er that we have been dispensing. I have even had the Endo Lab Opana Reps come into the the pharmacy 3 times telling me that they have been detailing all the MD’s about the “availability” of Opana since there is a National shortage of Roxicodone and other generic narcotics. And of course, the MD’s are eating it up.
Our wholesaler’s bill for the past two months has been up over 15% of what it usually is, and when we went over our ordering, it was clearly because of all the Opana Er, Oxycontin and Avinza that we have been forced to order.
We have been also getting hit with non-control generic problems. For example, Nitoglycerin tablets (put under tongue when a heart attack is happening) were $ 2.08 per 100, and are now $ 13.45. Toprol Xl 50mg generic which used to cost us $ 28.99 is now $84.95 . These are huge difference.”
What does this mean for you?
Mr Rontiris’ experience bodes ill for the work comp industry. The loss of these drugs will certainly drive up costs, may lead to adverse events as patients try other medications to replace their now-banned drugs, and may make it harder for patients to get medications.