Increases in both retail and mail copayments for generics, preferred brands, and nonpreferred brands are on the rise, with members paying a greater percentage of retail costs than of mail-service costs, according to the Pharmacy Benefit Management Institute’s Prescription Drug Benefit Cost and Plan Design Report.

The report captured copayment and coinsurance amounts for retail and mail prescriptions for generics, preferred brands, and nonpreferred brands. On average, members paid 26.6 percent of a retail prescription and 19 percent of a mail prescription.

In the past, employers created incentives for members to use mail service by keeping cost sharing low relative to retail cost sharing. Although mail-service discounts are higher, the lower cost sharing amounts that characterize mail prescription service often result in mail-service prescriptions costing employers more than retail prescriptions.

Employers learned that mail service will not produce savings unless cost sharing is structured appropriately. Average mail copayments for a 90-day supply are now slightly more than two times the average retail copayments for a 30 day supply of generics, preferred brands, and nonpreferred brand categories.

According to the report, average coinsurance for retail increased little, and mail coinsurance for generics and preferred brands actually declined slightly. Copayments rose at a greater rate than coinsurance.

Source for both graphs: Prescription Drug Benefit Cost and Plan Design Report 2008-2009 Edition

Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.