Reference Pricing: Actual Acquisition Cost (AAC) for Top Selling Generic and Brand Prescription Drugs – Volume 132

This document is updated weekly, but why is it important?  Healthcare marketers are aggressively pursuing new revenue streams to augment lower reimbursements provided under PPACA. Prescription drugs, particularly specialty, are key drivers in the growth strategies of PBMs, TPAs and MCOs pursuant to health care reform. 

The costs shared below are what the pharmacy actually pays; not AWP, MAC or WAC. The bottom line; payers must have access to “reference pricing.” Apply this knowledge to hold PBMs accountable and lower plan expenditures for stakeholders.

How to Determine if Your Company [or Client] is Overpaying


Step #1:  Obtain a price list for generic prescription drugs from your broker, TPA, ASO or PBM every month.


Step #2:  In addition, request an electronic copy of all your prescription transactions (claims) for the billing cycle which coincides with the date of your price list.

Step #3:  Compare approximately 10 to 20 prescription claims against the price list to confirm contract agreement.  It’s impractical to verify all claims, but 10 is a sample size large enough to extract some good assumptions.

Step #4:  Now take it one step further. Check what your organization has paid, for prescription drugs, against our pharmacy cost then determine if a problem exists. When there is a 5% or more price differential (paid versus actual cost) we consider this a problem.

Multiple price differential discoveries means that your organization or client is likely overpaying. REPEAT these steps once per month.

— Tip —

Always include a semi-annual market check in your PBM contract language. Market checks provide each payer the ability, during the contract, to determine if better pricing is available in the marketplace compared to what the client is currently receiving.

When better pricing is discovered the contract language should stipulate the client be indemnified. Do not allow the PBM to limit the market check language to a similar size client, benefit design and/or drug utilization. In this case, the market check language is effectually meaningless.

Note: Prices listed herein are gross thus do not account for rebates, discounts or other purchase incentives which ultimately reduces the net cost.

Hand caught in cookie jar, United Healthcare changing drug overpayment program

UnitedHealthcare says it will stop overcharging some customers for prescription drugs.  But experts warn the company will find another way to make up the money – at your expense. When one revenue stream is closed off a non-fiduciary PBM will look to make up for that lost revenue by employing or increasing other hidden cash flows. That is ballooning; watch below.

If you’ve held a 15-minute introductory phone conversation with me then you’re aware of the hidden cash flow tactic referred to as clawbacks.

Our “Medical Waste” investigative series showed how United, the nation’s largest health insurer, and Optum, its pharmacy benefit manager, overcharged some customers for prescription medication. The practice forced many customers to pay a copay that’s higher than the cost of the drug. United then claws back the extra money from the pharmacist. Optum labeled it an “overpayment program.”

“The hand in the cookie jar has been caught,” says Doug Hoey of the National Community Pharmacists Association. “There’s an old saying that sunlight is the best disinfectant. And I think some sunlight has been poured into their situation, and they’re trying to make the best of it. “

United sent us this statement:


“We have reviewed our pharmacy benefits and will update our plans to ensure UnitedHealthcare members pay the lowest price at the pharmacy.”

When we asked if this meant United plans to eliminate the “overpayment program” that forced customers to unknowingly overpay for prescriptions, United responded:

“Once fully insured customers move to the updated benefit plans, our members will pay the lowest price at the pharmacy and the repayment program will no longer be necessary.”

Tyrone’s comment:  Wait, what about self-funded employers? Self-funded employers should be checking to verify these overpayments aren’t occurring within their plans. Higher OOP (out-of-pocket) expenses for patients leads to non-adherence which ultimately means increased hospital or physician costs. 

“They would never say that they are doing something they shouldn’t be doing,” Hoey says. “But the fact that they’re changing their practices… to me, that’s an admission that they were over the line.”

We kept peppering United with questions, asking if the updated plan will increase premiums. In other words, does United plan to cover the losses they’ll see on prescription drugs with an increase in premiums?  They told us details are being worked out.

We asked how the change would impact members, when it would happen and, again, whether members will see a premium increase.  Again, there was no clear answer from United.

“I think they’re realizing that this is wrong, that there’s a huge liability here, whether fraud or illegal,” says insurance fraud investigator Susan Hayes.  “But it’s definitely wrong and I think they realize it.”

Hayes says these changes will only impact some United customers.  You may not realize it, but United offers two types of plans to most businesses: one a fully insured plan, the other a self-funded plan.  Large companies may take part in a self-funded plan in which the employer pays all of the costs, like part of the copays, and United simply manages the program.

In a fully insured plan, usually for smaller- to mid-size businesses, United takes the risk – it pays the copays and charges the employer a fee. According to the United email and Hayes’ interpretation, the change will only take place for fully insured customers – most likely employees of smaller to mid-size companies.

Hayes tells us United may simply raise premiums on these fully insured plans. She says self-funded plans and customers should be asking United questions.

Read More >>

New Report Identifies Most Expensive Specialty Drugs

RGA Reinsurance Company, a subsidiary of Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated, (NYSE: RGA) today released a report identifying 183 high-cost specialty drugs, defined as costing greater than $50,000 annually or $7,000 monthly, based on wholesale acquisition costs (WAC) of each product identified. The report and accompanying management tool serve as a resource to educate and inform healthcare professionals about high-cost drugs.

[Infographic: click to enlarge]

Of the 183 drugs on the list, 126 (69%) cost more than $100,000 per year, and 48 of those (26%) cost more than $200,000 annually. The most expensive drugs in annual cost include:

  • Glybera, which is indicated for the treatment of lipoprotein lipase deficiency ($1,210,000). This product is not yet approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but is available in Europe.
  • Ravicti, indicated for the treatment of urea cycle disorders ($793,632)
  • Lumizyme, indicated for the treatment of Pompe’s Disease ($626,400)
  • Carbaglu, indicated for hyperammonemia ($585,408)
  • Actimmune, for the treatment of severe, malignant osteopetrosis and chronic granulomatous disease ($572,292).

According to the report, hemophilia and related disorders are some of the most expensive diseases to treat medicinally. Treatment options include, 34 different specialty drugs listed at $100,000 or more per year. RGA’s report, which is available to the company’s clients, includes a detailed analysis and disease breakout on hemophilia drug costs.

Read more >>

Who is getting rich from the price of prescription drugs?

The health insurance industry has successfully generated a robust national discussion of drug pricing in the U.S.  However, it is not the complete story. Today, most drug companies offer large rebates to pharmacy benefit managers on behalf of different health plans and employers to reduce patients’ out-of-pocket costs. The problem is a significant portion of the savings is not being passed onto the public.

[Click to Enlarge]

Until recently, advocates and policymakers had no idea that health plans extract large price discounts on prescription medicines. This changed rather spectacularly when health insurance giant Anthem Inc. and Express Scripts, the nation’s largest PBM, went to war over how much each company was taking in from drug rebates. In litigation Anthem filed in March with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the insurer sued Express Scripts for $15 billion in damages, claiming the PBM, which negotiates prices with drug makers on behalf of insurers and employers, is reaping an “obscene windfall” by not passing along enough of the price breaks to Anthem. Express Scripts then countersued in April, arguing Anthem was the one at fault.

Not surprisingly, when two behemoth corporations sue one another, the battle makes national headlines. However, the Anthem-Express Scripts situation has also produced a valuable side benefit: News of the lawsuits shed light on the extent to which pharmaceutical company rebates can lower the costs to health plans and employers for prescription drugs. According to estimates from ZS Associates, a pharmaceutical marketing consulting firm, drug companies pay about $40 billion annually in rebates with the size of the rebate averaging 30 percent of a medicine’s sales.

Realizing these cost savings may not translate into lower copays or cost-sharing requirements for patients, health plan participants and employers have already sued both companies under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a federal law that requires health plans to act in the best interest of beneficiaries. The first suit, filed in May in the same U.S. District Court, was brought by two HIV patients who paid excessive charges to Express Scripts for needed drugs and seek damages for economic harm.

Then in June, three large employers filed a class action suit on behalf of 26,000 insured workers and their family members, stating these individuals paid too much for their drugs because Express Scripts charged “above competitive pricing levels” and Anthem, in effect, allowed these higher prices as part of its contract with the PBM.

What makes these cases especially interesting is the explanation for the Anthem-Express Scripts dispute. As described in the various complaints, in 2009, Anthem entered into a 10-year contract with Express Scripts in which the insurer was offered a choice of less money upfront but lower pricing for prescription drugs or a large upfront payment with higher prices. Anthem chose higher prices over the course of the contract in exchange for $4.6 billion in upfront fees, which the insurer used to buy back stock rather than passing the savings onto plan participants.

Anthem’s complaint alleges Express Scripts raised drug prices for medicines covered by the Anthem plans and overcharged the insurer as much as $3 billion a year. These actions, according to the two class action suits, left plan participants with “significantly higher” percentage-based co-pays.

In light of what has been revealed and the implications for Americans covered by Anthem health plans, should we expect more lawsuits? This is certainly possible given that Express Scripts supports Anthem’s business in over 24 states and services more than 15 million of its members.

Yet, whatever happens, the Anthem-Express Scripts litigation represents a teachable moment for the public.  It is no longer a secret that drug companies pay billions in rebates to PBMs to reduce the price of their medicines. The question is how much of these savings get passed onto insurers, employers, and ultimately consumers. Looking only at the impact on large employers, a recent Pharmacy Benefit

Management Institute survey found about one-quarter of employers received none of the savings from rebates provided to PBMs. A further 30 percent of employers receive flat guaranteed rebate amounts per script. In 2015, these flat guaranteed amounts were $24 per 30-day brand-name prescriptions.

Up until now, there has been almost no scrutiny of the way PBMs manage prescription drug plans for insurers and employers. Clearly now is the time for meaningful change.

STACEY WORTHY   |   AUGUST 12, 2016
Stacey L. Worthy is the executive director of the Alliance for the Adoption of Innovations in Medicine (Aimed Alliance). 

Reference Pricing: Invoice Cost (Gross) for Top Selling Generic and Brand Prescription Drugs – Volume 131

This document is updated weekly, but why is it important?  Healthcare marketers are aggressively pursuing new revenue streams to augment lower reimbursements provided under PPACA. Prescription drugs, particularly specialty, are key drivers in the growth strategies of PBMs, TPAs and MCOs pursuant to health care reform. 

The costs shared below are what the pharmacy actually pays; not AWP, MAC or WAC. The bottom line; payers must have access to “reference pricing.” Apply this knowledge to hold PBMs accountable and lower plan expenditures for stakeholders.



How to Determine if Your Company [or Client] is Overpaying


Step #1:  Obtain a price list for generic prescription drugs from your broker, TPA, ASO or PBM every month.


Step #2:  In addition, request an electronic copy of all your prescription transactions (claims) for the billing cycle which coincides with the date of your price list.

Step #3:  Compare approximately 10 to 20 prescription claims against the price list to confirm contract agreement.  It’s impractical to verify all claims, but 10 is a sample size large enough to extract some good assumptions.

Step #4:  Now take it one step further. Check what your organization has paid, for prescription drugs, against our pharmacy cost then determine if a problem exists. When there is a 5% or more price differential (paid versus actual cost) we consider this a problem.

Multiple price differential discoveries means that your organization or client is likely overpaying. REPEAT these steps once per month.

— Tip —

Always include a semi-annual market check in your PBM contract language. Market checks provide each payer the ability, during the contract, to determine if better pricing is available in the marketplace compared to what the client is currently receiving.

When better pricing is discovered the contract language should stipulate the client be indemnified. Do not allow the PBM to limit the market check language to a similar size client, benefit design and/or drug utilization. In this case, the market check language is effectually meaningless.

Note: Prices listed herein are gross thus do not account for rebates, discounts or other purchase incentives which ultimately reduces the net cost.

Solutions for Reducing Patient Cost Sharing for Prescription Medications

In 2010, Fletcher was diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Within 6 months of starting treatment, his disease was in remission. But this good news did not last as he relapsed just 9 months later. He began treatment again, but the results were poor: Fletcher developed congested lungs, a persistent cough, and cataracts that left him temporarily blind. So, his doctor proposed a different treatment. Exhausted, but hopeful, Fletcher was ready to try the new drug until he heard what it would cost him—$2310 out of pocket (OOP) for just one month of treatment. His best chance of survival would consume nearly his entire month’s take-home pay.

It was not long before Jody’s medical bills ate through her family’s savings following her diagnosis with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in 2009. To keep her cancer in remission, Jody is taking a kinase inhibitor that she will likely need for the rest of her life. But when she went to pick up her first dose at the pharmacy, she, too, was shocked to learn how much that lifesaving drug would cost her —$5640 for the first month alone.

Everything that she and her husband had put away for their children’s college educations has gone to keeping Jody alive. Besides leukemia, Fletcher and Jody have something in common: they have had health insurance throughout their cancer treatment journey. Yet, because of the high cost sharing associated with their medications, Fletcher and Jody have faced profound difficulty accessing the treatments prescribed for them.

THE IMPACT OF THE RISING COST OF TREATMENT ON PATIENTS

Figure 1

Over the last decade, employers and other providers of health insurance have shifted more costs onto patients due to a multitude of factors that includes the rising cost of healthcare services. This trend is especially troubling for patients living with a blood cancer diagnosis, since available treatments typically consist of high-priced specialty drugs and other cost-intensive healthcare services. A common discussion with this cost-shifting trend is the steady increase in consumer premium payments, as employee premium contributions have increased 83% since 2006 (compared with a 54% increase for employers over the same period).

Although premium increases have captured the headlines in recent years, the rising OOP costs that patients face, after they pay their premiums, have proven to be even more dramatic (FIGURE 1). In 2003, almost half of patients in employer-provided insurance had no deductible to cover. Ten years later, less than 20% of patients had the same benefit. In fact, as insurers have recognized that increasing deductibles can discourage consumers from accessing their benefits, plans have accelerated this trend. In 2015, the average deductible in an employer-provided insurance plan had increased more than 250% from a decade earlier—increasing 3-times faster than premiums over the same period.

Of specific concern to blood cancer patients are benefit designs that increase the portion of drug costs borne by consumers. This trend is particularly striking in the Medicare Part D marketplace—in 2015, every stand-alone prescription drug plan had adopted a “specialty tier.” Placing a drug in a specialty tier allows the plan to charge patients a percentage of a drug’s list price rather than a fixed dollar amount and simultaneously prevents a patient from accessing Medicare’s cost-sharing appeals process. The impact on affordability is reflected in increases in the number of medications placed on the specialty tier each year.

In the past 4 years alone, Part D plans have shifted 50% more drugs onto their specialty tiers,3 subjecting many patients relying on those medications to thousands of dollars in additional cost sharing. Every day, across the country, blood cancer patients face decisions that pit their health against their family’s finances. And while policy makers, payers, and drug manufacturers engage in debates on drug pricing and a host of related topics— debates that seem far from reaching a productive resolution— patients, like Fletcher and Jody, struggle day to day to access critical medications.

Evidence indicates that once cost sharing exceeds $100, adherence to prescribed medications begins to drop off significantly likely due to the trade-off between paying for medical care and the prospect of damaging the family’s financial stability. Data also show that decreases in adherence correspond to worse outcomes and increases in costly medical interventions that, in many cases, could have been avoided with proper adherence. It is unacceptable and tragic when a patient knows that a potential cure is waiting behind the pharmacy counter but cannot receive it due to his/her inability to pay.

Policy makers ought to give priority consideration to solutions that would meet the following criteria:

  • Patients would experience a meaningful improvement in access to care
  • Payers could reasonably implement the proposed solution from both a financial and administrative perspective
  • The proposed solution will not prohibit a health plan from complying with existing laws and regulations, in particular, actuarial value requirements as established by the ACA

CONCLUSION

To be clear, the cost of medication is just 1 cost that blood cancer patients and their families must face. A proactive and multi-faceted approach to addressing cost and access issues for our communities includes:

  1. Working to secure public policies that can reduce the barriers associated with high OOP costs
  2. Conducting research into how cost acts as a barrier for treatment access
  3. Providing assistance through our copay program to help patients who cannot afford their insurance premiums or drug co-pays
  4. Calling on the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries to share real-world quality of life and outcomes data to support the pricing for their medications.

We are confident that by collaborating with key stakeholders we can dramatically improve patient access to these important therapies.

See more at: http://www.ajmc.com/journals/evidence-based-oncology/2016/august-2016/solutions-for-reducing-patient-cost-sharing-for-medications#sthash.I13GLiu5.dpuf

Should drug prices be tied to patient outcomes?

Global pressure on health spending is forcing the $1 trillion-a-year pharmaceutical industry to look for new ways to price its products: charging based on how much they improve patients’ health, rather than how many pills or vials are sold.

In the United States, both parties are promising fresh action on drug prices whoever wins the White House. In Europe, economies are stalled, squeezing state health budgets. And in China and other Asian markets, governments are getting tougher with suppliers.

Source: AARP Annual Rx Price Trends Report

Pricing drugs based on clinical outcomes is one way to ensure that limited funds bring the most benefits to patients now and pay for the most promising medical advances in future. Some experiments in pricing have already been made. But shifting the overall industry to a new model requires improvements in data collection and a change in thinking, say drug pricing experts.

“Eventually, we are going to get there,” said Kurt Kessler, managing principal at ZS Associates in Zurich, which advises companies on sales and marketing strategies. “But it is a long, tough slog because it’s difficult to get the right data and agree on what the right outcomes are to measure.”

In the past, governments and insurers made room in their budgets for new drugs by switching to cheap generics as patents expired on older drugs. But today generics already account for nearly nine out of every 10 prescriptions in key markets like the United States, and fewer big drugs are going off patent.

That leaves little headroom for pricey new medicines for cancer and other hard-to-treat diseases, even as they come to market in growing numbers. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already approved 16 new drugs this year.

Investors got a wake-up call on the issue last Friday when $10 billion was lopped off the market value of Novo Nordisk as the world’s biggest diabetes firm warned of falling U.S. prices.
Pharmacy benefit managers administering U.S. health plans are pushing back hard by excluding some drugs deemed too expensive – including Novo’s – leading to a crunch in areas like diabetes, a disease that now accounts for 12 percent of global healthcare spending.

The Danish group has an unusually high exposure to the U.S. market, but it is not alone in signalling tough times ahead. The chief executives of Novartis, Eli Lilly and GlaxoSmithKline have all warned recently that pricing will become increasingly challenging across the board.

Accounting for 40 percent of global drug sales, the fate of the U.S. market is front and centre in the minds of drug company executives, some of whom privately admit to preparing for a “confrontational” period in relations with politicians.

Read more: Future of Drug Pricing: Paying for Benefits? 

Reference Pricing: Invoice Cost (Gross) for Top Selling Generic and Brand Prescription Drugs – Volume 130

This document is updated weekly, but why is it important?  Healthcare marketers are aggressively pursuing new revenue streams to augment lower reimbursements provided under PPACA. Prescription drugs, particularly specialty, are key drivers in the growth strategies of PBMs, TPAs and MCOs pursuant to health care reform. 

The costs shared below are what the pharmacy actually pays; not AWP, MAC or WAC. The bottom line; payers must have access to “reference pricing.” Apply this knowledge to hold PBMs accountable and lower plan expenditures for stakeholders.

How to Determine if Your Company [or Client] is Overpaying


Step #1:  Obtain a price list for generic prescription drugs from your broker, TPA, ASO or PBM every month.


Step #2:  In addition, request an electronic copy of all your prescription transactions (claims) for the billing cycle which coincides with the date of your price list.

Step #3:  Compare approximately 10 to 20 prescription claims against the price list to confirm contract agreement.  It’s impractical to verify all claims, but 10 is a sample size large enough to extract some good assumptions.

Step #4:  Now take it one step further. Check what your organization has paid, for prescription drugs, against our pharmacy cost then determine if a problem exists. When there is a 5% or more price differential (paid versus actual cost) we consider this a problem.

Multiple price differential discoveries means that your organization or client is likely overpaying. REPEAT these steps once per month.

— Tip —

Always include a semi-annual market check in your PBM contract language. Market checks provide each payer the ability, during the contract, to determine if better pricing is available in the marketplace compared to what the client is currently receiving.

When better pricing is discovered the contract language should stipulate the client be indemnified. Do not allow the PBM to limit the market check language to a similar size client, benefit design and/or drug utilization. In this case, the market check language is effectually meaningless.

Note: Prices listed herein are gross thus do not account for rebates, discounts or other purchase incentives which ultimately reduces the net cost.

In-Office Dispensing: A Better Value?

Over the last several years, the proliferation of oral cancer drugs has caused many oncology practices to establish in-house pharmacies using either a board of pharmacy or physician’s medical license.

Click to Enlarge

Today, almost half of US community oncology practices have an in-office dispensing (IOD) program, and that number continues to grow. However, due to the burgeoning volume of pricey oral oncolytics coming to market, IODs are now competing with retail pharmacy chains, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and a growing number of independent specialty pharmacies.

With increased competition, the challenge IOD practices now face is to prove the value of what they do. Why should drug manufacturers continue to allow them access to their drugs? Why should health plans and pharmacy benefit managers allow them in their networks? What benefits do IODs offer that other pharmacy channels cannot deliver?

Fortunately, as value-based reimbursement models emerge in the oncology market, including the recently launched Oncology Care Model (OCM) pilot, IODs are well positioned to demonstrate their superiority to other pharmacy channels.

In broad terms, IODs can provide better patient care and outcomes—at lower cost—through a more clinically integrated and streamlined process. It is useful to describe the value IOD brings to physicians, patients, payers, or manufacturers in two ways: having the pharmacy closer to the patient and having the pharmacy closer to the physician.
Benefits of a Pharmacy Closer to the Patient

Having the pharmacy closer to patients allows them greater convenience and improves their overall healthcare experience. Because cancer treatment can be exhausting, patients often do not have the time, energy, or mobility to search for and coordinate with a pharmacy that can fill their prescriptions. It is important to recognize that costly oral oncolytics usually cannot be found at the local pharmacies most patients use regularly.

These drugs are only available through a limited number of pharmacies, which are knowledgeable on specialty medications and equipped with the capabilities to support patients before and after they begin therapy. These pharmacies are often selected by the manufacturer or payer. Consequently, it’s often confusing to patients which pharmacy must be used.

Cancer care for patients can be greatly simplified and better coordinated at a practice with IOD. Using pharmacy management software, staff can help patients determine insurance coverage, complete payer-imposed prior authorizations, and most important, find copay assistance when very expensive therapies are needed.

All of this can be done while the patient is in the clinic receiving other treatment or visiting the oncologist. In addition, the actual dispensing of the drug can be synchronized with other elements of the patient’s regimen, whether it be surgery, radiation, or infusion. These examples of better coordinated care equate to a faster treatment time and greater patient convenience—a shared goal of all healthcare stakeholders.

A common challenge to payers is oral oncolytic drug waste. This waste is usually created because pharmacies will typically fill a 30-day supply that is more than needed because the patient will frequently discontinue or delay therapy for a myriad of reasons, such as intolerance or tumor progression.

See more at: http://www.onclive.com/publications/oncology-business-news/2016/august-2016/inoffice-dispensing-is-better-value#sthash.eInrQ0D3.dpuf

Reference Pricing: “Net” Invoice Cost for Top Selling Generic and Brand Prescription Drugs (Volume 129)

This document is updated weekly, but why is it important?  Healthcare marketers are aggressively pursuing new revenue streams to augment lower reimbursements provided under PPACA. Prescription drugs, particularly specialty, are key drivers in the growth strategies of PBMs, TPAs and MCOs pursuant to healthcare reform. 

The costs shared below are what the pharmacy actually pays; not AWP, MAC or WAC. The bottom line; payers must have access to “reference pricing.” Apply this knowledge to hold PBMs accountable and lower plan expenditures for stakeholders.



How to Determine if Your Company [or Client] is Overpaying


Step #1:  Obtain a price list for generic prescription drugs from your broker, TPA, ASO or PBM every month.


Step #2:  In addition, request an electronic copy of all your prescription transactions (claims) for the billing cycle which coincides with the date of your price list.

Step #3:  Compare approximately 10 to 20 prescription claims against the price list to confirm contract agreement.  It’s impractical to verify all claims, but 10 is a sample size large enough to extract some good assumptions.

Step #4:  Now take it one step further. Check what your organization has paid, for prescription drugs, against our pharmacy cost then determine if a problem exists. When there is a 5% or more price differential (paid versus actual cost) we consider this a problem.

Multiple price differential discoveries means that your organization or client is likely overpaying. REPEAT these steps once per month.

— Tip —

Always include a semi-annual market check in your PBM contract language. Market checks provide each payer the ability, during the contract, to determine if better pricing is available in the marketplace compared to what the client is currently receiving.

When better pricing is discovered the contract language should stipulate the client be indemnified. Do not allow the PBM to limit the market check language to a similar size client, benefit design and/or drug utilization. In this case, the market check language is effectually meaningless.

Note: Prices listed herein do not account for rebates, discounts or other purchase incentives which reduces the net cost.