Glenn Cox’s Post

View profile for Glenn Cox

VP of Sales & Marketing

Couldn't have said it better! Hopefully Jae and others can get more employers to start paying attention to what is happening and why these PBM's moved into the work comp market. Employers do have a choice and they need to start speaking up about how their pharmacy dollars are being spent. As Jae stated, the problem we see most often is that employers think (or are being told) they DO NOT have a choice to selecting their own pharmacy provider due to bundled Insurance Carrier/TPA programs. We work with both bundled and unbundled program providers. There is nothing wrong with a bundled program if it is a transparent model for the employer that is truly going to help reduce their pharmacy cost. As we like to tell prospective employers, "It is your money and you do have a choice when it comes to how it is being spent on medications". Some employers feel they need to be with one of the Big Three to get the best deal. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case when managing a pharmacy program. We all utilize the same retail pharmacies nationwide to manage your program. CPS does go one step further than most of our competitors by providing our long-term medications using our in-house mail order with a true cost-plus model. This also means we have an idea of what the retail pharmacies are paying for the drugs they are dispensing and what a fair reimbursement rate should be. As we have been saying since the early 2000's before all of today's work comp paper PBM's started popping up, "Don’t get caught up in the Smoke and Mirrors?" If this is you, don’t feel alone. Please contact us if we can ever be of assistance in educating you and/or your clients that are looking to reduce their overall pharmacy spend. Performing a cost comparison takes very little effort on the part of the employer and usually results in huge savings. Thanks again for sharing Jae.

View profile for Krista L. Hartin

Vice President, Life Sciences Practice Leader

Pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs)- third party administrators of prescription drug programs- have gained scrutiny in the US over the years. Independant pharmacies raised the alarm about "unfair" tactics used by PBMs to monopolize the industry, such as underpaying for prescriptions that are filled and claw-backs to reimbursements which threaten to put them out of business. The FTC announced plans this week to sue three of the largest PBMs over practices that they allege contribute to inflated drug prices. The PBMs targeted controlled 79% of US pharmacy benefit management in 2022 (according to the data platform Statista) when the initial investigation began : -Caremark (CVS Health) - 33% -Express Scripts (Cigna) - 24% -Optum RX (United Healthcare Group) - 22% The call for more transparency into their operations comes as PBMs blame manufacturers for higher drug prices and drug manufacturers justify increases blaming their higher list prices on rebating and fees collected by the PBMs.

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics