|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Why That $5 Drug Is a Bad Deal: Co-Payments Outpace True Costs
By BARBARA MARTINEZ
James Alves thought he was getting a good deal. Using his drug-benefits card, he was paying $5 each month at his local CVS pharmacy for a 30-day supply of the generic heart drug furosemide. Turns out it was no bargain. The company running Mr. Alves's drug-card program, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Inc., had negotiated a price with CVS of a mere 76 cents for the drug. So, when Mr. Alves paid $5 for something that CVS agreed to sell for 76 cents, $4.24 went to Harvard Pilgrim. More than 200 million Americans now get their prescriptions filled through so-called pharmacy benefit managers like the one Harvard Pilgrim runs, which offer negotiated discounts on drugs. But increasingly, patients in these programs are shelling out more in co-payments for certain medicines than the drug is actually costing their health plans.
The practice is most likely to occur with common generics like prescription-strength ibuprofen, the antibiotic amoxicillin, and the popular painkiller acetaminophen with codeine. Co-payments for health plans are creeping higher -- the result of employers' ongoing efforts to control health costs. As a result, more and more of the discounted prices for drugs are likely to fall below the level of the co-payment. Pharmacy benefit plans generally work by negotiating discounts of between 10% and 20% with tens of thousands of pharmacies -- then pass on some of those savings to clients, like employers who buy the plans for their workers. The consumer pays a small co-payment -- say $5 or $10 -- for a prescription; the employer gets billed by the health plan for the rest. But plans are getting so aggressive at negotiating discounts with pharmacies that unbeknownst to most consumers, they are sometimes ending up with prices on generic drugs below the standard co-payments. Yet instead of allowing consumers to pay the lower prices, many plans are either pocketing the difference themselves or allowing the pharmacies to keep it. The phenomenon is the latest irony in the skewed economics of health care. It comes not only amid rising co-payments and even faster-rising retail drug prices, but also amid turmoil in the pharmaceutical industry as a growing number of drugs face generic competitors. For now, pharmacy benefit plans say the instances when the discounted price is less than the co-pay are rare. But two of the country's three giant PBMs -- Medco Health Solutions, a unit of Merck & Co., and Express Scripts Inc., which together manage the pharmaceutical benefits of more than 100 million people -- routinely let pharmacies charge the full co-payment even if the negotiated discount price is lower. Recently, Walgreen Co., one of the country's largest pharmacy chains, instituted a minimum prescription price of $7.99 or $8.99, no matter what the negotiated discounted price is. Both Walgreen and CVS Corp., another huge drugstore chain, say they need to collect the full co-payment even when the negotiated price is less. "The co-pay represents fixed costs associated with dispensing the medication," such as paying pharmacists and other overhead, said a CVS spokesman. It's difficult to estimate how much more consumers spend because of this practice than they would if they simply paid the lower discounted price. One PBM estimates that consumers may pay 7% more in co-payments than they would if they were allowed to pay lower discounted prices. Substantial Sums It's also unclear how much the PBMs and pharmacies are netting from the practice, though the sums could be substantial. According to IMS Health, a health-care information company, there were more than 30 million prescriptions in the U.S. last year for the antibiotic amoxicillin, one of the generic drugs for which PBMs often negotiate a price lower than a co-pay.
Keeping the difference between the discounted price and a higher co-payment can be lucrative for individual pharmacies, according to one analysis by a pharmacy-benefits manager. The practice can add nearly 2% to the overall drug spending of a particular plan, according to this PBM's estimate. So a pharmacy that handles $1 million of drug claims for a particular employer could see an additional $20,000 a year. That's not a bad take considering it doesn't require added costs and pharmacy margins are already razor-thin. While few consumers and employers are aware of the practice, Mr. Alves, a 48-year-old accountant in Massachusetts, found out -- and sued Harvard Pilgrim claiming he was "fraudulently charged" co-pays in excess of his plan's costs. Harvard Pilgrim countered that it sold Mr. Alves's employer a drug plan that listed a flat co-payment amount, not a sliding scale depending on discounts. In June, a federal court judge agreed and dismissed the case. Mr. Alves is appealing. The issue is one of fairness and complete disclosure, argues Stuart Rossman, director of litigation at the Boston-based National Consumer Law Center, which helped Mr. Alves in his case. "Our feeling is when you pay a co-pay, you assume that it's two people paying," says Mr. Rossman. "If I'm going to put $4 into the health plan's pocket, at least let me know what's happening." PBMs say that they are struggling to keep drug benefits affordable for clients in the face of skyrocketing pharmaceutical prices. Some say they allow pharmacies to cash in on the difference between the negotiated discount and the co-payment on cheaper drugs in return for discounts on other, more expensive drugs. For most Americans, paying an extra few bucks here and there for generics is no sweat considering that in most cases, the co-payment -- $5, $15 or even $25 -- costs only a small fraction of the price of some expensive medications. On the whole, PBMs work out pretty well for consumers: The average brand-name drug retails for nearly $70, while the average generic prescription costs almost $20. By contrast, the average American co-payment currently is under $10 for a generic drug and under $20 for a brand-name drug. Creeping Co-Payments Nevertheless, co-payments for prescription drugs continue to edge up, now averaging $9 for generics, compared with $8 the previous two years, and $17 for preferred drugs (brand-name drugs with no generic substitutes), up from $15 in 2001. Co-payments for so-called nonpreferred drugs (brand-name drugs with generic substitutes) jumped to $26 this year from $20 in 2001, according to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust. For now, there's not much consumers can do about the problem of co-pays that are higher than the negotiated price. Buying a drug without using your drug card will get you the retail price for the drug, which is bound to be much higher than the discounted price. And drugstores aren't bound to charge the discounted price. They are required only to charge the lower of the retail or the co-payment. Write to Barbara Martinez at barbara.martinez@wsj.com5
Updated September 12, 2002 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
INTRODUCTION
The $400 billion-a-year drug industry is suddenly in serious trouble. Patents on one blockbuster drug after another are expiring. Managed-care companies are successfully pushing patients away from high-priced new drugs and toward cheap generics. Consumers stand to benefit in the short term. But, in the longer term, the newest treatments promise to get more expensive, as the industry invests more in research and development and gets less out of it. The likely outcome is worsening battles among the drug industry, managed-care companies, and federal and state governments over drug prices.
Drug Makers Fight European
Price Cuts
Drug makers are desperately fighting to fend off
mandatory price cuts across Europe, where governments
have long dictated prices. And the outcome has direct
implications for the soaring price of drugs in the U.S.
(June 7, 2002)
Drug Firm Switches Users to
New Pill
AstraZeneca has warded off generic competitors of its
blockbuster Prilosec thanks to seven years of planning
by a group of marketers, lawyers and scientists within
the company.
(June 6, 2002)
Possible Sepsis Treatment Goes
Unused
Dr. G. Umberto Meduri and colleagues have accumulated a
modest body of evidence that the deadliest forms of
sepsis often yield to common steroids. But big
pharmaceutical companies are reluctant to pay for
larger studies because the steroids' patents have
expired.
(May 17, 2002)
Death of Youth Pill Stung
Pfizer
The failure of an experimental drug Pfizer hoped would
reverse the physical decline that comes with aging
illustrates just how hard it is to find new medicines.
(May 2, 2002)
Drug Marketing Raises Privacy
Issues
Drug makers are paying pharmacies to send patients
reminders about refilling their prescriptions that
often encourage switching to more expensive brand-name
drugs, prompting privacy and ethical concerns.
(May 1, 2002)
Bumpy Quest for New
Blockbusters
After nearly a decade of double-digit growth,
highflying stocks, and some of the world's loftiest
profit margins, one big drug company after another is
taking a beating. A major reason: In laboratories
around the world, scientists on the hunt for new drugs
are coming up dry.
(April 18, 2002)
|
I promise to answer your message -- click here to send me a personal message
|
SUBSCRIBE: The Wednesday Letter is a free electronic monthly newsletter written and published by Karl Loren. You can view more than 50 back issues of this publication by clicking here. The Wednesday Letter subscription list is maintained on a secure server, no name is ever given or sold to anyone, and it is never used except for this Newsletter. It is automatically published on the Tuesday night just before the first Wednesday of every month. You can subscribe to this free monthly electronic letter by entering your eMail address and name below. You will then automatically receive a request for confirmation, sent to whatever address you have entered. If you do NOT receive this confirmation request, then you will not be subscribed. There may have been an error with your address and you should resubmit. The letter is never sent twice to the same address -- so you do not have to worry about a duplicate subscription. When you receive this confirmation request you must reply to it, or your subscription will not become active. No one can subscribe your name, and address, without you being notified, and if you get an unwanted notice of subscription you only need to DO NOTHING and the subscription will NOT be active.
REMOVAL: You can remove yourself from the subscription list in several different ways. Click here to read about this entire newsletter system. Every edition of The Wednesday Letter is delivered to your address with YOUR name and address in view on the letter, with a link that allows you to remove THAT name from the subscription list. If you try to send this removal message from an address different from the one you used to send in your original confirmation, then you will get a warning notice first, sent to the subscription address, asking you to confirm that you want to be removed from the list -- by replying to THAT request for confirmation, you will then be automatically removed. Thus, no one else can unsubscribe you, from some other computer, without your knowledge. But, if you send in the unsubscribe notice from the same machine used to receive the Letter, then the removal from the subscription list is automatic.
Personal Message: When you send a personal message to Karl Loren, you will receive a personal reply as per his instructions. Karl pledges that every personal message will get a personal answer. When you provide your mail address, we will send you free information including our free catalog and a cassette tape lecture by Karl Loren about heart disease, no charge, by mail, even if outside the US. You can select particular information you would like to receive, along with the free cassette tape and catalog.
You can reach Vibrant Life in many ways, including by mail to Vibrant Life, 2808 N. Naomi St., Burbank, CA 91504. Within the US and Canada, use the toll free number: (800) 523-4521, the local number: (818) 558-1799, the FAX: (818) 558-7299, eMail to kimberly@oralchelation.com or any one of the hundreds of message forms throughout the 50 web sites. Vibrant Life normally ships the same day we get an order. There are message forms on each of the 100,000+ pages on this and other sites where you can communicate with Vibrant Life. Check out our companion site, at: http://www.oralchelation.net where Karl's 2000 page book is published. Karl Loren is the author and webmaster for this BOOK, as well as for another web site about ORAL CHELATION. His personal philosophical articles are at PHILOSOPHY.
Copyright © May 20, 2008 6:24 AM by Karl Loren on behalf of Vibrant Life, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Permission is granted for non-commercial downloading, copying, distribution or redistribution on two conditions: One, that some form of copyright notice is included in every copy distributed or copied, showing the copyright belonging to Vibrant Life, Burbank, CA, at www.oralchelation.com . The second condition is that the material is not to be used for any purpose contrary to the purposes and objectives of this site. This permission does not extend to materials on this site which are copyrighted by others.