MEDICAID MANAGED CARE RX BENEFITS HELP STATES

Medicaid prescription drug spending has been on the rise and some states have elected to carve out prescription drug benefits and shift to a Fee-For-Service (FFS) model. In theory, this delivery system helps states leverage their purchasing power to reduce costs and increase oversight. However, recent data reveals that when compared to FFS models, managed care prescription services save significantly more on brand name and generic drugs while also improving the quality of care.

In a 2018 report, the Association for Community Affiliated Plans (ACAP) studied Medicaid prescription drug spending between 2011 and 2017. The trade association focused on key expenditure trends and dynamics related to Medicaid's pharmacy benefits. Here is what the report discovered:

• Over a six-year period, managed care drug benefits produced significant savings despite the increase of prescription drug costs. "The average net (post-rebate) cost per MCO-paid Medicaid prescription during 2016 was $37, 73 percent of the average net cost of Medicaid prescriptions paid in the fee-for-service (FFS) setting during 2017, which was $50."

• The report also identified that managed care prescription services had higher usage of generic drugs which helped to minimize drug expenses. "In 2017, generic drugs represented 88.1 percent of MCO-paid Medicaid prescriptions versus 83.7 percent in the FFS setting."

• Six states that shifted to managed care prescription benefits only had a 1 percent increase in net costs per prescription between 2011 and 2014. Meanwhile, seven states that carved out pharmacy benefits saw a 20 percent surge in net costs per prescription during the same period. Compared to the six states that switched to a managed care model, these seven states missed out on an approximated $307 million in savings in 2014.

• Finally, including prescription drug services improves the quality of care. Since Medicaid health plans handle all of a patient's benefits, the plan can coordinate and communicate with providers more effectively. This makes care less complicated and also decreases unnecessary hospitalizations and emergency room use.

As a result of skyrocketing pharmaceutical drug costs and the increased size of the Medicaid population, some states have carved out pharmacy benefits and shifted to FFS models to rein in costs. However, data shows that Medicaid plans are able to save more when pharmacy and medical benefits are integrated together. Not only are plans able to save money on prescription drug costs, but they also improve the quality of care for their members. To preserve the program's resources and ensure its sustainability, states may want to reevaluate carving out benefits.

Click the link to read more. 

CA RFP FOR FFS RX BENEFIT MANAGEMENT

In January, California's newly appointed Governor  Governor Gavin Newsom authorized an executive order to significantly reform health care in the state. Executive Order N-01-19 introduced a number of actions and budget proposals to decrease the cost of prescription drugs and health care. One proposal, specifically, shifts all pharmacy services for Medi-Cal managed care to a fee-for-service (FFS) model.

Pharmaceutical drugs are one of the key drivers of growing health care costs. Last year the state's individual market experienced a 10% increase in health care costs and reports suggested the drug manufacturers planned to increase pricing in 2019.

FFS RX BENEFIT

At the moment, Medi-Cal acquires drugs with the aid of public and private purchasers that negotiate with manufactures independently. Under the FFS model, California would become the largest single payer of pharmaceutical drugs and the state would have increased bargaining power to negotiate prices with manufacturers.

Governor Newsom stated, "We will use our market power and our moral power to demand fairer prices for prescription drugs. And we will continue to move closer to ensuring health care for every Californian."

RFP # 19-96125

In July, DHCS sent out a request for proposals for managing the FFS pharmacy benefit. RFP # 19-96125 is requesting proposals for the takeover, operation, and ensuing turnover of administration of the FFS pharmacy services. Entities including commercial businesses, nonprofit organizations, state or public universities that fulfill the qualification criteria are eligible for submission.

Click here to keep reading. 

HB 3388 SEES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

2019 has been a busy year for healthcare legislation in Texas and one proposal, in particular, intended to carve out PBM's altogether. House Representative J.D. Sheffield (R) introduced HB 3388 on March 6th in an attempt to reform the delivery of prescription drugs to a fee-for-service model for Medicaid and various other public benefit programs. However, during its time in the House, it went through a series of significant changes.

INTRODUCED HB 3388

Initially, HB 3388 was directed toward the delivery of outpatient prescription drug benefits. It proposed extreme changes such as:

• Replacing the vendor drug program with a fee-for-service delivery model.

• HHSC would eliminate any requirement to pay fees included in the capitation rate or other amounts paid to MCOs related to the provision of outpatient prescription drug benefits.

• If HHSC contracts with a claims processor to administer the outpatient prescription benefit program, HHSC would then reimburse the claims administrator for the prescription drugs and a contracted administrative fee.

• HHSC would apply clinical prior authorization requirements state-wide and use prior authorizations to regulate unnecessary utilization.

• HHSC contracts with MCOs would be changed to prohibit the MCO from providing outpatient prescription drugs by December 31, 2019, and would restrict an MCO from developing, implementing, or maintaining an outpatient pharmacy benefit plan for recipients beginning on the 180th day after the date HHSC begins providing outpatient prescription drug benefits.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE

During its time in the House, the bill's focus shifted and the committee's substitute did not include any provisions from the original. CSHB 3388 changed course and focused on the reimbursement of prescription drugs under Medicaid and CHIP rather than the delivery of drug benefits. Under the revised version:

• MCOs providing services under Medicaid or CHIP would be mandated to reimburse retail and specialty pharmacies a minimum of the lesser of the reimbursement amount for the drug in the vendor drug program, including a dispensing fee that is not less than the dispensing fee under the vendor drug program, or the amount claimed by the pharmacy or pharmacist, including the gross amount due or the usual and customary charge to the public for the drug.

• MCOs would be required to reimburse pharmacies that dispense a prescription drug at a discounted price under Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act not less than the reimbursement amount for the drug under the vendor drug program, including a dispensing fee that is not less than the dispensing fee under the vendor drug program.

• HHSC would perform a study every two years to analyze Texas pharmacies' actual acquisition costs and dispensing cost.

• Bill 3388 would take effect on March 1, 2020.

Supporters of the bill believe that pharmacies would get fairer reimbursement of prescriptions filled for Medicaid and CHIP. They point out that the bill would improve transparency since it would use NADAC as a pricing benchmark. It would also not affect which drugs the programs covered.

On the other hand, opponents say that the bill has the potential to raise state costs by changing reimbursement methodology. Their position is that PBMs help to negotiate the best possible deals and protect patients from being prescribed unnecessary medications. They are concerned that the bill would negatively affect patient outcomes while increasing ER visits and opioid prescription rates and decrease medication adherence.

HB 3388 was voted on in the House on May 4th and it has been referred to the Health and Human Services Committee. If the bill is approved it will surely impact healthcare within the state. While the revised bill does not include a pharmacy carve out, it's a clear indication that lawmakers are focused on rising healthcare and prescription drugs costs and what they can do to remedy the problem.

Click on the link and read more. 

THE IMPACT OF CALIFORNIA'S PHARMACY CARVE OUT

At the beginning of 2019, California's governor signed an executive order instructing DHCS to utilize a fee-for-service model for Medi-Cal. Under the order, The state of California would consolidate its purchasing power and leverage its population size to achieve lower drug costs by purchasing in bulk from pharmaceutical drug companies. Additionally, DHCS has been assigned with the task of producing a list of twenty-five of the most expensive drugs that would be included in the negotiations with manufacturers.

In between 2018 and 2019, spending on pharmacy services reached $8 billion in California and most of pharmacy spending took place under the managed care delivery model. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), carving out managed care pharmacy services could lead to hundreds of millions in savings annually. That being said, the savings could come at a cost to stakeholders such as enrollees, pharmacies, providers, and MCO's. Just recently, the LAO released a report that assesses what the move could mean for the state and Medi-Cal's stakeholders.

The LAO's analyses identified the following possible impacts of the carve-out:

IMPACT ON NON-CONSUMER STAKEHOLDERS

Reduction in Retained 340B Earnings for Eligible Providers

"By transitioning Medi-Cal pharmacy services entirely to a FFS benefit, 340B eligible providers would no longer be able to generate earning on any pharmacy dispensed drugs paid for by Medi-Cal. Rather, these earnings would largely convert into state savings in the form of lower prescription drug expenditures."

Decrease in Backing for Medi-Cal Managed Care Plans

"Funding for Medi-Cal managed care plans would likely be reduced by between 15 percent and 20 percent under the carve-out. A portion of the reduction would likely come from existing Medi-Cal managed care plan funding for purposes such as administration, care coordination, reserves, and profits."

Minimal Impact on Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry

"The carve out is unlikely to have a major impact on earnings for the drug manufacturing industry overall, both in the state and nationwide. Selected drug manufacturers, however, may pay higher negotiated supplemental rebates to the state in exchange for greater utilization of their drugs in Medi-Cal through placement on a more widely applicable Medi-Cal wide preferred drug list."

Likely Increase in Funding for Pharmacies

"Pharmacies will potentially benefit from increased funding under the carve-out due to (1) (absent any changes) the higher dispensing fees paid by Medi-Cal FFS compared to Medi-Cal managed care plans and (2) the larger network of pharmacies serving Medi-Cal FFS compared to individual Medi-Cal managed care plans. A portion of the increase in funding may be offset by lower reimbursement for the drugs since Medi-Cal FFS, but not Medi-Cal managed care, pays pharmacies at close to pharmacies' costs in acquiring their drugs."

IMPACT ON BENEFICIARY ACCESS AND CARE

Statewide Standardization of the Medi-Cal Pharmacy Services Benefit

"While the standardization of the Medi-Cal drug benefit under the carve-out has potential to improve care from a beneficiary perspective in the long run, the transition to FFS could result in beneficiaries losing ready access to drugs they are currently taking. As such, the Legislature may wish to consider continuity of care protections for beneficiaries currently utilizing prescription drugs."

Expansion of the Pharmacy Network Where Beneficiaries Can Obtain Prescription Drugs

"According to the administration, Medi-Cal's FFS pharmacy network extends to almost all pharmacies throughout the state. Transitioning pharmacy services coverage to a FFS benefit could give Medi-Cal enrollees greater choice in where they obtain their prescription drugs."

Less Timely Prescription Drug Utilization Information for Medi-Cal Managed Care Plans

"While DHCS provides FFS prescription drug utilization data to managed care plans on behalf of their members for currently carved out drugs, it is our understanding is that this data does not arrive from DHCS in a timely enough manner to assist plans' care coordination activities."

Opioid Curtailment Programs

"These initiatives have likely contributed to dramatically reducing the number and potency of opioid prescriptions among Medi-Cal members. Under the carve-out, it is uncertain whether such initiatives by Medi-Cal managed care plans would continue."

At this point, California's administration has not published information on how the order will be carried out and they have yet to release any information on how stakeholders may be impacted. In order to help the state's legislators understand what the carve out could mean for the state, the LAO also specified outstanding details that should be addressed prior to the change. These include:

• Overall Fiscal Estimate
• What New State Resources Are Needed to Administer the Entire Medi-Cal Pharmacy Services Benefit?
• How Would State Information Systems Be Improved to Maintain or Improve Existing Managed Care Plan Care Coordination?
• Managed Care Plans' Continued Role in Coordinating the Medi-Cal Pharmacy Services Benefit in Conjunction With Their Members Overall Health Care

Reducing prescription drug prices is a major concern for states at this point and California's effort is merely one approach. Aside from transitioning to a fee-for-service model, there are also a variety of alternate methods. While the state sorts out the details of its transition, the analyses from the LAO also includes four alternative options that could be used in place of a complete carve out.

1. Universal Medi-Cal Preferred Drug List Spanning FFS and Managed Care.
2. Transfer Savings From 340B Drug Discounts in Medi-Cal to the State
3. Formalize the Use of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Preference of Drugs in Medi-Cal
4. Adopt a Medi-Cal Prescription Drug Spending Cap

At the end of the analyses, the report made two specific recommendations to state legislatures due to the uncertainty surrounding the order and its possible impact. First and foremost, the LAO recommended that strong oversight should be in place before the implementation. They also suggested that the state condition resources for implementation based off of key details provided by DHCS.

To read more, click here.