September 3, 2009 4:58 PM
- Text
Pharmacy Benefit Managers Face Double Threat
(MoneyWatch) Do WellPoint and Aetna know something about healthcare reform that others don't? WellPoint sold its pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) division recently to Express Scripts, and Aetna has put its PBM on the block, with Medco reported to be the leading bidder. Meanwhile, one of the reform bills would require PBMs to reveal how much they're getting back from pharmaceutical companies on particular drugs. If they spill their competitive secrets, the Wall Street Journal speculates, they might not be able to continue raking in billions by obtaining drug rebates on behalf of their employer and health plan clients. In that case, it will be said that WellPoint and Aetna made some very prescient moves.
Another sign of the times: Caterpillar has struck direct deals with Walgreens and Wal Mart for prescription drugs. If other big employers followed suit, PBMs would become superfluous. On the other hand, the Journal points out, "the Caterpillar deal [with Walgreens] isn't as threatening [to PBMs] as it looks. Caterpillar will keep its benefit manager to handle rebate negotiations [with drug firms]." Sounds like Caterpillar is playing both ends against the middle.
CVS, meanwhile, is not sweating it. The big drug chain, which operates its own PBM, is not worried about competition between that division and other pharmacy chains. And it regards the outcome of healthcare reform as "a wash." CVS's share price has increased 50 percent since March, and its PBM business is also expected to improve.
Consolidation among the PBMs should give the survivors more clout to get better prices from the pharma companies. If so, the divestiture of WellPoint and Aetna's PBMs would be a good thing for employers and consumers.
But what gets lost in this discussion is the benefit to patients. If PBMs reduce drug prices, it's possible-depending on their health plan and the company they work for-that some patients might pay less for drugs. It's also possible that a particular medication that they need will cost them more because it's eliminated from their health plans' formulary in favor of another drug that the PBM is getting a rebate on.
From this perspective, one might argue that the government should bargain on drug prices for the entire population-and not just for Medicare, as has been proposed. Of course, the pharmaceutical industry would cry bloody murder; but this is the way they do business in nearly every other advanced country. Why should U.S. consumers and employers continue to contribute half of the drug industry's worldwide profits? And why should we pay billions of dollars to middlemen that do little more than negotiate discounts?
Another sign of the times: Caterpillar has struck direct deals with Walgreens and Wal Mart for prescription drugs. If other big employers followed suit, PBMs would become superfluous. On the other hand, the Journal points out, "the Caterpillar deal [with Walgreens] isn't as threatening [to PBMs] as it looks. Caterpillar will keep its benefit manager to handle rebate negotiations [with drug firms]." Sounds like Caterpillar is playing both ends against the middle.
CVS, meanwhile, is not sweating it. The big drug chain, which operates its own PBM, is not worried about competition between that division and other pharmacy chains. And it regards the outcome of healthcare reform as "a wash." CVS's share price has increased 50 percent since March, and its PBM business is also expected to improve.
Consolidation among the PBMs should give the survivors more clout to get better prices from the pharma companies. If so, the divestiture of WellPoint and Aetna's PBMs would be a good thing for employers and consumers.
But what gets lost in this discussion is the benefit to patients. If PBMs reduce drug prices, it's possible-depending on their health plan and the company they work for-that some patients might pay less for drugs. It's also possible that a particular medication that they need will cost them more because it's eliminated from their health plans' formulary in favor of another drug that the PBM is getting a rebate on.
From this perspective, one might argue that the government should bargain on drug prices for the entire population-and not just for Medicare, as has been proposed. Of course, the pharmaceutical industry would cry bloody murder; but this is the way they do business in nearly every other advanced country. Why should U.S. consumers and employers continue to contribute half of the drug industry's worldwide profits? And why should we pay billions of dollars to middlemen that do little more than negotiate discounts?
Latest Now in MoneyWatch
- Ohio unemployment hits 3-year-low
- Jill on Money: Retirement investing, allocation, long term care
- Could "web-lining" be dangerous?
- Insurers respond cautiously to contraceptive plan
- Judge: Legally, breastfeeding not related to pregnancy
- Budget deficit drops to $27 billion in January
- Why the Powerball Jackpot is part of my investment strategy
- Is the new VW Beetle diesel worth the money?
- Consumer sentiment highlights risks to recovery
- Valentine blues? 10 best cities to be single
- December trade deficit widens to $48.8 billion
- Alcatel-Lucent returns to profit in 2011
- 6 things never to say in a performance review
- $26B mortgage deal: Who gets the money?
- Friendly's CEO steps down
- Quarterly loss hits $3.3B at Postal Service
- Greeks rail against cuts as EU demands more
Latest CBS News Headlines
on Facebook
on CBS News
- Boeing says it's frustrated with Dreamliner glitch
- Boeing says it's frustrated with Dreamliner glitch
- Venezuelans: Will Chavez's challenger pose threat?
- Malaysia to deport Saudi accused of prophet insult
on Facebook
- Whitney Houston 1963-2012
- Adele sings a cappella for Anderson Cooper
- "Phantom" star sings on "CBS This Morning: Saturday"
on CBS News






