Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM)

Subscribe to Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) via RSS

The Trump Administration’s latest effort to limit the power of pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”) is marred by economic uncertainty and looming legal scrutiny.  The Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) within the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) recently released a proposed rule (“proposed rule”) removing safe harbor protection under the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) for prescription drug rebates (“drug rebates) paid by a manufacturer to Medicare Part D plan sponsors and Medicaid managed care organizations (“MCOs”) or their PBMs.  The rule also creates new safe harbor protections for point-of-sale reductions in price and certain PBM services fees.[1]   The long-awaited proposed rule follows months of anticipation after the Trump Administration released its May 2018 Blueprint to reduce prescription drug costs.[2]

PBMs in Brief

PBMs, on behalf of health plans, employers, and other entities, negotiate and contract with drug manufacturers to obtain rebates on prescription drugs dispensed to health plan members.  By aggregating their collective scale and purchasing power of all health plan or employer group clients, PBMs can negotiate better deals with the manufacturer than any one plan or group operating independently.  Rebates are typically negotiated on brand-name drugs that compete with therapeutically-similar brands and generics. These retroactive rebates (after point-of-sale) are based on a multitude of factors, including a drug’s placement in a plan formulary designed by the PBM, and the PBM’s power to increase a manufacturer’s market share for specific drugs by inclusion on a formulary.  A manufacturer may provide a greater rebate if its product is included in a “preferred” position on the PBM formulary.

Recent press reports are speculating that CVS Health Corporation is seeking to acquire the health insurer Aetna.  The rumored transaction would create a new type of health care company that doesn’t currently exist:  one that combines a commercial health insurer with a retail pharmacy chain and a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM).  According to most reports, CVS would pay $66 – $70 billion to acquire Aetna (with Aetna stockholders receiving cash and CVS stock).  It’s said that the parties are trying to enter into a definitive agreement by year-end.    

A California federal court handed down a decision last Friday that may further influence how healthcare entities should approach the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) “emergency purpose” exception as applied to calls or texts related to patient health and safety. In St. Clair v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 16-CV-04911-VC, 2016 WL 7489047, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2016), the plaintiff alleged that CVS Pharmacy called him multiple times about his prescriptions after he told a customer representative that he no longer wished to be called. CVS moved to dismiss the lawsuit by claiming that all of the calls at issues fell under the emergency purpose exception contained in the statute, and therefore were not subject to the TCPA.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which imposes a penalty of $500-$1,500 per violation for pre-recorded or auto-dialed calls to cell phones, contains two statutory exceptions to liability:

  • where the recipient of the call provided his or her prior express consent to be called, or
  • where the call was placed for an “emergency purpose.”

47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1). While much attention has been focused on “consent,” the FCC’s definition of “emergency purpose” has remained relatively untested in TCPA litigation.

That landscape may be beginning to change. The federal district court’s recent decision in the putative class action lawsuit Roberts v. Medco Health Solutions, et al., No. 4:15 CV 1368 CDP (E.D. Mo., July 26, 2016) recognized that consistent with the FCC’s promulgated definition, the emergency purpose exception must be interpreted broadly to cover any calls that may affect the health and safety of a consumer.