Because of their big share of patient prescriptions, the three largest PBMs are about to undergo scrutiny via Congressional reports and looming lawsuits that call out questionable practices
Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are finding themselves under scrutiny from both Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigations into drug pricing as well as recent Congressional hearings into anticompetitive practices.
Because of how PBMs have captured the lion’s share of patient prescriptions away from retail pharmacies in the United States during the past 15 years, pathologists and clinical laboratory managers may want to track how Congress and federal antitrust regulators respond to this development. The issue is the high cost of prescription drugs for patients and the role of PBMs in keeping drug prices high to optimize their profits.
House representatives pressed the executives for “steering patients to pharmacies the PBM owns and favoring more expensive brand-name drugs on their formularies, or list of covered drugs, which result in higher rebates paid to them by drugmakers,” Healthcare Dive noted.
In its final report, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability found that “PBMs inflate prescription drug costs and interfere with patient care for their own financial benefit.”
Though hearings on PBMs have been increasing, the last time PBM executives testified on the Hill was before the Senate Committee on Finance in 2019, according to Healthcare Dive.
“Spread pricing and rebates benefit PBMs and have helped the three largest PBMs monopolize the pharmaceutical market … these self-benefitting practices only serve to help their bottom line rather than patients,” said Chairman James Comer (above) during a meeting of the federal Committee on Oversight and Accountability. “PBMs have been allowed to hide in the shadows for far too long. I look forward to the Oversight Committee continuing to work in a bipartisan fashion to shine a light on how these PBMs have undermined community pharmacies, raised prescriptions drug prices, and jeopardized patient care.” Clinical laboratory executives may want to track efforts by Congress to rein in PBMs so as to reduce the cost of prescription drugs to patients. (Photo copyright: US Federal Government/Public Domain.)
Turning up the Heat on PBMs
The spotlight began to grow on PBM practices back in 2023. Since then, PBMs have been the focus of three congressional hearings. The late July meeting came just hours after Chairman James Comer, R-KY, presented his report following a 32-month-long investigation “into how PBMs raise prices and reduce consumer choice,” Healthcare Dive reported.
Comer’s research found that “PBMs have used their position as middlemen to cement anticompetitive policies which have increased prescription drug costs, hurt independent pharmacies, and harmed patient care,” according to a press release announcing the upcoming hearing with the executives of the three largest PBMs.
Comer’s report uncovered “300 examples of the three PBMs preferring medications that cost at least $500 more per claim than a safe alternative medication excluded from their formularies,” Healthcare Dive noted.
Coming Lawsuits, Public Opinion
While the Congressional hearings put pressure on the three PBMs, a new threat looms on the horizon—multiple lawsuits—including one from the FTC “over their tactics for negotiating prices for drugs including insulin, after a two-year investigation into whether the companies steer patients away from less-expensive medicines,” The Wall Street Journal reported.
State attorney generals and independent pharmacies are lining up with lawsuits targeting PBM’s questionable business practices as well, Healthcare Dive reported.
While PBMs maintain their innocence, public opinion differs. An independent survey from KFF found that approximately three out of 10 individuals surveyed reported not taking a prescribed medicine due to expensive costs.
“This includes about one in five who report they have not filled a prescription or took an over-the counter drug instead (21%), and 12% who say they have cut pills in half or skipped a dose because of the cost,” KFF reported.
Further, 82% of those surveyed described the cost of prescription drugs to be unreasonable. Still, 65% described the costs as being easily affordable, with the biggest challenge going to those with a household income of less than $40,000.
PBMs Push Back
In response to the backlash, the PBMs brought their own report to Congress, prepared by global consulting firm Compass Lexecon. It showed that “PBMs pass through almost all rebates to plan sponsors and have operating margins below 5% in recent years,” Healthcare Dive reported.
During their testimony, Conway said that Optum Rx saves over $2,000 per person annually. Kautzner claimed Express Scripts brought $64 billion in savings to patients last year and kept “out-of-pocket costs on a per-prescription basis at $15, despite brand manufacturers raising drug prices on 60% of those products,” Healthcare Dive reported.
Joyner said CVS Caremark experienced “little or no competition” from the pharmaceutical industry for brand name drugs. He blamed the pharmaceutical industry for drug pricing increases, Healthcare Drive reported.
“Let me be clear, we do not contribute to the rising list prices. Hampering our ability to negotiate lower drug cost … would only remove an essential tool and our ability to deliver lower cost for medications,” Joyner told the Congressional committee.
House representatives were not moved.
“On one hand we have PBMs claiming to reduce prescription drug prices and on the other hand we have the Federal Trade Commission, we have major media outlets like The New York Times, and we have at least eight different attorneys generals, Democrats and Republicans, who all say PBMs are inflating drug costs,” said Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill), Healthcare Dive reported.
“This is why just about every state now is taking up PBM reform,” Comer said. “There’s a credibility issue.”
Because there has been a parallel concentration of market share for clinical laboratory testing among a handful of billion-dollar national lab corporations, clinical laboratory managers may want to follow these events. They are examples of federal regulators investigating the business practices of a major healthcare sector while, at the same time, members of Congress look for ways to lower healthcare costs. Prescription drugs is a high-profile target.
At some future point, the cost of genetic testing could also become a target when Congress seeks other healthcare sectors in their goal to control medical expenses.
When people receive COVID-19 testing at an out-of-network facility, federal law requires insurers to pay that clinical laboratory’s posted ‘cash price’ when negotiated prices have not previously been established
In the latest example that some COVID-19 testing companies are charging significantly higher prices than others, The New York Times (NYT) recently reported that one COVID lab company with “more than a dozen testing sites” throughout the US was charging $380 for a COVID-19 rapid test that can be purchased at many drug stores for $20. Sadly, this practice, the NYT also noted, is protected by federal law.
Media reporters and the lay public are not fully aware of the long-established clinical laboratory test payment modalities that govern the daily performance of tests ordered as part of regular healthcare. Thus, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit—along with tens of billions of federal dollars to pay for SARS-CoV-2 tests—it triggered a gold rush of people wanting to get into the clinical laboratory testing business specifically to make money.
It is the bad actors in this group who are tainting the entire clinical laboratory industry with often outrageous business practices that, at best, cross ethical lines—such as overpricing tests to consumers—and at worst, represent fraudulent behavior, such as inducing medically-unnecessary tests, then submitting claims for these tests.
Even as the pandemic appears to be waning, news outlets are reporting instances of insurers being charged higher “cash prices” for tests performed by out-of-network testing laboratories. Worse yet, federal law requires insurers to pay these exorbitant prices and they are not happy about it.
In-Network versus Out-of-Network Pricing
In its report, the NYT noted that the CARES Act (H.R. 748) requires insurers to pay whatever “cash prices” out-of-network labs post online, and that this is leading to “expensive coronavirus tests” that could ultimately be reflected in future “higher insurance premiums” charged to healthcare consumers.
One company the NYT highlighted in its report is GS Labs in Omaha, Neb., a provider of COVID-19 testing throughout the US. The testing company’s COVID-19 Pricing Transparency webpage lists these prices for the following COVID-19 tests:
“Insurers are obligated to pay cash price, unless we come to a negotiated rate,” Christopher Erickson, a GS Labs Partner, told the NYT.
Negotiate or ‘Pay the Provider’s Cash Price’
In Missouri, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City (Blue KC) has filed a lawsuit against GS Labs. “This action seeks a judgment declaring Blue KC and our members are not required to pay GS Labs’ unreasonable, inflated reimbursement demands,” according to a Blue KC news release.
However, section 3202 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act “specifies the process for private health insurance plan issuers to reimburse providers of COVID-19 diagnostic tests. Specifically, a reimbursement rate negotiated for such test prior to the public health emergency declared on January 31, 2020, continues to apply for the duration of the emergency. If a reimbursement rate was not negotiated prior to the emergency declaration, an issuer may either negotiate such rate or pay the provider’s cash price.”
In its own news release, GS Labs said it has “countersued Blue KC over the insurance company’s failure to pay $9.7 million for COVID tests covered by federal law.”
According to a legal expert who spoke with the NYT, GS Labs has grounds for its test charges due to the CARES Act. “Whatever price the lab puts on their public facing website, that is what has to be paid. I don’t read a whole lot of wiggle room in it,” said Sabrina Corlette, JD, Research Professor and Co-Director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.
“Unfortunately,” noted Loren Adler (above), Associate Director of the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy, in a blog post, “this ‘cash price’ is not a market-determined price—it is irrelevant to patients because all options have to be made free to them by law, so there is little constraint on how high this is set by testing entities. Nor is there any reason for out-of-network entities to accept any less than this amount (other than a desire to contract in the future with the insurer for fear of a public relations backlash). Moreover, in theory the patient can still be surprise balance billed if the provider’s charge is higher than this ‘cash price,’ though it is unclear why any provider would list a ‘cash price’ lower than their charge.” (Photo copyright: The Brookings Institution.)
In his analysis, Adler suggested the law be revised to require commercial insurers to pay for COVID-19 testing at Medicare prices.
Patient Receives a $54,000 ‘Surprise’ Bill for COVID-19 Out-of-Network Test
The patient, Travis Warner, reportedly has insurance from Molina Healthcare through the federal Health Insurance Marketplace. After an employee at his company tested positive for COVID-19, Warner drove 30 miles outside of Dallas in search of COVID-19 testing sites. He eventually visiting an out-of-network free-standing emergency room in Lewisville where he received PCR diagnostic and rapid antigen tests. The results of the tests were negative for COVID-19. But the bill was a shock.
The total bill came to $56,384. Molina Healthcare paid its negotiated rate of $16,915.20 for the testing and facility fee, leaving Warner responsible for the remaining $54,000!
In the end, Warner did not have to pay the bill. Molina resolved the charge with SignatureCare and, in a statement to KHN, wrote, “This matter was a provider billing error, which Molina identified and corrected.”
For its part, SignatureCare Emergency Centers, with freestanding centers throughout Texas, said it has a “robust audit process” to flag errors and processed “thousands of records a day” at the height of the pandemic, according to KHN, which reported the business showing a $175 price for a COVID-19 test on its website.
“If the insurance company is paying astronomical sums of money for your care, that means in turn that you are going to be paying higher (insurance) premiums,” Adler told KHN.
Insurance Group Finds Price Gouging
“Price gouging on COVID-19 tests by certain providers continues to be a widespread problem,” according to a statement by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), a national association representing insurers.
AHIP has studied COVID-19 test prices since April 2020. It released a survey earlier this year which found COVID-19 test prices were on average $130. However, AHIP also found that out-of-network providers charged “significantly higher” (more than $185) for more than half (54%) of COVID-19 tests (PCR, antigen, antibody) in March 2021—a 12% increase since 2020. More than 27% of COVID-19 tests in March 2021 were done out-of-network, a 6% increase since 2020.
However, in, “COVID-19 Lab Test Prices Give Some Health Plans ‘Indigestion’,” Dark Daily’s sister publication, The Dark Report, wrote, “Interestingly, [AHIP] researchers reported that the share of COVID-19 tests claims submitted from ‘high-cost locations’—identified as hospitals and emergency departments—declined from 18% in the first three months of the pandemic to only 5% during the first three months of 2021.”
Niall Brennan, President and CEO of the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI), told KHN, “People are going to charge what they think they can get away with. Even a perfectly well-intentioned provision like [the CARES Act] can be hijacked by certain unscrupulous providers for nefarious purposes.”
Of course, most medical laboratories priced their tests fairly and have performed them in an efficient and professional manner during the pandemic. So, it is unfortunate to learn through AHIP’s survey findings and the media that some COVID-19 testing providers are posting prices that may confuse patients and affect their health insurance premiums.
Consumer demand for health trackers combined with other smartwatch capabilities is driving a trend away from simple health trackers and toward more complex devices, such as the Apple Watch, for their more powerful capabilities
It is still an open question as to whether clinical laboratories will experience an onrush of patient test data streaming at them from healthcare consumer portals and mobile devices. The popularity of wearable fitness/medical technology has been widely touted in the media. Predictions have been that these devices—when coupled with smartphone and tablet applications (apps)—would generate substantial volumes of digital patient data that would be useful for medical laboratories to capture and add to the clinical lab test data of the patients they serve.
But will these predictions of a flood of data from wearable devices become reality? Is this a trend about which medical laboratories should be concerned? Recent statistics provide some insight into these questions. For example, the sales numbers for wearable devices are significant.
Smartwatches Gaining Ground in Wearable Fitness Market
In 2016, 102.4 million wearable devices were sold, which was a 25% increase over the previous year, according to Smart Insights, a publisher for marketers. Now, several sports apparel companies, such as Adidas and Under Armour, are either launching smartwatches with health/fitness-related software and activity trackers, or eliminating their digital fitness business units altogether.
And according to MobiHealthNews, “[today’s] landscape looks awfully different.
“I think the industry is still struggling to find real, meaningful points of reference with consumers,” Dan Ledger, Principal and Founder, Path Collaborative, a Massachusetts consulting firm, told MobiHealthNews. “You hear anecdotes of people who had Fitbit (NYSE:FIT) and lost weight. But it hasn’t really been a success as a market product like a smartphone—like a lot of these companies were expecting when they were reading the tea leaves four or five years ago.”
For example, Adidas reassigned employees working in the fitness watch and sensor-enabled footwear departments to other areas, according to the Portland Business Journal. “We are integrating digital across all areas of our business and will continue to grow our digital expertise but in a more integrated way,” an Adidas spokesperson told Just-Style.
And, Nike announced its intention late last year to abandon the wearables market altogether. “It wasn’t authentic to who we were,” Jordan Rice, Senior Director of Nike NXT Smart Systems Engineering, told MobiHealthNews.
Meanwhile, Under Armour announced in 2017 that it planned to eliminate the UA HealthBox, a wearable device that offered a connected activity tracker, heart rate monitor, and smart scale tools, according to MHealth Spot. Instead, the publication reported, Under Armour was partnering with Samsung on fitness apps:
MyFitnessPal;
MapMyFitness;
Endomondo; and,
UA Record.
More Consumers Strapping on Smartwatches
Fitbit recently released the Fitbit Ionic Watch. According to Fitbit’s website, features include:
Personal coaching;
Heart rate monitor;
All-day activity tracking;
Sleep stages monitoring; and more.
The smartwatch may be the new “smart” way to go, compared to simple activity trackers. Smartwatch manufactures are partnering with biometric monitoring app developers (such as Apple Watch and IBM Watson Health, shown above) to service consumers who need to monitor, capture, and distribute their critical health data. (Photo copyright: Alexey Boldin/Shutterstock.)
Consumer Reports, citing NPD Group market data, noted smartwatches are increasingly becoming the device-of-choice for consumers who gather fitness data. Besides tracking heart rate, some smartwatch apps also release notifications about accomplishment of goals, enable access to e-mail, and more.
Consumer Reports noted:
Smartwatches were used by 17% of US adults in the first quarter of 2015, and the remaining 83% in the demographic used activity trackers;
Smartwatch use jumped to 38% by the fourth quarter of 2017; and,
Smartwatches will rise to 48% of new market purchases by the fourth quarter this year.
Hardware is Hard
Fitness wearable devices have long been touted by the media for their potential to stream critical health data directly to physicians, to patients’ electronic health records, and to medical laboratories. Dark Daily foresaw in 2016 that, when paired with a smartphone or table computer, the momentum of the fitness wearables trend was substantial. For this reason, clinical laboratory managers and pathologists would want to stay current with these developments. However, today it appears companies offering wearable monitoring devices could be finding it more difficult than anticipated to capture the attention of consumers and leverage what the devices do.
In the end, sports apparel companies are not leaving the digital fitness space entirely, but simply adjusting to new consumer demands. Clinical laboratory leaders will want to keep watch on these developments as the trend evolves. The outcome could alter how patient data enters the pathology workflow.
Latest calls for easier public access to information on physician performance and quality is a reminder to clinical laboratories and pathology groups of the trend to greater transparency on provider outcomes
If any clinical laboratory executive or pathologist still doubts that more transparency of provider outcomes is a topic of interest to patients, they have only to look at Consumer Reports, well-respected for its advocacy on behalf of consumers. Consumer Reports is using multiple ways to educate their readers about medical errors and how the medical community makes it difficult for consumers to learn about physicians who have been involved in state medical board investigations.
In particular, medical laboratories and pathology groups should be doing better at using information technology to meet the needs of consumers and to support physician workflow
Improving patient-provider communication and speeding clinician workflow are two of the top 2014 game changers in healthcare information technology (HIT) cited by a recent report. Each of these top 2014 game changers can be expected to change how patients and physicians interact with their clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology providers.
