We commonly receive questions about average pricing contract language. The following is a response to the usual contract language.

PBM contract language often refers to the use of average, rather than per-claim, pricing for drugs. The average pricing issue does not preclude the fact that there are other pressing and relevant issues that need to be addressed from both the contract and audit/accounts payable screening of invoices pre-payment. These issues are the plan/purchaser’s (“plan”) responsibility, and are not open to the discretion of the PBM, but rather to how the plan/purchaser requires implementation of the business rules for claim adjudication. The following summarizes those issues that are not resolved regarding the average pricing language.

Ø Average pricing does not address contract requirements for –

o Situations where the AWP is inflated above Medicaid, above manufacturer published AWP, and above the reference database published AWP – all of these lead to both individual and average higher costs while discount guarantees are met.

o Situations where the generic MAC price is inflated above the FUL and the Medicaid MAC. This makes the average a larger number, but allows for the discount guarantees to be met.

o Drugs coded as brand that should be generic, generic drugs that should be on the MAC, multisource that don’t exist in benefits – these all implicate generic pricing as they are incorrectly priced so they affect all generic average prices.

o Situations where the U&C (e.g., $4 programs) is inflated above pharmacy published prices. This results in the plan paying more than a cash paying patient and improves the average making it easier to meet the AWP guarantee.

Ø Formulary coding, quantity limits, early refills, and COB for Medicare are responsibilities assigned to the plan. The amendment for average pricing does not implicate these benefit issues. The responsibility for benefit definition and what the PBM should use as business rules for claim adjudication are also assigned to the plan. As a result, the PBM cannot modify or apply rules that are other than what the plan requires without plan approval.

Ø Invalid claim administration where claims include invalid identifiers for doctors, pharmacies, drugs, and expired drugs

Ø Retrospective audits do not remove the responsibility for reviewing and remedying plan ongoing issues with the above listed items. Further, issues identified in the bimonthly/monthly invoices require reconciliation at each invoice period, and do not allow for future settlements for claim history outside of the invoice period. The plan has the discretion and the authority to define and ensure that the PBM is complying with plan current business rules for claim adjudication. This is not applicable to average versus per-claim pricing. As the fiduciary, the contract does not allow the PBM to make those decisions without the express approval of the plan.

Ø The retrospective audit process does not address the following issues that are not applicable to average pricing – reconciliation of each invoice, performance guarantees and applicable financial penalties (e.g., level of satisfaction with account client management, pharmacy network training to Count benefits and business rules), rebate reconciliation, network pharmacy audit results, and review of pharmacy network agreements for validation of pass-through pricing.

Note: The lack of oversight of average pricing allows a Pharmacy in the retail network to be paid at different AWP discounts and dispensing fees for brand drugs. This applies across the retail network and disadvantages a pharmacy for some drugs and advantages them for others. While this is not a direct contract with the plan, this is the source for potential pharmacy complaints and lack of compliance with the COB claims. This results in a decision for the plan to determine what parity rules they require for management of their retail network.

Craig S. Stern, PharmD, MBA
President
Pro Pharma Pharmaceutical Consultants, Inc.