Tag Archives: AWP

Physician Dispensing Skirts Controls

A new report from the Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) found evidence of frequent physician dispensing of new drug strengths and a new formulation at much higher prices. This phenomenon was observed in several states that recently instituted reforms aimed at reducing the prices for physician-dispensed prescriptions. Skirting the goals of those reforms, dispensing increased for new formulations of drugs that carried higher prices. That trend led to substantial increases in average prices for some common physician-dispensed drugs.

“When prices are reduced by regulation, the regulated parties―in this case physician-dispensers―sometimes find new ways to retain the higher revenues they had prior to the reforms,” said Dr. John Ruser, president and CEO of WCRI. “The results raise questions about the effectiveness and sustainability of the price-focused reforms. The study also provides lessons for those states where physician dispensing is permitted.”

See Also: Novel Controls on Physician Dispensing

This report, Physician Dispensing of Higher-Priced New Drug Strengths and Formulation, is part of a series of WCRI studies that examine the effects of regulatory or legislative changes to the rules governing reimbursement for physician-dispensed prescriptions. In the past decade, many states in the U.S. have enacted reforms to cap prices paid to physicians by tying the maximum reimbursement amount to the average wholesale price (AWP) set by the original manufacturer of the drug. However, new strengths and formulations of drugs are labeled as being made by generic manufacturers, not merely as being repackaged, a technical distinction that lets the new strengths and formulations avoid the new reimbursement rules — the generic “manufacturer” gets to set its own, much higher AWP.

The study reported several drugs that exhibited this phenomenon and highlighted several states where physician dispensing of these new drug products was prevalent. Take cyclobenzaprine, a muscle-relaxant. The 7.5-milligram new strength was not seen in the market until 2012. For many years, the most common strengths were 5 and 10 milligrams. The manufacturer of this new strength assigned a new AWP, which was much higher than the AWPs for the 5- and 10-milligram products. Below are some examples from the study of the frequent physician dispensing of higher-priced new strengths.

  • California: The average prices paid to physicians for cyclobenzaprine of 5 and 10 milligrams ranged from $0.38 to $0.39 per pill in the first quarter of 2014. The 7.5-milligram product, introduced in 2012 and almost always dispensed by physicians, cost $3.01 per pill in the same quarter. The percentage of physician-dispensed cyclobenzaprine prescriptions that were for the 7.5-milligram strength increased from 0% prior to 2012 to 55% in the first quarter of 2014.
  • Florida: The average prices paid for physician-dispensed cyclobenzaprine of 5 and 10 milligrams were $1.75 and $1.29 per pill, respectively, in the first quarter of 2014. The 7.5-milligram new strength was seen prior to Florida’s 2013 reform, but the frequency of dispensing increased substantially post-reform—from 16% in the pre-reform second quarter of 2013 to 49% in the first quarter of 2014. When physicians dispensed the 7.5-milligram new-strength product, they were paid an average of $4.11 per pill.
  • Illinois: The average prices paid to physicians for cyclobenzaprine of 5 and 10 milligrams were $1.55 and $1.25 per pill, respectively, in the first quarter of 2014. Prior to Illinois’ 2012 reforms, the 7.5-milligram new strength was rarely seen in the market, but, by the first quarter of 2014, 22% of all physician-dispensed cyclobenzaprine prescriptions were for the new strength. When physicians dispensed the new strength, they were paid on average $3.86 per pill.
  • Tennessee: Ten-milligram cyclobenzaprine was the most-commonly dispensed drug strength by physicians in the state, which cost $1.08 per pill on average in the first quarter of 2014. The 7.5-milligram product was not seen in the initial post-reform quarters until the fourth quarter of 2013. By the first quarter of 2014, 19% of physician-dispensed cyclobenzaprine prescriptions were for the 7.5-milligram new strength. When physicians dispensed the new strength, it cost $3.97 per pill on average.

The data used for this report came from payers that represented 31–70% of all medical claims across 22 states studied and covered detailed prescriptions based on calendar quarter from the first quarter of 2012 though the first quarter of 2014. The 22 states in the study are Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.

To purchase this study, visit here.

Novel Controls on Physician Dispensing

As you know, I’m not a fan of physician dispensing. In limited cases, there can be benefits from patient compliance and convenience and from immediate treatment. However, my opinion is that in most cases physician dispensing creates a motivation to continue prescribing (because revenue to the physician is at stake) and causes patient safety issues (by bypassing the people who really understand drugs — pharmacists and pharmacies — and possibly not taking into account drug interactions).

On top of that, physician dispensing can increase lost time by an injured worker, as documented in a study of Illinois. When evaluating the differences between physician-dispensed and non-physician-dispensed medications, the study found:

  • For physician-dispensed, non-narcotic drugs — medical costs ▲ 39%, indemnity costs ▲ 27%, lost-time days34%, average total claim ▲ 31%, # of prescriptions = 2.99
  • For physician-dispensed narcotic drugs — medical costs ▲ 78%, indemnity costs ▲ 57%, lost-time days ▲ 85%, average total claim ▲ 64%, # of prescriptions = 3.20

Several states have tried to combat inappropriate physician-dispensing over the past few years, using fee schedule and rules and even felonies as countermeasures. Some efforts have been successful, while others have just created a continuing cat-and-mouse game for repackagers and physicians vs. payers.

Well, effective Jan. 1, 2016, Nevada instituted its own type of reform, specific to workers’ comp. The bill does not appear to be ambiguous or up for interpretation. The bill (SB 231) was signed by the governor on May 27, 2015, but the intended (and unintended) ripple effects started last Friday. Read the entire act here. To highlight:

  • Section 1.1.a – A “provider of healthcare” can only provide an initial 15-day supply of Schedule II or III controlled substances to an injured worker. Note that this excludes pharmacists and hospitals, both reasonable carve-outs. Any subsequent such controlled substances must be dispensed by a pharmacy. Excellent.
  • Section 1.1.b – The “provider of healthcare” dispenser must include the original manufacturer’s national drug code (NDC) on bills and reports. Good. This doesn’t necessarily fix the issue of repackagers becoming “manufacturers” of unique (previously unnecessary) dosages and inflating prices, but …
  • Section 1.1.c – A repackaged drug must not be used. Booyah.
  • Section 1.1.d – For outpatient care, a non-prescription drug will not be reimbursable. Excellent.

While not all dangerous or clinically inappropriate drugs are Schedule II or III, these new rules should certainly make a dent in direct dispensing of those that are. This bill does not outlaw physician dispensing, but it does remove revenue motivation so a “provider of healthcare” will focus on the most clinically appropriate care (which may not be a drug). Working as a team, the “provider of healthcare” and the pharmacist should determine what, if any, drugs are clinically appropriate for the injured worker/patient.

It will be interesting to see how the repackaging industry responds. For an example of the state of the industry in Nevada, check out this website. (Nine uses of the word “revenue” on the repackager’s home page. Hmmmm.)

If you operate in Nevada, keep your eyes and ears open. And if you see reactions, please let us all know!

Would a Formulary Help in California?

Introducing a closed pharmaceutical formulary into California workers’ compensation could produce two main benefits. The first is to further lower the cost of pharmaceuticals by either restricting or eliminating certain medications. The second is to reduce the possibility of drug addiction.

An October 2014 California Workers’ Compensation Institute (“CWCI”) report titled, “Are Formularies a Viable Solution for Controlling Prescription Drug Utilization and Cost in California Workers’ Compensation” states that pharmaceutical costs could be reduced by 12%, or $124 million, by introducing the Texas workers’ compensation pharmaceutical formulary.

To achieve the second benefit, an assembly member introduced AB1124 to establish an evidence-based medication formulary and wrote, “The central purpose of our workers’ comp system is to ensure injured workers regain health and get back to work. When workers get addicted to dangerous medications, goals of the program are not met. An evidence-based formulary has proven to be an effective tool in other states and should be considered in California.”

To confirm whether these benefits could be achieved through the introduction of the Texas formulary, a review of the CWCI study and the opioid medications available under the Texas formulary was conducted. The findings, summarized below, suggest that the answer is no.

Although California does not restrict or limit medications in treating injured workers, it does limit the prices paid and provides an opportunity to question prescribed medications that appear to be out of the ordinary. Medi-Cal prices (California’s Medicaid health care program) are used for establishing the maximum prices for workers’ compensation medications, in contrast to states such as Texas, which use the average wholesale price (AWP).

A review of two cost-saving examples that referenced specific medications calculated projected savings based on CWCI’s ICIS payment data for prescriptions paid between Jan. 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013.

The first example compared 50mg Tramadol prices from five different suppliers. The highest was $190, followed by $23, $18, $12 and $8 per script. Here, CWCI suggested that the manufacturer of the highest-priced script be removed from the California formulary. From mid 2009 through 2013, however, the unit price for 50mg Tramadol from the supplier of brand name Ultram and at least 10 other suppliers in California was nine cents, so the AWP for a script was $2. So, overpaying for medications is an issue even if the $190 supplier is removed.

The Workers’ Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) also reported that California claims administrators paid a unit price of 35 cents for 5mg Cyclobenzaprine and 70 cents for 10mg while the unit price from Californian suppliers was 10 cents for 10mg and 15 cents for 5mg. Again, the prices suggest that California claims administrators were paying more than the maximum prices.

Based on randomly selected manufacturers and strengths of the top 20 medications identified in the 2013 NCCI prescription drug study, California’s prices were on average 20% lower than the AWP and in some cases as little as 1/24th the cost. California prices were found to be at the lowest retail price range compared with those published on goodrx.com. Pharmacies located in Los Angeles, Miami and Dallas were used for comparison. Findings suggested employers in California workers’ compensation are paying no more than the general public for medications, whereas in Texas employers are paying more by using the AWP.

The second example compared script prices of seven opioid agonists, including Tramadol and Oxymorphone. Oxymorphone was the highest-priced script at $600 and Tramadol the lowest at $60 per script, suggesting a saving of as much as $540 if Tramadol were to be prescribed instead of Oxymorphone.

But prescribing oxymorphone when tramadol could suffice or vice versa could be regarded as an act of gross negligence by the physician. On the World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder, tramadol and codeine are weak opioids regarded as “step two” while acetaminophen and NSAIDs are “step one.” “Step three” opioids include medications such as morphine, oxycodone and oxymorphone, which all differ in their pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics, so choosing one or more to treat pain becomes a balance between possible adverse effects and the desired analgesic effect. Oxymorphone (stronger than morphine or oxycodone) is recommended for use only when a person has not responded to or cannot tolerate morphine or other analgesics to control their pain.

A list of opioid medications published by Purdue Pharma was used to identify which opioids were excluded from the Texas formulary. The list of more than 1,000 opioid analgesics was prepared by Purdue to comply with the state of Vermont law 33 V.S.A. section 2005a, requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide physicians with a list of all drugs available in the same therapeutic class. Being in the same class, however, does not necessarily mean they are interchangeable or have the same efficacy or safety.

The list showed available strengths and included (1) immediate and extended release, (2) agonists such as fentanyl, oxycodone, hydrocodone, oxymorphone, tramadol, codeine, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, tapentadol and levorphanol and (3) combinations such as acetaminophen with codeine, oxycodone with acetaminophen, oxycodone with asprin, oxycodone with ibuprofen, hydrocodone with acetaminophen, hydrocodone with ibuprofen, acetaminophen-caffeine with dihydrocodeine, aspirin-caffeine with dihydrocodeine and tramadol with acetaminophen.

It appears that extended-release medications used for around-the-clock treatment of severe chronic pain have been excluded or are not listed in the Texas formulary, with a few exceptions. For example, 80mg OxyContin (Oxycodone) ER 12 hour (AWP $18, Medi-Cal $15) is excluded. 120mg Hysingla (Hydrocodone) ER 24 hour (AWP $41, Medi-Cal $34) is not listed. However, 200mg MS Contin (Morphine) ER 12 hour (AWP $31, Medi-Cal $26) and 100mcg Fentanyl 72 hour transdermal patch in both brand name and generic forms are approved under the Texas formulary. Immediate-release generic medications such as oxycodone, hydromorphone and hydrocodone with acetaminophen in all strengths are approved, but immediate-release hydrocodone with ibuprofen and oxymorphone in either immediate or extended release are excluded.

Would the objective of AB1124 be achieved by utilizing the Texas formulary? The above review suggests it would not. All the opioid medications available through the Texas formulary have the potential to cause addiction and be abused, possibly leading to death either accidentally or intentionally. As an example, the executive director of the Medical Board of California has filed accusations against Dr. Henri Eugene Montandon for unprofessional conduct including gross negligence. His patient was found dead with three 100mcg fentanyl patches on his upper chest. The autopsy revealed he potentially had toxic levels of fentanyl, codeine and morphine in his bloodstream at time of death. These three opioids are available under the Texas formulary.

An article published on the website www.startribune.com described the challenges in treating returning soldiers from combat duty. The article discusses Zach Williams, decorated with two Purple Hearts who was found dead in his home from a fatal combination of fentanyl and venlafaxine, an antidepressant. Venlafaxine in both immediate- and extended-release form is approved in the Texas formulary. In addition, the following statement was made in a 2011 CWCI study into fentanyl: “Of the schedule II opioids included in the Institute’s study, the most potent is fentanyl, which is 75 to 100 times more powerful than oral morphine.”

The top 20 medications identified by the 2013 NCCI prescription drug study were also compared with the Texas formulary, and six medications were found to be excluded, including three extended-release opioids, OxyContin (Oxycodone), Opana ER (Oxymorphone) and the once-daily Kadian ER (Morphine). The twice-daily, extended-release morphine MS Contin, however, was approved. Flector, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory transdermal patch used for acute pain from minor strains and sprains, was excluded, as was carisoprodol a muscle relaxant classified by the DEA as a Schedule IV medication (the same as Tramadol). The Lidocaine transdermal patch, which is a local anesthetic available in both brand name and generic. was also excluded. Lidocaine patches have been found to assist in controlling pain associated with carpal tunnel syndrome, lower back pain and sore muscles. Apart from carisoprodol, it would appear the remaining five were excluded from the Texas formulary because of their high price rather than concerns regarding their safety or potential for abuse.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for the approval of all medications in the U.S. Its approved list is the U.S. pharmacy formulary (or closed formulary). California workers’ compensation uses this list for treatment and the Medi-Cal formulary for medication pricing. In comparison, Texas workers’ compensation uses its own formulary, which is a restricted list of FDA-approved medications, and pays a higher price for approved medications than California’s system does.

Implementing an evidence-based formulary, such as in Texas, may result in an injured worker’s not having the same choice of medications as a patient being treated for pain under California’s Medicaid healthcare program. How can this be morally justified? Will we see injured workers paying out-of-pocket to receive the medications necessary to control their pain?

Claims administrators can greatly reduce pharmaceutical costs through their own initiatives by (1) ensuring that they pay no more than the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) published price for a medication, (2) ensuring that physicians within their medical provider network (MPN) treat pain using the established pharmacological frameworks such as the WHO analgesic ladder, (3) ensuring that quantities and medication strengths are monitored, along with how a person has responded to analgesics, (4) ensuring that, when controlling pain with opioids, there is a heightened awareness for potential abuse, misuse and addiction, (5) establishing a multimodal pain management regimen including non-pharmacological therapies such as acupuncture, aerobics, pilates, chiropractic and physical therapy tailored to a person’s medical condition and, (6) for chronic pain, considering introducing an Internet-delivered pain management program based on the principles of cognitive behavioral therapy.

The progress of many of these initiatives can be automatically monitored through a claims administrator’s technology solution, where a yellow or red flag is raised when prices paid exceed the legislated maximum amounts, when a pharmacological step therapy or progressive plan has been breached or when non-pharmacological therapy goals have not been achieved.

Using these initiatives, as opposed to restricting specific manufacturers or medications through a closed formulary, will undoubtedly yield a far better outcome for the injured worker and lower the cost to the employer, benefiting all involved.

Stop Overpaying for Pharmaceuticals

Legislators in all jurisdictions have attempted to rein in the cost of pharmaceuticals in workers’ compensation in an effort to reduce insured employers’ workers’ compensation premiums.

California, in particular, passed legislation between 2002 and 2007 to reduce pharmaceutical costs, yet expected reductions have not been forthcoming. Attention needs to focus on whether claims administrators have taken full advantage of this legislation and whether they could be doing more to help reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals.

A recent Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) study titled “Are Physician Dispensing Reforms Sustainable?” found that the average price paid in California for 5mg and 10mg Cyclobenzaprine, a muscle relaxant, ranged from $0.35 to $0.70 per tablet (from the first quarter of 2010 through the first quarter of 2013). An independent study of Medi-Cal pharmaceutical prices used for California Workers’ Compensation found, however, that since 2009, 10mg Cyclobenzaprine has been priced at $0.10 per tablet and as low as $0.05, while 5mg Cyclobenzaprine has been priced at $0.16 per tablet and has also been as low as $0.05. The comparison suggests that claims administrators have overpaid.

The 2006 California Commission on Health and Safety and Workers’ Compensation (CHSWC) study titled “Impact of Physician-Dispensing of Repackaged Drugs on California Workers’ Compensation, Employers Cost, and Workers’ Access to Quality Care” also showed significant cost differences. For example, an insured employer’s estimated total cost for each tablet dispensed at the correct Medi-Cal price of $0.10 was $0.29 per tablet. For each tablet dispensed at a price of $0.35, estimated total costs increased by between $0.70 and $0.99. When dispensed at $0.70 per tablet, estimated total costs increased by between $1.69 and $1.98 per tablet. This significant increase is directly caused by claims administrators paying far more than the published Medi-Cal price.

What can claims administrators do to ensure they do not overpay for medications?

First: Monitor medications dispensed. Second: Ensure that no more than the legislated maximum price is paid.

The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) website provides a medication pricing inquiry screen requiring entry of a National Drug Code (NDC) and other details taking approximately 10 seconds to obtain the price of a medication on the date it was dispensed. In addition, current pharmaceutical pricing data is available that can be loaded into a claims administrator’s computer system or program, such as a spreadsheet. To complement the DIR’s offerings, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website also provides NDC inquiry and download facilities, plus a downloadable file of suppliers of medications showing their labeler code(s) along with their company name. The labeler code is the first of three parts associated with the NDC identifying the supplier of the medication. For claims administrators wanting to know more about medications, the FDA offers the “Orange Book” for download, listing all FDA-approved medications along with therapeutic equivalence evaluations. With all this free information, California workers’ compensation claims administrators have no excuse for overpaying.

For jurisdictions that utilize the average wholesale price (AWP) to set their maximum price for a medication, claims administrators will need to license pricing information from sources such as Medi-Span (Wolters Kluwer Health) or Red Book (Truven Health Analytics). Both offer extensive pharmaceutical information for download into a claims administrator’s computer system or, alternatively, use of the vendor’s inquiry facilities.

The passing of legislation in California that set the same prices for medications regardless of dispenser (i.e. pharmacy, mail order/PBM or physician) has provided opportunities for medications to be dispensed by a physician without paying a higher price and for more accurate and timely details relating to medications being available to claims administrators.

The invoice a physician submits (either paper or electronic), includes services rendered at the person’s medical appointment with a report outlining their current medical conditions and other pertinent information, including the date of their next medical appointment. Receiving billing details on the same invoice for medications dispensed, which would include the NDCs, quantities dispensed and prices charged, provides the claims administrator with an excellent opportunity to review the appropriateness of the medication against the diagnosis and treatment plan as well as the prices charged, all in one step. In addition, there is the opportunity to review any physician treatments that differ from the norm (i.e. guidelines), which may be necessary so as not to interfere with any non-work-related treatments under the control of the person’s own physicians.

In cases of pain management and where step-therapy is used, the claims administrator can ensure that physician-dispensed medication quantities are limited to the next medical appointment and assist in determining when the person may be able to either return to work or stay at work during their recovery. In many cases, acute pain is treated with acetaminophen (aka paracetamol) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), allowing a person to either stay at work or return to work earlier. At times, however, narcotic analgesics may be required to control pain that blocks pain receptors to the brain, slowing the person’s cognitive function and reaction times, possibly restricting their ability to either stay at work or return to work early.

Claims administrators also have the opportunity to monitor a physician’s pharmacy formulary to ensure they are dispensing medications from suppliers with the lowest or the average lowest price for a medication. Claims administrators should never have to pay the “no substitution” price for a physician-dispensed medication. For some medications, the Medi-Cal “no substitution” price can be much higher than the regular price.

Considering that claims administrators currently perform some form of medical bill review, to include pharmacy price and utilization verification would add minimal additional effort to the overall medical bill payment process, regardless of whether the physician’s invoice is received on paper or electronically.

Claims administrators with computer systems that monitor medications through the NDC have the opportunity through physician dispensing to invoke timely automated processes based on the NDCs shown on the physician’s invoice. For example, if claims administrators use an adaptation of the biopsychosocial and shared-decision making frameworks (i.e. collaboration) to address a stay at work (SAW) or early return to work (ERTW), a more empathetic approach to claims handling is required. This SAW/ERTW approach can be enhanced through invoking processes based on the physician’s submitted NDCs, which may include: a pre-defined questionnaire associated with distress and risk, focusing on somatic and emotional symptoms: a pre-existing anti-depressant medications questionnaire that establishes whether the person is already taking anti-depressants’ as well as a cultural sensitivity questionnaire relating to a person’s religious or spiritual beliefs and their cultural and language preferences. The results from these questionnaires can directly influence the medical treatment pre-authorized by the claims administrator as well as assist in determining when the person is likely to return to “normality.” All this information directly influences the cost of the claim, which in turn determines the future premiums paid by the insured employer. For claims administrators who do not have capabilities such as these in their computer systems, there are systems available.

Having physician-dispensed medications billed in a timely way on the same invoice as other medical services improves both transparency and accountability. This recent WCRI study has highlighted that insured employers in California may have paid higher premiums for policy periods from 2011 through 2014, caused by claims administrators overpaying for the 5mg and 10mg Cyclobenzaprine medications, which was only brought to the attention of the workers’ compensation community in 2015.

Considering that expected savings from the enacted California legislation relating to pharmaceuticals have not been forthcoming, it is only a matter of time before insured employers conduct their own studies investigating how much has been overpaid for dispensed medications and how much this overpayment may have increased their premiums since 2007. Depending on the findings from this type of study, a possible outcome could result in California workers’ compensation insurers being forced to restate their claims costs associated with pharmaceuticals and all pharmaceutical overpayments by their claims administrators to be treated as an expense outside of their workers’ compensation insurance portfolio.

An Argument for Physician Dispensing

A January 2015 Workers’ Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) study that focused on three new medication strengths has again questioned the practice of physicians dispensing medications.  Some analysts argue that the new strengths are designed to skirt price controls and generate exorbitant profits for doctors and drug manufacturers and repackagers. But another explanation is possible: that doctors and drug companies have identified new strengths that patients want. In any case, competition will, over time, drive down prices on the new medications just as it did on ones that have been in the market for a long time.

The study titled, “”Are Physician Dispensing Reforms Sustainable?” prompted Michael Gavin, president of PRIUM, a subsidiary of Ameritox, to write an article titled “Physician Dispensing: I’ve Changed My Mind” on this website. He said: (1) ”that drug repackagers in California created novel dosages of certain medication to evade the constraints of the physician dispensing regulations”; (2) “allowing repackagers to create new NDC codes and charging exorbitant amounts of money for drugs that would have been substantially cheaper had they been secured through a retail pharmacy”; and (3) “Worse, utilization of these medications skyrocketed as a result of the revenue incentives for physicians (my conclusion, not WCRI’s)”.

This article analyzes the Cyclobenzaprine HCL medication, with emphasis on the new generic 7.5mg strength that was reviewed in the WCRI study and cited in the article, “Loophole for Doctors on Drug Dispensing,” that Ramona Tanabe from WCRI wrote for this website.

The 7.5mg Cyclobenzaprine HCL was first made available as a generic by the pharmaceutical company “KLE 2 Pharmaceuticals” ((www.kle2.com). The company’s mission statement reads: “It is our goal to provide new therapies via unique strengths, delivery methods and/or new formulations.” KLE 2 identified a marketing opportunity to meet the needs of those who found that the 5mg strength was not effective enough and that the 10mg was too strong. There is evidence on the Internet of people attempting to split a Cyclobenzaprine HCL tablet to reduce its strength, with limited success.

From late 2011 through early 2013, KLE 2 was the only manufacturer of the generic Cyclobenzaprine HCL 7.5mg strength, which was included in the Medi-Cal formulary and used for California workers’ compensation claims. In April 2013, the manufacturer Mylan released a generic 7.5mg strength, and it was also included in the Medi-Cal formulary. KLE 2 has a Medi-Cal price of $3.2153 per tablet; Mylan, $3.99. The brand name “Fexmid,” by Sciele Pharma, owned by Shionogi, has a Medi-Cal price of $4.4383 per tablet.

Pharmaceutical pricing in the U.S. is unregulated; the more manufacturers there are, the lower the price to the consumer. In the case of the 7.5mg strength Cyclobenzaprine HCL, there are currently only two manufacturers, so the price will remain high until more manufacturers produce this strength or there is less demand for it. The 10mg strength, in comparison, has currently around 17 manufacturers. The average Medi-Cal price for 10mg is $0.1035. The lowest Medi-Cal price is $0.0468, from the manufacturer KVK Tech. (Refer to page 7 of “Understanding Pricing of Pharmaceuticals,” available here under the Dialogue tab, for a Medi-Cal price comparison of 10mg Cyclobenzaprine HCL).

The 5mg strength is manufactured by about 11 pharmaceutical companies. The average Medi-Cal price is $0.1586 — that is down from Mylan’s price of $1.3616 in 2006. The current lowest Medi-Cal price for a 5mg strength tablet is $0.0468, again from KVK Tech.

I mentioned earlier that attempts to split either a 5mg or 10mg tablet in half have not been successful. It has been well documented that the coating applied to the 5mg and 10 mg Cyclobenzaprine HCL tablets does not allow them to be easily cut, regardless of the device used. The opportunity therefore for cutting a 5mg in half to take 1½ tablets of 5mg of Cyclobenzaprine HCL and accurately administer a strength of 7.5mg is not possible. The release of the 7.5mg strength addresses this need.

Although the 5mg, 10mg and now 7.5mg strengths are the most commonly dispensed Cyclobenzaprine HCL medications, there are also other strengths, such as the 15mg and 30mg extended-release capsules manufactured by Mylan, which have a Medi-Cal price of $8.7899 per capsule. There are also the brand name “Amrix” extended-release 15mg and 30mg capsules manufactured by Cephalon, a subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceuticals, which have a Medi-Cal price of $25.0163 per capsule for both strengths. These 15mg and 30mg strengths further illustrate how a lack of competition for a specific medication leads to higher prices.

Medi-Cal prices apply to all dispensers of California workers’ compensation medications, including pharmacies and physicians, and the same Medi-Cal maximum price has applied since 2007, as explained in my article, “The Paradox on Drugs in Worker’s Comp.” But the average prices paid, according to the WCRI study, are significantly higher than the Medi-Cal prices. The WCRI said prices paid for the 5mg and 10mg strengths were 35 to 70 cents a tablet, yet we find that the average Medi-Cal price was 10 cents for 10mg and 16 cents for 5mg. This discrepancy requires further clarification, because it appears that claims administrators have been paying significantly more than Medi-Cal’s maximum price.

The WCRI reported a range of between $2.90 and $3.45 for the 7.5mg strength. The $2.90 price is lower than Medi-Cal’s prices and indicates that a competitive price was paid by claims administrators.

If, as some have suggested, new strengths such as the 7.5mg are medically inappropriate, have claims administrators moved to remove the doctors who prescribe those strengths from their medical provider networks (MPNs)? Have claims administrators reported those doctors to the California Fraud Assessment Commission?

Gavin said in the second point I pulled from his article that medications dispensed by physicians cost more than those in retail pharmacies, but obtaining prices of Cyclobenzaprine HCL from a number of retail pharmacies on the website goodrx.com are higher than the average Medi-Cal price paid for the same medications to dispensing physicians. (Prices on the website can change at any time and cited here for illustration purposes only. The Medi-Cal formulary can also change at any time in both its suppliers of medications and prices paid.)

This analysis of the Cyclobenzaprine HCL medication further reinforces the need for claims administrators to be vigilant when dealing with pharmaceuticals. Let the buyer beware, too, when interpreting studies produced by organizations such as the WCRI.