Tag Archives: National Drug Code

The ‘CURES’ for Work Comp Claims

When an injured worker submits a claim, it initiates processes aimed at returning the injured worker to gainful and sustainable work at the earliest possible time. In this journey, checkpoints and milestones are the best means to monitor progress. Checkpoints generally relate to visits with a medical practitioner where medical conditions are checked against expectations and, if necessary, treatments are adjusted. Milestones are associated with reaching a goal.

At the first medical appointment, the physician is required to prepare a report for the claims administrator based on a comprehensive medical examination of the injured person, including a review of the medical history. At the same time, the physician can access CURES (Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System) to check whether the patient has received any scheduled controlled substances in the prior 12 months. Through this access, the physician can identify an at-risk patient and accordingly establish a treatment plan that considers both medications and adjunctive treatments. Also, if a patient is identified as an addict, he can be referred for rehabilitation and social re-integration. With subsequent medical appointments, the physician can again use CURES to check for any changes to the patient’s scheduled controlled substances usage since his last visit.

The importance of a physician using CURES to check a patient’s use of scheduled controlled substances cannot be overemphasized, especially in workers’ compensation, where a patient may not be forthcoming in sharing comorbidity information because of a lack of trust. Not knowing if a patient is currently taking scheduled controlled substances, the physician could jeopardize the patient by prescribing inappropriate medications.

In addition to the medical profession, CURES is available to Department of Justice investigators and law enforcement agencies to identify persons who visit a number of physicians to obtain supplies of scheduled controlled substances for abuse and diversion (i.e. physician shopping). Pharmacists and numerous regulatory boards from the medical board to the veterinary board also have access to CURES, providing them with the opportunity to monitor the medical profession for aberrant prescribing of scheduled controlled substances.

While states like Florida implemented a PDMP (prescription drug monitoring program) as late as 2011, California has monitored Schedule II controlled substances since 1940 and with the introduction of CURES in 1996 extended its monitoring to include Schedule III and IV controlled substances. Online access to CURES has also been available to the medical profession since 2009. Consequently, California has not experienced the abuse and diversion that Florida has with its “pill mills.”

Access to CURES by claims administrators or their representatives (i.e. third party payers) will not deliver improved quality of care or reduce prescription drug fraud and abuse and will add unnecessary costs through duplication of efforts already being performed by others using CURES. Close monitoring of checkpoints, however, by the claims administrator will provide benefits. Monitoring is accomplished through what is commonly referred to as “encounter data” and includes diagnoses, services performed and medications dispensed along with amounts charged and paid. Diagnoses, medical procedures and pharmaceuticals translated into coding systems such as ICD-10 (International Classification of Disease, 10th revision), HCPCS (HeathCare Common Procedure Coding System) and NDC (National Drug Code) provide excellent opportunities to automate the monitoring of encounter data.

Have claims administrators been able to implement technology solutions to automate the monitoring of encounter data and achieve outstanding results? Over the past two decades, many claims administrators have opted to outsource the management and control of critically important functions such as utilization review, medical bill review and pharmacy monitoring. Many of the outsource organizations only focus on that part of the encounter data that directly applies to their function — for example, pharmacy benefit managers only monitor the pharmacy. But using all the encounter data can promote a vibrant synergy very capable of achieving outstanding outcomes and results for the injured worker.

Losing control of encounter data eliminates the claims administrator’s ability to establish and monitor adherence to best evidence-based practices. When physicians have not adhered to their proposed treatment plans, opportunities to trigger yellow and red flags for investigation are lost.

Claims administrators who have automated the monitoring of their encounter data can assist states in reducing abuse and diversion by monitoring the quantities of medications being dispensed in a progressive or step therapy pain management plan, for example, and encouraging unused supplies to be returned to the physician at the next appointment. This can be achieved at no additional cost to the claims administrator and reduces the quantities of unused or unneeded prescription medications in circulation, which has been the focus of the DEA’s (U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency) “take back” initiatives. To date, the DEA has collected in excess of 1,400 tons of unused medications, which could otherwise have found their way into the illicit drug market.

For as long as the U.S. remains the biggest licit and illicit drug market in the world, claims administrators will remain challenged to deliver on their workers’ compensation claims handling obligations.

With a changing workforce, claims administrators will need to move more and more toward a biopsychosocial approach to managing medical conditions. They must provide quality care at the lowest possible cost, which can only be achieved through the fine analytics of consolidated encounter data.

Capturing encounter data through the claims administrator’s processes and fine analytics will consistently yield the best claims outcomes, from earlier return-to-work to lower costs associated with medical treatment through to automated overseeing of a claim, including provider performance monitoring and evaluation. All of these are the essence of superior workers’ compensation claims management.

Are MPNs Hindering Quality Care?

Have medical provider networks (MPNs) lived up to expectations of improving access to quality of care while reducing medical costs? Recent accusations raised against Janak K. Mehtani, M.D. (“Mehtani”) before the Medical Board of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, would suggest not. (Specific details relating to case # 02 2012224474, effective Jan. 13, 2015, are available on the Medical Board of California website, under the option “Verify a License.” At time of writing, a hearing had not been held, and the case status description states, “The physician has not had a hearing or been found guilty of any charges.”

Following the investigation of a lodged complaint relating to this case, the executive director of the Medical Board of California raised the following accusations (1) gross negligence, (2) repeated negligent acts, (3) prescribing dangerous drugs without appropriate examination or medical indication, (4) failure to maintain adequate and accurate medical records and (5) general unprofessional conduct.

These accusations relate to three workers’ compensation claims for services provided between 2008 and 2013. Two claims were identified as belonging to State Compensation Insurance Fund (“SCIF”) (patients JC and RW) while the insurer for the third claim, involving a non-English-speaking 47-year-old female with a history of hypertension and chronic pain (patient GC), was not identified.

This article reviews the claims administrators’ implementation of MPNs with reference to patient GC in the Mehtani case.

Insurers promote their MPNs as being quality medical providers who have undergone extensive credentialing before selection, with continuing quality assurance control of their services. Yet a random sample of insurers’ MPN lookup facilities showed Mehtani — a psychiatrist with a practice Sacramento — being currently available to provide treatment, even though there are very serious accusations currently lodged against him. There is no warning, link or reference to the medical board website to alert an injured employee or the employer.

Information shown on claims administrators’ MPN websites to assist an employee in selecting a provider or medical specialty, such as a psychiatrist, is limited to basic contact details, such as address, phone number, distance from a specified location (such as city or Zip code), gender and language. In the case of Mehtani, there is inconsistency in the list of languages spoken; some MPNs list Hindi and Punjabi, while others include Spanish. Does providing only minimal information limit the opportunity for correctly “matching” the patient (i.e., injured employee) to the medical provider, potentially compromising the physician-patient relationship?

Additional information in psychiatry would provide better opportunities for matching patient with psychiatrist. Sub-specialties such as psychosomatic medicine, addiction medicine or administrative psychiatry play key roles in the selection process. So do special interests such as psychopharmacology and pain management and additional training in psychoanalysis at institutes such as the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA). Rapport between the psychiatrist and patient is of paramount importance and is assisted further when matching is based on race, ethnicity and cultural groups.

While a review identified 120 psychiatrists located within two miles of the central business district of Sacramento (CBD), a random selection of insurers’ MPNs identified only one psychiatrist, in this case Mehtani, as being within 200 miles of the CBD. Can this list be considered adequate for the employee to choose a psychiatrist, let alone attempt to “best match” a patient to a psychiatrist?

Some researchers suggest that, in patients with chronic pain, a psychiatrist may be the person best qualified to distinguish between medical comorbidity and concomitant somatic complaints and that the patients require careful multidisciplinary treatment, in which psychiatry can play an important role. Patient GC experienced a number of work-related injuries commencing in 2003 and was first seen by Mehtani in 2008, after experiencing depression and anxiety for two to three years. In line with a multidisciplinary treatment plan, Mehtani referred patient GC out for pain management and to a therapist for cognitive behavior management. Mehtani was to manage medications and provide supportive psychotherapy once a month for 12 months.

But who was responsible for approving and selecting the providers’ Pain management providers are generally listed on MPN lists, but a random selection of MPNs found that cognitive behavior therapists and others providing cognitive behavior therapy, such as psychologists, mental health nurses and psychiatrists, were either not listed or not identified as providing cognitive behavior therapy. This lack further demonstrates the limitations of MPNs in selecting medical providers.

In the multidisciplinary or multidimensional approach to addressing chronic pain, an interdisciplinary approach is also required to maximize a psychiatrist’s role in the treatment plan, where all parties involved work in a coordinated fashion. The overall responsibility of ensuring the multidisciplinary team adheres to a common objective rests with the claims administrator. In the case of patient GC, the claims administrator should have been responsible for all the activities performed by the psychiatrist (Mehtani), the pain management provider, the therapist providing cognitive behavior therapy, the primary treating physician and the pharmacist in cases where medications were being dispensed by an insurer’s pharmacy network or a pharmacy was linked to an insurer’s pharmacy benefit manager (PBM). Pharmacists and pharmacies can be held accountable for failing to identify and verify red flags that may appear when a prescription is presented. In the Mehtani case, the issue of prescribed medications is being raised in the accusations.

Documentation required by psychiatrists has been an issue of contention for some time, with many psychiatrists believing that they do not need to perform the same level of documentation generally required for “physiology-based medicine.” Lack of documentation has also been raised in the Mehtani case.

Quality assurance controls for providers can be accomplished in many ways, including automation. Technology is available to monitor diagnoses (DSM-5, ICD-9 and ICD-10), treatments rendered (CPT codes) and pharmaceuticals dispensed through the National Drug Code (NDC) to track treatment and recovery progress, as well as monitor each provider’s contribution to the objectives set by the claims administrator.

Patient GC had 40 visits for “medical psychoanalysis” with Mehtani between 2010 and 2013. All visits would have been invoiced by Mehtani and would have required documentation before payment was made. As lack of documentation was mentioned in the accusation document for all three patients, how was the claims administrator monitoring treatment progress and determining payment for services rendered over the period that Mehtani treated patient GC and the others?

The current health status of all three patients and whether they have returned to normality has not been stated in the accusation document. Patient GC was first injured in 2003, patient JC was injured in 1989, and no injury date was recorded for patient RW. Regardless of the outcome of the Mehtani hearing, could the injured employees file a tort claim against the insurer as to lack of quality care provided by their MPNs? Could a tort claim be filed by the employer against the insurer with regard to lack of controls to vet and verify costs associated with providing medical treatments by their MPNs? Although tort claims by the employee against the employer are not permitted under the workers’ compensation agreement, the insurer and claims administrator are not direct parties to this agreement.

The question remains unanswered, of whether current workers’ compensation medical treatment practices based on group health managed care programs, such as MPNs, are diametrically opposed to the workers’ compensation ethos of “return to work” where “utmost good faith” between interested parties is the aspiration. This article however, suggests that they most probably are diametrically opposed.

For a more detailed outline of the processes and procedures claims administrators can utilize to manage and monitor their medical providers, refer to the article titled, “Treating Pain Pharmacologically,” available from the website managingdisability.com under the Dialogue tab.

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.

The Paradox on Drugs in Workers’ Comp

Pharmaceuticals remain a large component of both total claims and medical costs in treating workers’ compensation injuries and illnesses. On the plus side, pharmaceuticals lower medical costs by decreasing demand on other health resources, improve health outcomes, including treatment safety, and provide earlier opportunities to return to work. On the negative side, prices can be very high.

States have been trying to address that negative through numerous efforts for many years, yet costs keep climbing. A study finds that a solution exists, if claims administrators become aware at the most granular level about the sources of medications and the prices that suppliers charge.

Background

Pharmaceutical pricing in the U.S. is unregulated. Pharmaceuticals are manufactured through two sources, (1) the originator (i.e. the inventor) of the medication and (2) the generic manufacturer. The originator markets the medication through a brand or trademark name and has sole marketing rights for a period. This period varies from country to country, but the norm is from five to 10 years. On expiration, generic pharmaceutical manufacturers are allowed to produce the medication and introduce price competition into the market. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) reports that generic medications account for 80% of dispensed medications in the U.S.

In an effort to control pharmaceutical pricing in California workers’ compensation, a number of legislative changes were introduced.

2002 – Claims administrators could use pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and pharmacy benefit networks (PBNs) to establish contract prices below the maximum price established by the legislature and to scrutinize prescribed medications at the time of dispensing. A reduction in pharmaceutical costs was expected, yet a report prepared by the California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) in October 2014, titled “Report to the Industry: Are Formularies a Viable Solution for Controlling Prescription Drug Utilization and Cost in California Workers’ Compensation?” showed the average pharmacy cost for the first year of treatment for an indemnity claim increased from $390 in 2002 to $430 in 2003 (an increase of more than 10%).

2004 – The pharmacy formulary (i.e. list of medications) established by California’s Medicaid welfare program, called “Medi-Cal,” was introduced into workers’ compensation. The formulary and price schedule are based on the state’s negotiated price with suppliers. By contrast, most other workers’ compensation jurisdictions use schedules based on the supplier’s average wholesale price (AWP), with a plus or minus percentage adjustment to establish the maximum price (e.g., AWP + 10% or AWP – 5%). Both the Medi-Cal price and the AWP are established before any off-invoice discounts, rebates or other incentives are applied by the pharmaceutical supplier. Price differences between Medi-Cal and the AWP can vary significantly. For example, paying the lowest Medi-Cal price of 4 cents per unit for the generic medication Meloxicam 7.5mg tablet, instead of paying the AWP, provides a saving of as much as 98%. Once again, expectations for a significant reduction in pharmaceutical costs were anticipated, but, according to the CWCI, the cost only dropped from $321 in 2004 to $282 in 2005 (a reduction of 12%), before increasing to $352 in 2006 (an increase of almost 25%).

2005 – In an effort to control total medical costs, claims administrators in California were allowed to establish their own medical provider networks (MPN). The intent of this legislation was to curtail the adversarial relationship between the medical profession and claims administrators and also provide an opportunity for establishing contract rates with physicians, below the mandated maximum prices, for both services rendered and medications dispensed. This time, the expectation was to see a reduction in costs for both medical treatments and medications dispensed by a physician. Instead, the CWCI showed an increase from $282 in 2005 to $352 in 2006 (almost 25%) and then to $412 in 2007 (a further increase of 17%).

2007 – Legislation was enacted to require that the maximum price paid for a supplier’s medication that was not listed in the Medi-Cal formulary be equivalent to similar medications listed in the Medi-Cal formulary; the prior practice was to use the supplier’s AWP to calculate the price.

The Medi-Cal formulary includes a number of suppliers providing the same medication. PBMs, PBNs and physicians dispensing medications also have formularies that may have different suppliers to Medi-Cal, especially where a large number of suppliers are involved. For example, Gabapentin is available from more than 55 suppliers, which may include the originator, the generic manufacturers and companies that repackage others’ medications in various package sizes. Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen is available from at least 45 suppliers in different strengths and package sizes.

Again, the legislation was expected to lead to a significant decrease in costs, because a number of physicians were dispensing medications from suppliers that were not listed in the Medi-Cal formulary. The cost, however, increased by almost 7%, from $412 in 2007 to $440 in 2008. This percentage increase is baffling. The National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), in its September 2013 report titled “Workers’ Compensation Drug Study: 2013 Update,” ranked Meloxicam as the highest physician-dispensed medication by dollars paid. By applying the Medi-Cal price, instead of the AWP, cost savings should have been as high as 98%. The savings for Tramadol HCL, the second highest ranked physician dispensed medication by dollars paid, were 89% based on the Medi-Cal price of 9 cents per unit.

So, legislation enacted in California from 2002 through 2007 provided all the means to control and curtail pharmaceutical costs. Yet, according to the CWCI, the average first year pharmaceutical cost per indemnity claim reached $953 in 2012 from $390 in 2002 (an increase of 144%).

The Study — Huge Range in Prices

This paradox initiated an independent study into pricing based on the medications listed in the NCCI report. The study identified that prices offered by manufacturers of generic medications varied significantly, and that a lack of awareness by claims administrators could be a leading factor in the high cost of pharmaceuticals in workers’ compensation. The study excluded repackagers’ prices, which are often associated with physician-dispensing. The report published from this study listed the following medications:

  • Meloxicam 7.5mg tablet — prices ranged from four cents through to $5.73.
  • Gabapentin 300mg capsule — six cents through to $1.75.
  • Lidocaine 5% transdermal patch (30 patches) — $102.98 through to $258.97.
  • Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen (“APAP”) — from 22 cents through to $2.69 per unit, depending on the strength. The price for Acetaminophen with Codeine ranged from 15 cents through to 90 cents per unit.
  • Omeprazole 20mg — from 29 cents through to 65 cents.
  • Cyclobenzaprine HCL 10mg tablet — from four cents through to $1.13.
  • Oxycodone HCL — from 23 cents through to $1.57 depending on strength.
  • OxyContin — a brand name extended release or long acting Oxycodone HCL, only manufactured by Purdue Pharma and currently under a protection period, ranged from $2.27 through to $14.51 per unit based on strength.

The Solution

For claims administrators to influence a downward trend in pharmaceutical costs associated with pricing, consideration should be given to the following initiatives:

  1. Know the suppliers of the medications in the PBM/PBN’s formulary.
  2. Compare the suppliers of the PBM/PBN’s formulary to the Medi-Cal formulary to ensure at least the lower prices available from Medi-Cal suppliers are being paid.
  3. Pay only the “no substitute allowed” price when a prescribed medication is not included in the PBM/PBN’s formulary.
  4. When an MPN’s physician dispenses medications, ensure that (a) the “no substitute allowed” price is not paid and (b) the lowest available price is paid for a medication from a supplier listed in the Medi-Cal formulary, unless a lower contracted rate is already in place within the MPN.
  5. Analyze the paid price for pharmaceuticals on at least a monthly basis to ensure the lowest price for a medication has been paid regardless of supplier and monitor medications most frequently dispensed along with their quantities to ensure PBMs/PBNs and physicians are dispensing the lowest cost medication identified in the Medi-Cal formulary, unless a lower contracted rate is already in place.

A claims administrator’s processes and technologies to manage the pharmacy vendor relationships, pre-authorizations and bill reviews must be seamlessly integrated and be able to capture data at the most granular level, which in the case of pharmaceuticals in the U.S. is the National Drug Code (NDC). Without this detailed integration, pharmaceutical costs associated with pricing will continue to increase, as illustrated in California, regardless of legislation changes enacted in the future.

The report relating to this study is available in PDF format from the website managingdisability.com under the Dialogue tab.