PBM Legislation Worries Workers’ Comp Payers
Legislation introduced in several states seeking to impose new regulatory authority over group health pharmacy benefit managers could harm workers’ compensation PBMs and claims payers, sources said.
Introduction of similar bills in 11 states has raised concerns among workers’ comp insurers, third party administrators, and some large employers, said Brian Allen, VP of government affairs for Progressive Medical, a workers’ comp PBM.
“We have had customers calling us every day worrying about how it is going to impact us and them,” Allen said. “These are big insurance companies … they are nervous about it and want to know how it’s going to impact them.”
Overall, it appears the bills seek greater transparency in the way group health PBMs set their pricing, said Joe Paduda, principal at Health Strategy Associates. But group health PBM practices differ substantially from those of workers’ comp PBMs and the bills seek to address issues that “have nothing to do with workers’ comp,” he added.
Yet while the bills appear aimed at practices among PBMs serving the group health industry and not workers’ comp PBMs, Allen and others say a spillover into workers’ comp is possible. So several organizations want language inserted into the bills that would clearly exempt workers’ comp PBMs.
“It appears that workers’ compensation PBMs are not the target of this legislation,” the American Insurance Association said in a statement. “That said, AIA supports efforts to include clear exemptions for workers’ compensation PBMs in these bills in order to clarify legislative intent and avoid any confusion down the road.”
“Community” pharmacies seeking more revenue from products they dispense are supporting the bills that would put PBMs under certain state regulatory agencies, such as pharmacy boards, Allen said.
State workers’ comp commissions or insurance departments already regulate workers’ comp PBMs, depending on the jurisdiction, Allen explained. But the legislation could add oversight from additional agencies such as state pharmacy boards.
Complying with regulations developed by two distinct agencies with potentially conflicting goals could cause an administrative burden for workers’ comp PBMs, Allen added.
“We want to make sure we are not swept up into crazy regulatory schemes that would be difficult to manage,” he said.
A new oversight body could also decide to impact workers’ comp PBM pricing, which is already regulated by state fee schedules, Allen said.
“If for some reason the pharmacy board said, ‘you have to pay pharmacists more money,’ that potentially would impact our customers because we would have to pass that cost onto payers,” Allen said.