Express Scripts 2014 Annual Report Download - page 18
Download and view the complete annual report
Please find page 18 of the 2014 Express Scripts annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.Express Scripts 2014 Annual Report
16
ofAppealsfortheFirstCircuitpreviouslyheldthelawnotpreemptedbyERISA.IntheDistrictofColumbiacase,thecourt
grantedinpartPCMA’smotionforsummaryjudgmentfindingtheDistrictofColumbialawwaspreemptedbyERISAandthat
decisionwasaffirmedbytheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheD.C.Circuit.Widespreadenactmentofsuchstatutes(ifnot
preemptedbyERISA)couldhaveamaterialadverseeffectuponourfinancialcondition,resultsofoperationsandcashflows.
Consumer Protection Laws.Moststateshaveconsumerprotectionlawsthathavebeenthebasisforinvestigations
andmulti-statesettlementsrelatingtofinancialincentivesprovidedbydrugmanufacturerstoretailpharmaciesinconnection
withdrugswitchingprograms.SuchstatuteshavealsobeencitedasthebasisforclaimsagainstPBMseitherincivillitigation
orpursuanttoinvestigationsbystateAttorneysGeneral.
Network Access Legislation.Amajorityofstatesnowhavesomeformoflegislationaffectingourability,orour
clients’ability,tolimitaccesstoapharmacyprovidernetworkorremoveaproviderfromthenetwork.Suchlegislationmay
requireusorourclientstoadmitanyretailpharmacywillingtomeettheplan’spriceandothertermsfornetworkparticipation
(“anywillingprovider”legislation)ormayprovidethataprovidermaynotberemovedfromanetworkexceptincompliance
withcertainprocedures(“dueprocess”legislation).Wehavenotbeenmateriallyaffectedbythesestatutes.
CertainstateshaveenactedlegislationprohibitingcertainPBMclientsfromimposingadditionalco-payments,
deductibles,limitationonbenefits,orotherconditions(“Conditions”)oncoveredindividualsutilizingaretailpharmacywhen
thesameConditionsarenototherwiseimposedoncoveredindividualsutilizinghomedeliverypharmacies.However,the
legislationrequirestheretailpharmacyagreetothesamereimbursementamountsandtermsandconditionsasareimposedon
thehomedeliverypharmacies.Anincreaseinthenumberofprescriptionsfilledatretailpharmaciesmayhaveanegative
impactontheamountofprescriptionsfilledthroughhomedelivery.Itisanticipatedadditionalstateswillconsidersimilar
legislationandwecannotpredictwhichstateswilladoptsuchlegislationorwhateffectitwillhave,ifany.
Legislation Affecting Plan Design.Somestateshaveenactedlegislationthatprohibitsmanagedcareplansponsors
fromimplementingcertainrestrictivebenefitplandesignfeatures,andmanystateshaveintroducedlegislationtoregulate
variousaspectsofmanagedcareplans,includingprovisionsrelatingtothepharmacybenefit.Forexample,somestates,under
so-called“freedomofchoice”legislation,providemembersoftheplanmaynotberequiredtousenetworkproviders,butmust
insteadbeprovidedwithbenefitseveniftheychoosetousenon-networkproviders.Otherstateshaveenactedlegislation
purportingtoprohibithealthplansfromofferingmembersfinancialincentivesforuseofhomedeliverypharmacies.Medicare
andsomestateshaveissuedguidanceandregulationswhichlimitourabilitytofillorrefillprescriptionselectronically
submittedbyaphysiciantoourhomedeliverypharmacywithoutfirstobtainingconsentfromthepatient.Suchrestrictions
generateadditionalcostsandlimitourabilitytomaximizeefficiencieswhichcouldotherwisebegainedthroughtheelectronic
prescriptionandautomaticrefillprocesses.Legislationhasbeenintroducedinsomestatestoprohibitorrestricttherapeutic
intervention,ortorequirecoverageofallFDAapproveddrugs.Otherstatesmandatecoverageofcertainbenefitsorconditions,
andrequirehealthplancoverageofspecificdrugsifdeemedmedicallynecessarybytheprescribingphysician.Statesarealso
standardizingtheprocessfor,andrestrictingtheuseof,utilizationmanagementrulesandshorteningthetimeframeswithin
whichprescriptiondrugpriorauthorizationdeterminationsmustbemade.Suchlegislationdoesnotgenerallyapplytous
directly,butmayapplytocertainofourclients,suchasmanagedcareorganizationsandhealthinsurers.Ifsuchlegislation
weretobecomewidelyadoptedandbroadinscope,itcouldhavetheeffectoflimitingtheeconomicbenefitsachievable
throughpharmacybenefitmanagement.
Legislation and Regulation Affecting Drug Prices.Somestateshaveadoptedso-called“mostfavorednation”
legislationprovidingapharmacyparticipatinginthestateMedicaidprogrammustgivethestatethebestpricethepharmacy
makesavailabletoanythird-partyplan.Suchlegislationmayadverselyaffectourabilitytonegotiatediscountsinthefuture
fromnetworkpharmacies.
Inthepasttwoyears,stateshavealsostartedtoenactstatutesregulatingtheuseofMaximumAllowableCost
(“MAC”)pricing.Thesestatutes,referredtoas“MACTransparencyLaws,”generallyrequirePBMstodisclosespecific
informationrelatedtoMACpricingtopharmaciesandprovidecertainappealrightsforpharmacies.MACTransparencyLaws
alsorestricttheapplicationofMACandmayrequireoperationalchangestomaintaincompliancewiththelaw.Theselaws
havethepotentialtonegativelyimpactExpressScriptsinanumberofways,including,butnotlimitedto,increasing
administrativeburdenanddecreasingflexibilityinsettingandmanagingMACpricing.AsmorestatesadoptMAC
TransparencyLaws,theimpactoftheselawsmaycontinuetogrow.
ThefederalMedicaidrebateprogramrequiresparticipatingdrugmanufacturerstoproviderebatesonalldrugs
reimbursedthroughstateMedicaidprograms,includingthroughMedicaidmanagedcareorganizations.Manufacturersofbrand
nameproductsmustprovidearebateequivalenttothegreaterof(a)23.1%oftheaveragemanufacturerprice(“AMP”)paidby
retailcommunitypharmaciesorbywholesalersforcertaininnovatordrugsdistributedtoretailcommunitypharmacies,or
(b)thedifferencebetweenAMPandthe“bestprice”availabletoessentiallyanycustomerotherthantheMedicaidprogramand
12