Posted by on in Biopharma, Payers, Population Health

Summary Drug companies are naturally incentivized to price their drugs under assumptions of optimal clinical value, i.e. as high as possible.  Payers react to this by setting stringent conditions for patient eligibility for coverage of those therapies. As a consequence, patients who do not meet these conditions do not receive those drugs even though they could derive benefit, albeit not of a magnitude that would justify the cost.  Here we lay out a population health based scheme by which payers and drug companies can design a system that ensures access to a drug to a larger group who could benefit… Read More

Posted by on in Biopharma, Payers

In this morning’s New York Times (June 3,2014), Andrew Ross Sorkin asks,“DO drug companies make drugs, OR money”? That’s a fair question in the context of what I’ll call a “fee-for-product” reimbursement regime. Another way to look at this question is, “CAN drug companies make drugs, AND money”? Value has not been an easy sell As the U.S. healthcare services system moves from fee-for-service to a value-based system, the biotech and pharmaceutical (biopharma) industry should have an opportunity to capture more of the value it creates. But with drug costs only ~10% of overall health spending and not… Read More

Posted by on in Uncategorized

Summary ESRX was running at close to maximum capacity at its mail facilities while MHS has room to spare. ESRX is facing a scenario of significantly increased demand as greater mail penetration is achieved in the Wellpoint book and lacked the capacity to meet this demand. Similarly, ESRX would not be able to meet increased demand from reform coverage expansion. By combining, ESRX avoided having to build a new facility and the combined entity appears to have enough capacity to close at least one older mail facility. Given that a new facility can cost $140M or more,… Read More

Posted by on in Uncategorized

UNH’s decision to take the commercial PBM business in-house did not force MHS into ESRX’s arms: I would argue that it removed the major roadblock to what the companies wanted to do anyway. MHS and ESRX had been talking about a merger off and on for few years (per WSJ reporting) and the logic (laid out below) is compelling but FTC concerns must have kept getting in the way. UNH’s decision doubled the size of its PBM subsidiary in terms of lives (somewhat less in terms of scripts because the legacy Medicare business has a lot more scripts per… Read More