Thomas Kaye, RPh, MBA
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma


Purpose: Pharmacy compounding of prescription therapies that do not have Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval increases administrative costs to managed care organizations and may also place members at risk for poor outcomes. This paper provides health care administrators with information and tools that can be used to manage risk-encouraged practices from pharmacy compounders, and suggests methods for evaluating the medical appropriateness and benefit of such compounds.

Study design: Experiential findings.

Results: Methods indicate an effective way to manage this emerging pharmacy practice based on safety, risk avoidance, and outcomes.

Conclusion: Focused management efforts can reduce the burden of reimbursement for compounding practices that are likely to present a greater risk of medical errors than commercially prepared medications. The use of existing terms in plan contracts, such as "experimental treatments or medications," "medical necessity," or "non-FDA approved agents," can enable an editing process that provides for appropriate benefit enforcement and control.

Author correspondence:
Thomas Kaye, RPh, MBA
8302 S. Joshua St.
Broken Arrow, OK 74011
Phone: (918) 561-9901
Fax: (918) 561-9944

This paper has undergone peer review by appropriate members of Managed Care's Editorial Advisory Board.

No pharmaceutical company has provided funding for this paper.

This paper focuses on retail pharmacy compounded medications that are administered via oral, topical, and injectable routes. The author is not referring to sterile compounded prescriptions for injectable administration in a hospital setting or to radiological solutions prepared from appropriate infusion mixtures for use in inpatient settings.

Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.