Washington, DC (PRWEB) July 18, 2012
Imposing a federal protected classes prescription drug mandate on individual and small employer plans would raise premiums, grant drug companies unlimited pricing power, and create strong opposition from small businesses, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) said today. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) says a similar mandate is dramatically increasing costs in Medicare Part D.
In the commercial market, employers and unions negotiate discounts from drug companies in exchange for covering their drugs. This reduces premiums and offers manufacturers a greater marketplace. To simply force plans to cover expensive brands regardless of price would eliminate manufacturers incentives to offer discounts. The result would be higher costs and virtually unchecked pricing power for drug companies.
Unfortunately, protected classes regulations have already taken their toll on Medicare Part D. CMS estimates that they will increase costs by $ 4.2 billion. There is no corresponding evidence that Medicare beneficiaries health or access to care has improved as a result.
In a recent survey, 66% of small employers say cost is their top consideration when considering health benefits. Imposing protected classes would not only undermine affordability but also contradict the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) pronouncement that states can design benefits like those of popular, high-performing plans that local employers already use. No such plans are governed by protected classes regulations.
These protected class mandates would grant drug companies unlimited pricing power and make coverage less affordable for individuals and small businesses. Small businesses shouldnt have to choose between a bloated Cadillac plan and no plan at all. They want access to affordable plans that offer broad coverage, promote generics, and reduce brand name drug costs, said PCMA President and CEO Mark Merritt.
The poll of small business owners and human resource managers (who represent the companies directly impacted by the upcoming Essential Health Benefits regulations) found that: