The Economics of Copay Accumulators, Maximizers, and Alternative Funding Programs (Video) (rerun)

This week, I’m rerunning some popular posts while I put the finishing touches on DCI's new 2023-24 Economic Report on Pharmaceutical Wholesalers and Specialty Distributors.

One important update on copay accumulators since my original post from August 2023: U.S. District Court, District of Columbia struck down U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rule allowing non-grandfathered individual and group plans to exclude manufacturers' copay assistance from deductibles. (Details and industry reactions here.) IMHO, this was a huge win for patients thanks to the HIV + Hepatitis Policy Institute, the Diabetes Patient Advocacy Coalition, and the Diabetes Leadership Council.

---

In my most recent video webinar, I explored how plans and PBMs are turning to novel—and highly controversial—benefit design tools that access manufacturers’ patient support spending: copay accumulators, maximizers, and alternative funding programs.

In the video excerpt below, I describe these new approaches that plans offset specialty drug expenses. I then follow the dollar to show how they impact plan, patient, and manufacturer costs when compared with traditional approaches to copay support.

During the full 90-minute webinar, I discussed seven crucial risks that could disrupt this market along with many other aspects of this emerging market. If this clip whets your appetite for more, you can purchase the 90-minute webinar replay and full slide deck here: PBMs and the Battle Over Patient Support Funds: Accumulators, Maximizers, and Alternative Funding.

Click here if you can’t see the video below.

Two recent Drug Channels article on these topics:

• Copay Accumulator and Maximizer Update: Adoption Plateaus as Insurers Battle Patients Over Copay Support

• Employers Expand Use of Alternative Funding Programs—But Sustainability in Doubt as Loopholes Close

Errata: The formulary rebate in the mathematical example that begins at 4:40 should be shown as 16.7%, not 20%. We apologize for the error.