Eagan, MN, United States
Eagan, MN, United States

Time filter

Source Type

News Article | May 16, 2017
Site: www.businesswire.com

SEATTLE--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Frazier Healthcare Partners today announced that Dr. René Lerer has been named a Senior Advisor to the firm’s Growth Buyout team. Dr. Lerer is president of GuideWell Mutual Holding Corporation and Florida Blue. GuideWell is a $14 billion, not-for-profit health solutions organization that is the parent to a family of forward-thinking companies, including the leading health insurer in Florida. “We are delighted to welcome René to Frazier. His extensive leadership and management experience in managed care and payor services will provide us with valuable insights and perspective as we look to acquire and build market-leading businesses,” said Nathan Every, General Partner. “Frazier’s work offers an exciting window into the evolving healthcare landscape,” Dr. Lerer noted. “I am very pleased to have been asked to join the firm’s distinguished group of senior advisors and I look forward to collaborating with the team and their portfolio companies.” Dr. Lerer has more than 30 years of experience in executive management with leading national health care organizations. Prior to joining the GuideWell organization, Dr. Lerer served as executive chairman of Magellan Health Services, now Magellan Health, a $5 billion, Nasdaq-listed specialty health care management company focused on behavioral health, pharmacy and other complex areas of health care. During his tenure with Magellan, Dr. Lerer also served as chief executive officer and as president and chief operating officer. Earlier in his career he held positions as co-founder and president of Internet HealthCare Group, a health care technology venture fund; chief operating officer of Prudential Healthcare; and president of The Travelers Health Network. He also served as senior vice president of operations, pharmacy, and disease management with Value Health, Inc., a New York Stock Exchange-listed specialty managed care organization. Dr. Lerer serves on the board of directors of York Risk Services Group, Prime Therapeutics, Availity, and on the board of HIAS, the international migration agency of the American Jewish community. Dr. Lerer holds a bachelor’s degree in psychobiology from Oberlin College and a doctor of medicine degree from the State University of New York at Buffalo. He is board-certified in internal medicine. Founded in 1991, Frazier Healthcare Partners is a leading provider of growth and venture capital to healthcare companies. With nearly $3.0 billion total capital raised, Frazier has invested in over 170 companies, with investment types ranging from company creation and venture capital to buyouts of profitable lower-middle market companies. The firm’s Growth Buyout team invests in healthcare and pharmaceutical services, medical products and related sectors. The Life Sciences team invests in therapeutics and related areas that are addressing unmet medical needs through innovation. Frazier has offices in Seattle, WA and Menlo Park, CA, and invests broadly across the US, Canada, and Europe. For more information about Frazier Healthcare Partners, visit the company’s website at http://www.frazierhealthcare.com.


Gleason P.P.,Prime Therapeutics LLC | Alexander G.C.,Johns Hopkins University | Starner C.I.,Prime Therapeutics LLC | Ritter S.T.,Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota | Gunderson B.W.,Prime Therapeutics LLC
Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy | Year: 2013

BACKGROUND: Drugs are most typically defined as specialty because they are expensive; however, other criteria used to define a drug as specialty include biologic drugs, the need to inject or infuse the drug, the requirement for special handling, or drug availability only via a limited distribution network. Specialty drugs play an increasingly important role in the treatment of chronic conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), yet little is known regarding the comprehensive medical and pharmacy benefit utilization and cost trends for these conditions.OBJECTIVE: To describe MS, RA, psoriasis, and IBD trends for condition prevalence, treatment with specialty drugs, specialty costs, nonspecialty costs, and total direct costs of care within the medical and pharmacy benefits. METHODS: This was a descriptive analysis of a commercially insured population made up of 1 million members, using integrated medical and pharmacy administrative claims data from 2008 to 2010. Analyses were limited to continuously enrolled commercially insured individuals less than 65 years of age. Condition-specific cohorts for MS, RA, psoriasis, and IBD were defined using standardized criteria. Trends in condition prevalence, specialty drug use for the conditions, and direct total cost of care were analyzed. The direct costs were subcategorized into the following: medical benefit specialty drug costs, medical benefit all other costs, pharmacy benefit specialty drug costs, and pharmacy benefit all other costs. Trends and compound annual growth rates were calculated for the total cost of care and subcategory costs from 2008 through 2010.RESULTS: Condition prevalence ranged from a low of 1,720 per million members for MS to a high of 4,489 per million members for RA. Psoriasis and MS condition prevalence rates were unchanged over the 3 years; however, IBD prevalence increased 7.0%, and RA prevalence increased 9.7%. The rate of specialty drug use was lowest for IBD (13.7%) and highest for MS (71.8%). The lowest total annual cost of care was for psoriasis ($14,815), and the highest total annual cost was for MS ($36,901). The most commonly used specialty drugs for each of the conditions were as follows: glatiramer (MS), etanercept (RA and psoriasis), and infliximab (IBD). The total annual costs were more than double for the specialty drug users for psoriasis compared with all the psoriasis members ($29,565 vs. $14,815). The total costs were only somewhat higher among MS members using specialty drugs ($41,760 vs. $36,901). Among specialty drug users for each of the cohorts, the annual costs of specialty drugs accounted for 50% or more of the total annual costs. The annual spending growth rate for specialty drugs ranged from 4.4% to 18.0%.CONCLUSIONS: Although specialty drug utilization varied widely across the 4 chronic conditions analyzed, when specialty drugs were used they accounted for the majority of the annual total direct cost of care. Because specialty drugs are accounting for a growing portion of chronic disease total cost of care, health insurers will need to become more vigilant regarding specialty drug use and focus on 4 cost saving management opportunities: drug distribution channel, utilization management, contracting activities, and care coordination. © 2013, Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.


Tungol A.,Health Care Reform Clinical Pharmacist | Starner C.I.,Prime Therapeutics LLC | Gunderson B.W.,Prime Therapeutics LLC | Schafer J.A.,Prime Therapeutics LLC | And 2 more authors.
Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy | Year: 2012

Background: In 2006, pharmacies began offering select generic prescription drugs at discount prices (e.g., $4 for a 30-day supply) through nonmembership and membership programs. As part of the contract in membership generic drug discount programs, the member agrees to forgo submission of the claim to the insurance company. Claims not submitted for insurance adjudication may result in incomplete pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) and health plan data, which could negatively influence adherence reporting and clinical programs. To address potentially missing claims data, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) encourages Medicare Part D sponsors to incentivize network pharmacies to submit claims directly to the plan for drugs dispensed outside of a member's Part D benefit, unless a member refuses. The extent of PBM and health plan claims capture loss due to generic drug discount programs is unknown. Objective: To identify changes in levothyroxine utilizers' prescription claims capture rate following the advent of generic drug discount membership and nonmembership programs. Methods: This retrospective concurrent cohort study used claims data from 3.5 million commercially insured members enrolled in health plans located in the central and southern United States with Prime Therapeutics pharmacy benefit coverage. Members were required to be 18 years or older and younger than 60 years as of January 1, 2006, and continuously enrolled from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010. Members utilizing generic levothyroxine for at least 120 days during January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2006 (baseline period) from the same pharmacy group with supply on July 1, 2006, were placed into 1 of 3 pharmacy groups: (1) nonmembership (Walmart, Sam's Club, Target, Kroger, City Market, and King Soopers pharmacies), (2) membership (Walgreens, CVS, Albertsons, and Savon pharmacies), or (3) the reference group of all other pharmacies. The index date was defined as July 1, 2006. The levothyroxine claim providing supply on July 1, 2006, was the index claim. Members with a Kmart pharmacy index claim were excluded, since the Kmart membership drug discount program began prior to July 1, 2006. Levothyroxine claims capture nonpersistency, defined as the occurrence of a claim supply end date prior to a 180-day gap, was the primary outcome variable and was assessed from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2010 (follow-up period). The odds of levothyroxine claims capture nonpersistency by pharmacy group were assessed using a logistic regression analysis adjusted for the following covariates: age, gender, median income in the ZIP code of residence (binomial for ≤ $50,000 vs. > $50,000), switch to a brand levothyroxine product during the follow-up period, index levothyroxine claim supply of 90 days or more, and index levothyroxine claim member cost share per 30-day supply in tertiles (≤ $5.00, $5.01-$7.99, ≥ $8.00). Results: Of 2,632,855 eligible members aged 18 years or older, 13,427 met all study eligibility criteria. The baseline pharmacy groups were membership with 3,595 (26.8%), nonmembership with 1,919 (14.3%), and all other pharmacies with 7,913 (58.9%) members. The rates of levothyroxine claims capture persistency throughout the 4-year follow-up period were 85.4% for nonmembership (P = 0.593 vs. all other pharmacies), 77.7% for the membership group (P < 0.001 vs. all other pharmacies), and 85.9% for all other pharmacies. The Kaplan-Meier comparison of claims capture persistency foundnearly identical claims capture loss for the nonmembership compared with all other pharmacies group, and when compared in a multivariate logistic regression model, there was no difference in the odds of levothyroxine claims capture over 4 years follow-up (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.88-1.16, P = 0.900). The membership generic drug discount programs (Walgreens, CVS, Alberstons, and Savon pharmacies) had a statistically significant 61% higher odds (OR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.45-1.79, P < 0.001) of levothyroxine claims capture nonpersistency. The onset of the difference between the membership group and the all other pharmacies group was temporally associated with the launch of the membership programs. In comparison to index levothyroxine member cost of ≤ $5.00 per 30-day supply, higher cost shares were associated with higher levothyroxine claims capture nonpersistency ($5.01 to $7.99 OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.19-1.52 and ≥ $8.00 OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.40-1.82). Conclusions: Among levothyroxine utilizers in 2006 (prior to the advent of drug discount programs), those with claims from a pharmacy that subsequently implemented a nonmembership generic drug discount program did not appear to have a different rate of levothyroxine claims capture than members from the reference group when followed through June 2010. Utilizers with claims from a pharmacy that subsequently implemented a membership program had a significantly lower levothyroxine claims capture rate. Increasing index levothyroxine member cost was associated with higher levothyroxine claims capture loss. Because the analysis could not directly measure claims capture loss associated with members who switched to a new pharmacy group without presenting their insurance information (e.g., membership discount programs), further research is needed to confirm these findings. © 2012, Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.


Starner C.I.,Prime Therapeutics LLC | Alexander G.C.,Johns Hopkins University | Bowen K.,Prime Therapeutics LLC | Qiu Y.,Prime Therapeutics LLC | And 2 more authors.
Health Affairs | Year: 2014

Expenditures for specialty drugs account for more than 25 percent of total US drug spending and have been increasing at more than 13 percent annually.We examined insurers' role in maintaining the affordability and accessibility of specialty drugs while maximizing their value. We conducted two analyses: one using an administrative claims database with information on more than ten million commercially insured patients and another using the same database combined with the drug prescription records from a specialty pharmacy. First, we examined the prevalence of specialty drug coupons and the degree to which these reduced patients' out-of-pocket costs, focusing on 264,801 prescriptions. Second, we quantified the association between the magnitude of out-ofpocket costs for specialty drugs and patients' abandonment of their new or restarted therapy, focusing on a group of nearly 16,000 patients. We found that drug coupons accounted for $21.2 million of patients' $35.3 million annual out-of-pocket costs. In the vast majority of cases, coupons reduced monthly cost sharing to less than $250, a point at which patients were far less likely to abandon therapy with biologic antiinflammatory drugs or with drugs for multiple sclerosis. However, by reducing cost sharing, coupons may also circumvent efforts to encourage patients to use the most cost-effective drugs. © 2014 Project HOPE- The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.


Gleason P.P.,Prime Therapeutics LLC | Phillips J.,Prime Therapeutics LLC | Fenrick B.A.,Florida Blue | Delgado-Riley A.,Florida Blue | Starner C.I.,Prime Therapeutics LLC
Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy | Year: 2013

Background: Dalfampridine (Ampyra) is indicated to improve walking in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and was found to be effective in 35%-43% of individuals with MS in clinical trials. Dalfampridine may increase seizure risk, particularly in patients with renal impairment. A U.S. managed care expert consensus panel agreed that patient access to dalfampridine is best managed by a prior authorization (PA) in accordance with the FDA-approved labeling. To ensure safe and appropriate dalfampridine use, a health plan developed and implemented a 2-phase point-of-sale PA program. Objectives: To evaluate dalfampridine PA review decisions, utilization, and pharmacy expenditures following the implementation of a dalfampridine safety and clinical PA program compared with a group of dalfampridine utilizers unexposed to a PA program. Methods: The study utilized retrospective administrative pharmacy claims data from a commercial health plan averaging 1.3 million members per month. The plan implemented a 2-phase dalfampridine safety and effectiveness PA program on August 1, 2010. A comparison group that did not implement the dalfampridine PA program was identified from a commercially insured population with approximately 350,000 members per month. Members in both groups were required to be continuously enrolled from August 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011. A member's earliest paid or rejected claim found from August 1, 2010, through October 31, 2010, was defined as the index claim. Dalfampridine-weighted 30-day supply claims were summed and compared between groups from index date through January 31, 2011. A pharmacy cost avoidance estimate was calculated using the difference in average claims per member from index claim through January 31, 2011, multiplied by dalfampridine wholesale acquisition cost. Overall, dalfampridine utilization was evaluated between the intervention and comparison populations from August 2010 (implementation of PA in intervention group) through December 2011. Linear regression and Poisson models were used to test the trend differences. Results: The 60 PA-exposed dalfampridine members' average follow-up was 157 days. Phase 1 approval was obtained by 32 (53.3%) members; 4 (6.7%) members received a denial because of renal impairment; 8 (13.3%) members received a denial due to inability to obtain walking time; 1 (1.7%) member with relapse-remitting MS was denied a PA due to no concomitant disease-modifying agent; and 15 (25.0%) members did not initiate the PA process. Phase 2 approval was obtained by 23 (38.3%) of the 60 members. The 60 PA members had a total of 126 claims and an average utilization of 2.1 (SD 1.8) claims per member. The 20 non-PA dalfampridine members' average follow-up was 157 days. The comparison group members had a total of 84 claims and an average utilization of 4.2 (SD 2.0) claims per member. The PA program resulted in an average of 2.1 (P < 0.001) fewer claims per member in the PA group. The total dalfampridine cost avoidance estimate was $143,010 or $0.03 per member per month. The overall measure of a monthly claims utilization difference over time was statistically significantly different at P < 0.001, using the linear regression slope trend test. The trend line slope was not statistically significantly different, P = 0.841, between the intervention and comparison populations. Conclusions: The study indicates that a dalfampridine PA program potentially improved safety and minimized dalfampridine costs. A PA program is effective in selecting appropriate utilizers for initial therapy. Addition of care management may further optimize use by encouraging adherence and tracking patient response. © 2013, Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.


ST. PAUL, Minn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Prime Therapeutics LLC (Prime), a leading pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) representing nearly 20 million members nationally, reports its clients saw a mere 2.5 percent increase in overall drug costs in 2016. While specialty drug expenditures grew 13.7 percent, these increases were offset by a 1.7 percent decrease in spending on traditional drugs. As a result of Prime’s various management tools, the total financial savings to clients exceeded $2.2 billion. “With prescription drug prices increasing at unsustainable levels, Prime is pleased that it has played an active role in controlling drug costs for our clients,” said Jim DuCharme, Prime’s president and CEO. “We are relentless in helping our members find the right drugs for their condition, assuring their continued adherence to that regimen, and finding a most affordable cost. Every day we will aggressively negotiate the best price for our plan sponsors and members. We are thrilled to be able to report an annual drug cost in 2016 that is industry-leading and represents a responsible level of increase.” Prime’s low drug trend is an indication of how effective its efforts were over the past year to manage costs and make medicines more affordable. While pharmaceutical prices increased 4.8 percent – more than twice the general inflation rate — and drug utilization grew nearly 2 percent, Prime’s efforts were vital in keeping costs in check for pharmacy members last year. Several factors contributed to the lower increase in spending in 2016: Prime’s management strategies achieved one of the lowest spending increases in recent years. The increase was largely driven by two categories: Specialty drugs offer an additional challenge for plan sponsors, in that spending often takes place through the medical benefit. These costs are not always visible through a typical standalone pharmacy benefit manager, yet the hidden medical drug costs can add up to significant amounts. For example, a Prime 2015 study found biologic anti-inflammatory drugs accounted for nearly 1 in every 10 dollars of combined drug expense through the medical and pharmacy benefit. Current analysis reveals that 22 percent of total autoimmune drug costs were paid on the medical benefit in 2016. All told, medical-side spending increases the total cost burden for specialty drugs by more than 50 percent. Because of its integration with health plans, Prime is able to look at the total health of members and total costs across the medical and pharmacy benefit. Through Best in Care programs and integrated strategies, Prime is able to aid clients in the comprehensive management of complex conditions and the high-cost drugs that treat them. “Prime helps manage more than just pharmacy costs,” said David Lassen, Prime’s chief clinical officer. “Our focus is on helping our clients manage total costs of care. This is especially important as we continue to see drug spend shifting from traditional to specialty drugs. Many rapidly rising conditions – such as autoimmune disorders, multiple sclerosis and cancer – are treated with specialty medications. This is why Prime’s total cost view is critical, as are our tools to aid clients in managing medical-side drug spending.” Prime partnered with clients to hold medical-side spending in check, achieving a gross medical drug trend of just 6 percent year over year (3Q 2016). Prime helped clients avoid more than $200 million in medical costs by sending alerts through its Guided Health® program to improve drug adherence and close gaps in care. Additionally, the company realized $64 million in incremental medical-side savings through medical drug reviews, which drive appropriate utilization of drugs through the medical benefit, and Reimbursement SolutionsTM, a program designed to guide clients in setting appropriate reimbursement for drugs on the medical benefit. About Prime Therapeutics Prime Therapeutics LLC (Prime) helps people get the medicine they need to feel better and live well. Prime manages pharmacy benefits for health plans, employers, and government programs including Medicare and Medicaid. The company processes claims and delivers medicine to members, offering clinical services for people with complex medical conditions. Prime serves nearly 20 million people. It is collectively owned by 14 Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans, subsidiaries or affiliates of those plans. For more information, visit www.primetherapeutics.com or follow @Prime_PBM on Twitter.


Starner C.I.,Prime Therapeutics LLC | Fenrick B.,Florida Blue (Blue Cross Blue Shield Of Florida) | Coleman J.,Florida Blue (Blue Cross Blue Shield Of Florida) | Wickersham P.,Prime Therapeutics LLC | Gleason P.P.,Prime Therapeutics LLC
Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy | Year: 2012

Background: Prior authorizations (PA) are intended to promote safe and cost-effective medication use. Unwanted outcomes may occur, however, such as a patient forgoing drug therapy after a PA. The label for rosiglitazone was revised in November 2007 to include the warning of contraindicated use with nitrates or insulin, creating an opportunity for a PA directed at safe use. Objective: To evaluate antidiabetic drug utilization after the implementation of an electronic PA that denied a claim for rosiglitazone if the patient had a history of either insulin or nitrate supply in the previous 60 days. Methods: This quasi-experimental study used pharmacy claims for 1.4 million commercially insured members who were exposed to a rosiglitazone PA beginning on January 1, 2009, compared with a group of approximately 2 million commercially insured members who did not have this safety PA intervention. Continuously enrolled members were identified who had a rejected (intervention group) or paid (comparison group) claim for rosiglitazone during the period from January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2009. Pharmacy claims were assessed for the presence of nitrates, insulin, rosiglitazone, other antidiabetic therapy, or no antidiabetic therapy supply on days 30, 60, 90, and 180 after the rejected/paid claim. A time-series analysis using rosiglitazone claims for all health plan members from January 2008 through December 2009 was used to evaluate the impact of the PA on rosiglitazone utilization overall. Results: At 30 days, there were 134 patients (60.4% of 222) in the comparison group with concurrent supply of rosiglitazone with insulin and/or nitrates versus 4 patients (2.4% of 168, P < 0.001) in the PA intervention group, and the utilization rate remained significantly higher at 180 days in the comparison group (37.8%, n = 84) versus the PA group (2.4%, n = 4, P < 0.001). Beginning at 60 days, there was no significant difference in the percentage of members with no antidiabetic therapy in the comparison and PA intervention groups (9.9% vs. 15.5%, respectively, P = 0.133), and the rates remained similar through 180 days (15.3% vs. 13.7%, respectively, P = 0.760). The PA was associated with an absolute decrease of 5.1 average monthly rosiglitazone claims per day per million members (P < 0.001). Conclusions: This PA, intended to reduce known cardiovascular event risks among health plan members with type 2 diabetes, was associated with a significant reduction in concurrent use of rosiglitazone with nitrates or insulin. © 2012, Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.


Schafer J.A.,Prime Therapeutics LLC | Kjesbo N.K.,Prime Therapeutics LLC | Gleason P.P.,Prime Therapeutics LLC
Cardiovascular Therapeutics | Year: 2010

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia, affecting more than 2.2 million Americans. ACC/AHA/ESC guidelines for the management of patients with AF recommend amiodarone for maintaining sinus rhythm. Dronedarone is a derivative of amiodarone indicated for the treatment of AF. To provide an overview of dronedarone with a focus on the phase III trials and discuss unresolved questions of dronedarone. A literature search was conducted via the PubMed database using the keyword "dronedarone." Search was limited to human trials in english. The FDA website was searched for briefing documents and subcommittee meetings on dronedarone. Clinicaltrials.gov was searched with the keyword dronedarone for upcoming or unpublished clinical trials. Five phase III trials are available for dronedarone: ANDROMEDA, EURIDIS/ADONIS, ATHENA, ERATO, and DIONYSIS. EURIDIS/ADONIS and ATHENA demonstrated a reduction AF recurrence with dronedarone compared to placebo. The ANDROMEDA trial recruited patients with recent hospitalization for heart failure and was terminated due to an excess of deaths in the dronedarone group. The DIONYSIS trial was a comparative effectiveness trial that demonstrated less efficacy for dronedarone but improved tolerability compared to amiodarone. Dronedarone represents an option in the management of AF in select patients. Dronedarone is not appropriate in patients with recently decompensated heart failure or those treated with strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or medications prolonging the QT interval. Dronedarone appears to have improved tolerability at the expense of decreased efficacy when compared to amiodarone. Questions remain on the long-term safety, use in patients with heart failure, retreatment after dronedarone or amiodarone failure, and comparative efficacy with a rate control strategy. © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.


Tungol A.,Prime Therapeutics LLC | Rademacher K.,Prime Therapeutics LLC | Schafer J.A.,Prime Therapeutics LLC
Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy | Year: 2011

Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the most common chronic bloodborne illness in the United States. The incidence of acute hepatitis C in the United States peaked near 50,000 cases in the late 1980s but has stabilized since 2003 to less than 5,000 cases annually. The combination of pegylated interferon (peginterferon) and ribavirin has been the standard recommended treatment for HCV. Protease inhibitors telaprevir and boceprevir were approved by the FDA in May 2011 for the treatment of hepatitis C genotype 1 in combination with peginterferon and ribavirin. Objective: To review the phase 3 trials for telaprevir and boceprevir and provide managed care considerations. Methods: A Medline review was performed for articles published and available through September 15, 2011, using keywords "boceprevir" or "telaprevir" with an emphasis on phase 3 trials. The literature search was limited to articles in English, clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, and research conducted in humans. Additional information was obtained from the FDA website. Results: Three phase 3 trials are available for telaprevir, which provided data that were the basis for FDA approval. Boceprevir demonstrated efficacy and safety in 2 pivotal phase 3 trials. Both agents demonstrated statistically significantly higher rates of virologic response compared with the standard of care involving peginterferons and ribavirin. Telaprevir and boceprevir also demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of patients who had previously failed dual therapy for hepatitis C. Safety concerns for both agents include anemia, drug interactions, skin rashes, and gastrointestinal adverse events. Conclusions: Decision makers have many factors to consider in developing a strategy around hepatitis C. Increased drug costs, patient management, adherence, comparative safety and efficacy, and appropriate utilization management controls are important issues. Payers may consider developing clinical programs to encourage adherence and appropriate use and leverage an appropriate channel to ensure cost-effective therapy. © 2011, Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.


News Article | December 21, 2016
Site: www.prnewswire.com

ST. PAUL, Minn., Dec. 21, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- Prime Therapeutics LLC (Prime), a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) serving more than 22 million members nationally, has named John Drakulich as chief sales officer. He will lead sales planning and execution to sharpen Prime's focus on expanding...

Loading Prime Therapeutics LLC collaborators
Loading Prime Therapeutics LLC collaborators