Prescription or proscription? The general failure of attempts to litigate and legislate against PBMS as "fiduciaries," and the role of market forces allowing PBMS to contain private-sector prescription drug prices.

Journal of health law Pub Date : 2007-01-01
Thomas P O'Donnell, Mark K Fendler
{"title":"Prescription or proscription? The general failure of attempts to litigate and legislate against PBMS as \"fiduciaries,\" and the role of market forces allowing PBMS to contain private-sector prescription drug prices.","authors":"Thomas P O'Donnell,&nbsp;Mark K Fendler","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), which generally administer prescription drug benefits as one component of an employer's or other sponsor's health insurance plan, have come under fire in recent years for turning profits at a time when consumer advocates and employers are struggling to contain the costs of health insurance and prescription drugs. Lawsuits alleging that PBMs are breaching certain fiduciary duties to the health plans they serve, however, have failed for the most part on grounds that PBMs are not \"fiduciaries\" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Moreover, states' attempts to regulate PBMs through legislation imposing fiduciary obligations and other related requirements have also generally failed for many different reasons. This Article examines the PBM industry, recent legal developments concerning PBMs' status as ERISA \"fiduciaries\", the arguments being made for and against stricter regulation of PBMs' business practices, and why litigation and legislation attempting to impose fiduciary obligations upon PBMs have generally failed. The authors conclude that it is market forces and competition, rather than litigation or legislation, that will effectively motivate PBMs to play a role in the cost containment of prescription drugs in the years ahead.</p>","PeriodicalId":80027,"journal":{"name":"Journal of health law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of health law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), which generally administer prescription drug benefits as one component of an employer's or other sponsor's health insurance plan, have come under fire in recent years for turning profits at a time when consumer advocates and employers are struggling to contain the costs of health insurance and prescription drugs. Lawsuits alleging that PBMs are breaching certain fiduciary duties to the health plans they serve, however, have failed for the most part on grounds that PBMs are not "fiduciaries" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Moreover, states' attempts to regulate PBMs through legislation imposing fiduciary obligations and other related requirements have also generally failed for many different reasons. This Article examines the PBM industry, recent legal developments concerning PBMs' status as ERISA "fiduciaries", the arguments being made for and against stricter regulation of PBMs' business practices, and why litigation and legislation attempting to impose fiduciary obligations upon PBMs have generally failed. The authors conclude that it is market forces and competition, rather than litigation or legislation, that will effectively motivate PBMs to play a role in the cost containment of prescription drugs in the years ahead.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
处方还是禁药?对作为“受托人”的药品福利管理公司提起诉讼和立法的努力普遍失败,以及市场力量允许药品福利管理公司控制私营部门处方药价格的作用。
药房福利管理公司(PBMs)通常管理处方药福利,作为雇主或其他赞助商健康保险计划的一个组成部分。近年来,在消费者权益倡导者和雇主努力控制健康保险和处方药成本的时候,药房福利管理公司(PBMs)却因盈利而受到抨击。然而,指控药品福利管理公司违反了他们所服务的健康计划的某些受托义务的诉讼在很大程度上失败了,原因是药品福利管理公司不是《雇员退休收入保障法》(ERISA)下的“受托人”。此外,由于许多不同的原因,各州试图通过立法施加受托义务和其他相关要求来监管药品福利管理的尝试也普遍失败。本文考察了PBM行业,最近关于PBM作为ERISA“受托人”地位的法律发展,支持和反对对PBM商业行为进行更严格监管的争论,以及为什么试图对PBM施加受托义务的诉讼和立法通常都失败了。作者的结论是,在未来几年,市场力量和竞争,而不是诉讼或立法,将有效地激励药品福利管理在处方药成本控制中发挥作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Necessity of Establishing a ROK Armed Forces Institutional Review Board Ethical and Legal Issues on Human Brain Organoid Introduction of the National R&D Innovation Act and Research Ethics in Korea Examination of the Principle of Proportionality for the COVID-19 Contact Tracing Suggestions on Revision Regarding Abortion Laws in Korea: an Empirical Study Using Qualitative Research Method
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1