Pharmacy Benefit Managers Played Key Role in Worsening Opioid Crisis, Drug Makers Paid Staggering Rebates To Middlemen: NYT

Benzinga - Dec 18th, 2024
Open on Benzinga

Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) in the U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain have been implicated in exacerbating the opioid epidemic. An investigation by The New York Times revealed that while PBMs claimed to combat opioid abuse, they profited through deals with drugmakers that bypassed safeguards against overprescribing. The three largest PBMs—Optum (UnitedHealth Group), CVS Caremark (CVS Health), and Express Scripts (Cigna)—control prescription drug access for over 200 million Americans. Lawsuits have been filed against drug companies and PBMs for inflating insulin prices. The NYT report cited internal documents showing PBMs negotiated away restrictions on opioid prescriptions in exchange for lucrative rebates from companies like Purdue Pharma. These agreements increased prescription thresholds, ignored federal guidelines, and contributed to the opioid crisis. Despite growing evidence and public pressure, PBMs delayed implementing safety measures, prioritizing profits over patient safety. Critics argue that subsequent stricter controls were driven more by public relations than a genuine effort to address the crisis. The FTC has accused PBMs of creating a financially beneficial system by prioritizing drug rebates. PBMs, however, claim that actions against them seek to disrupt established practices. Despite the controversy, stocks of PBM-related companies like Cigna, CVS, and UnitedHealth saw increases.

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8
Fair Story
Consider it well-founded

The article provides a detailed account of the role PBMs have played in the opioid crisis, supported by a recent investigation. While it highlights significant issues, it lacks a comprehensive range of perspectives and falls short on source transparency.

RATING DETAILS

8
Accuracy

The article appears to be factually accurate, drawing from a credible investigation by The New York Times. It provides specific examples and figures, such as the rebates from Purdue Pharma. However, without direct access to the NYT report, full verification is challenging.

6
Balance

The article heavily focuses on the negative actions of PBMs, with limited representation of their perspective or any potential counterarguments. Including viewpoints from PBMs or industry experts could improve balance.

8
Clarity

The article is well-structured and clear, using straightforward language to convey complex issues. However, it could avoid emotive terms and better segment information for improved readability.

7
Source quality

The primary source is The New York Times, a reputable outlet. However, the article lacks direct citations or links to the original investigation, which could enhance the credibility and allow readers to verify details independently.

5
Transparency

The article does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or affiliations. It mentions a Bloomberg report and a statement from Trump but does not delve into the methodologies or sources behind these claims. Greater transparency about the sources of information would be beneficial.