From the Department of About F%$#ing Time

The Federal Trade Commission is rescinding its previous statements supporting Pharmacy Benefit Managers. (PBM)

This has the effect of ending implied regulatory threats against state legislation trying to regulate these parasites.

Given that PBMs have proven to be rent seeking gate keepers accumulating vast quantities of money through opaque decision, the only question is, "What took them so long?"

The FTC on Thursday plans to walk back years of advocacy in support of the entities that manage prescription drug coverage—support that analysts say has helped fuel the growth and market integration the agency is now investigating.

The agenda for the Democratic-controlled Federal Trade Commission’s open meeting includes voting on a statement that would withdraw prior advocacy statements against state legislation aimed at boosting transparency, as well as studies related to pharmacy benefit managers that the FTC said “no longer reflect current market realities.”

The agency declined to provide specifics on the statement ahead of the meeting but said the vote is a direct response “to PBMs’ continued reliance on older FTC advocacy materials that opposed mandatory PBM transparency and disclosure requirements.”

………

“The fundamental effect of these comments” against state PBM bills “was basically to put the PBMs in a regulatory free zone, fundamentally like giving Tony Soprano a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card,” said David Balto, an antitrust attorney who served as assistant director of policy and evaluation at the FTC from 1997 to 2001.

“Now that it’s becoming crystal clear that federal regulation is essential, it is necessary to abandon past advocacy,” added Balto, who will be testifying at the FTC open meeting.

Independent pharmacies and pharmaceutical manufacturers blame PBMs for high prescription drug costs in the US because of the rebates and fees they collect. But PBMs argue that they work to deliver discounts to patients, and that manufacturer list prices and use of patents that limit competition are responsible for driving up prices.

Clearly this is not an either/or thing.

Evergreening, which is a misuse of IP protections, along with a staunch refusal to use Dole-Bayh march in rules both need to be addressed as well.

Just because there is more than one source for the problem is not a reason to try to address other sources individually.

Here is the official FTC statement.