Michigan healthcare freedom community forum

Notifications
Clear all

The Middle Of The Pharmaceutical Supply Chain

2 Posts
1 Users
0 Reactions
5 Views
10x25mm
(@10x25mm)
Famed Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 1781
Topic starter  

RealClearHealth posted two articles on the middle of the pharmaceutical supply chain.  Not many people pay attention to drug wholesalers, who buy from manufacturers and then sell to pharmacies. Amanda Frost, the Vice President of Research at the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) wrote a piece on this obscure link in the pharmaceutical supply chain.  Note that PCMA is the national trade association representing American pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), so they have some bias here:

https://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2026/08/18/lets_bring_drug_wholesalers_out_of_the_shadows_1201010.html

Let’s Bring Drug Wholesalers Out of the Shadows
By Amanda Frost - August 18, 2026

A unifying principle in health care has emerged over the last decade, with patients and policymakers alike demanding greater price transparency. This way patients can become better consumers of care, and employers and government programs can better identify value in the types of care they ultimately pay for. New laws have been enacted requiring transparency for many parts of the system. Still one segment of the drug supply chain with enormous influence on prescription prices remains in the shadows: drug wholesalers.

Wholesalers are an essential part of the supply chain. They are the intermediaries that purchase drugs from manufacturers and sell and ship them to pharmacies. More than 7 billion prescriptions were dispensed at retail and long-term care pharmacies in 2025, and virtually all of them moved through a wholesaler. But they are not just shipping companies; they have a direct influence on what both patients and pharmacies pay for drugs. Yet very little, if anything, is known about the business practices of wholesalers due to the lack of transparency.

This is in contrast to other areas of health care where Congress and the Trump Administration have advanced transparency requirements. New data sharing rules are being enforced on hospitals and health insurers. Direct negotiations with drug companies are exposing the high prices manufacturers have long set for prescription drugs. And most significantly, the Consolidated Appropriations Act included wide-ranging transparency requirements for pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs).

But even with these changes, prescription drug prices will still be too high for Americans. And despite their position as a key player sitting at the center of nearly every transaction, drug wholesalers have largely escaped scrutiny.

Wholesalers: A Powerful Force in Drug Pricing

Wholesaler positioning in the middle of the supply chain means they exert significant influence over drug availability and pricing, especially generic drugs. Over 90% of the prescriptions filled in the U.S. every year are generic drugs, and wholesalers dominate nearly every aspect of their pricing between manufacturer and patient. Through bulk purchasing arrangements and incentivized drug lists, wholesalers can push independent pharmacies toward certain products.

We know that the more pharmacies purchase from those lists, the larger the discounts they receive, but there is much that we don’t know about these arrangements. Does the use of incentivized drug lists and other “push” strategies limit competition and artificially raise drug costs? Are independent pharmacies receiving the best rates from wholesaler-led negotiations?

Despite their outsized influence, wholesalers face concerningly few guardrails and have barely been explored by Congress. We know far too little about their impact on pharmacy competition and generic drug pricing, including the relationships among pharmacy services administrative organizations (PSAOs) and independent pharmacies.

Potential Conflicts of Interest Warrant Policymaker Scrutiny

PSAOs add to the mystery surrounding wholesalers. These organizations negotiate reimbursement rates on behalf of independent pharmacies, selling them the promise of larger scale delivering better reimbursement rates. The largest PSAOs are owned by the same wholesalers that sell drugs to those pharmacies. These relationships raise questions about whether pricing, purchasing, and reimbursement decisions are all being shaped by the same set of actors. Does wholesaler access to reimbursement rate information influence, and potentially increase, pharmacy purchase prices?

For independent pharmacies, wholesalers dominate nearly every aspect of generic drug transactions. Wholesalers sit on both sides of the table: They create “generic sourcing programs" of certain drugs they have purchased using their own buying groups, which they push independent pharmacies to buy under the promise of getting bigger discounts on those drugs. They also represent the independent pharmacies in negotiating the reimbursement rates received on those very same drugs. These sets of conflicting interests raise an even more serious question: Are there appropriate safeguards in place to prevent prohibited coordination between wholesaler-affiliated entities?

Healthy Collaboration Requires Transparency

Recently, the industry association representing PBMs brought these concerns directly to the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission, who are reviewing guidelines for how businesses collaborate. These agencies should take a closer look at an industry that is highly concentrated and whose combined revenue was nearly one trillion dollars last year. Business practices within this industry are opaque and regulators should ask critical questions about how the wholesaler market operates.

Reforms, coupled with significant industry innovations, have brought far-reaching transparency to PBMs and made progress in the hospital and insurer space, giving all of us greater insights into how dollars are being spent. But a truly transparent drug supply chain can’t leave a trillion-dollar blind spot while missing how money moves across the entire supply chain.

Wholesalers don’t just move products, they shape markets. If Congress is serious about lowering drug prices, it can’t afford to overlook the middle of the supply chain. It’s time to bring wholesalers into the conversation and understand how they drive up spending across the health care system.


This topic was modified 3 hours ago by 10x25mm

   
ReplyQuote
10x25mm
(@10x25mm)
Famed Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 1781
Topic starter  

The other RealClearHealth article on the middle of the pharmaceutical supply chain covers PBMs.  Justin Leventhal of the American Consumer Institute wrote a piece urging states to open pharmacy benefit managers' (PBMs) books well before the 2028 federal transparency rules kick in:

https://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2026/08/18/states_should_not_wait_until_2028_to_open_pbms_books_1201007.html

States Should Not Wait Until 2028 to Open PBMs’ Books
By Justin Leventhal - August 18, 2026

Prescription drug prices do not become opaque by accident. They become opaque because the middlemen who manage drug benefits are allowed to hide many of their revenue streams from the employers, insurers, pharmacies, and patients who ultimately pay the bill. Congress has already recognized the problem. Federal pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reporting requirements are scheduled to reshape what PBMs must disclose, but many of the most important provisions will not take effect until 2028. That delay creates a basic question for state lawmakers: why wait?

PBMs claim they lower prices by negotiating discounts. But without transparency, no one can verify whether those savings are being passed through to patients or quietly absorbed as revenue. This prevents insurers, employers, and other healthcare purchasers from effectively comparing PBMs when deciding who should manage their drug benefits. According to the Federal Trade Commission, it also allows PBMs to markup the costs of critical medicines such as cancer and HIV drugs.

PBMs sit between insurers, employers, drug manufacturers, pharmacies, and patients. Their compensation is often embedded in retained manufacturer rebates, spread pricing, administrative fees, pharmacy clawbacks, and have been accused by the Federal Trade Commission of favoring high-cost drugs when larger rebates make them more profitable. Employers and insurers cannot negotiate effectively if they do not know what a PBM received, retained, charged, or paid. This is the information needed to judge whether a PBM is actually doing its job.

The federal government has moved in the right direction, but delayed implementation gives PBMs more time to operate under the same opaque model that prompted reform in the first place. States should not use the federal timeline as an excuse for inaction. They should use the upcoming reforms as a blueprint. Federal rules will require robust PBM reporting on rebates, fees, spread pricing, and compensation—the precise information needed to introduce competition into the PBM market. State governments can bring this transparency to patients, employers, and healthcare providers without waiting until 2028.

Some states are already showing what this can look like. North Carolina’s SCRIPT Act requires reporting on PBM rebates, spreads, affiliated pharmacies, pharmacy fees, and retained rebates. Kansas went further by targeting spread pricing directly, requiring PBMs to report rebate and reimbursement information, and forcing public reporting when pharmacy reimbursement significantly departs from the National Average Drug Acquisition Cost. Neither law is perfect. North Carolina keeps too much information confidential, and Kansas moves closer to reimbursement regulation than market transparency. But both states show that lawmakers do not need to wait until 2028 to start forcing PBMs to disclose where the money goes.

The key is to ensure that the reporting requirements match the upcoming federal requirements. That means using standardized definitions of terms such as “rebate,” “fee,” “spread pricing,” and “pharmacy reimbursement” so state laws plug directly into the federal reporting structure. That alignment matters. A poorly designed state law could create competing definitions, duplicative reports, and compliance costs. But a federal-aligned state law does the opposite. It tells PBMs to begin collecting and reporting the same information they will soon have to disclose anyway. States should require reporting on the core federal categories now: rebates, spread-pricing, administrative fees, pharmacy reimbursement, and clawbacks. That would reduce compliance confusion while giving employers, insurers, pharmacies, and patients useful information before the federal rules arrive.

Even if states cannot duplicate the entire federal reporting scheme, implementing core elements would greatly improve the transparency of the industry. Basic information about where manufacturer rebates go, and whether discounts are passed through to patients, would provide a major insight into how the market actually works. Requiring reporting of administrative fees and pharmacy clawbacks would also help employers, insurers, and pharmacies negotiate from a position of knowledge rather than guesswork.

Transparency is not magic, but it is often a precondition for competition. Employers cannot switch to better PBMs, patients cannot choose cheaper options, and pharmacies cannot challenge abusive reimbursement unless the numbers are visible. The point of PBM transparency is to let consumers benefit from real price competition. When PBMs must disclose rebates, spreads, fees, and reimbursement rates, employers can choose better contracts, insurers can demand pass-through pricing, and pharmacies can compete on fairer terms.

Congress has already admitted the PBM market needs sunlight. But patients, employers, and pharmacies should not have to wait until 2028 for basic information about where their prescription drug money goes. States have a narrow but important window. They can pass PBM transparency laws now, align those laws with the coming federal reporting requirements, and give consumers the benefit of competition. Open the books now, and let employers, pharmacies, and patients decide whether their PBM is earning its keep.



   
ReplyQuote
Q

Get MHF Insights

News and tips for your healthcare freedom.

We never spam you. One-step unsubscribe.

 

Name(Required)
Zip Code(Required)
This field is hidden when viewing the form

Sponsors

J & DE Family Charitable Fund

Friends
of MHF

Kelly Grotendiek

Philip Harbach

Dale Johnson

Drs. Jeffrey and Joni Jones

Vickie Kahle

Tammy Kipen

Marlin & Kathy Klumpp

Melanie Kurdys

Ruth Nobel

Patrick Peterson

Stephanie Poortenga

Jeanne Smit

Ben and Hope Staal

John Tuinstra

Jacki VanHuis

Sandy Walker

Sign Up for MHF Insights to keep up on the latest in Michigan Health Policy

Name(Required)
Zip Code(Required)
This field is hidden when viewing the form

5 great non profit logos 2021 - 2025
Michigan Healthcare Freedom Candid

Click here to join the MHF Community Forum!

Grow the community on our social media pages.

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial