Originally published on Pharmaceutical Commerce as a guest blog with a strong contribution from Cindy Baksh, Chief Product Officer at ConnectiveRx.
Patient affordability programs represent one of the largest and fastest-growing line items in brand budgets today, with manufacturers collectively investing more than $23 billion annually in the US to reduce out-of-pocket costs and help patients adhere to therapy. As those investments grow, so should scrutiny, not only around the access created, but around how efficiently those dollars are being deployed.
Industry analysis suggests that copay spending misaligned with a brand's business goals accounts for as much as $5 billion annually, estimating that roughly 20% of copay spend is an unnecessary utilization of funds driven by payer tactics, program design gaps, and pharmacy-level misuse. Each of these factors widens the gross-to-net gap in ways that are difficult to anticipate and even harder to unwind.
Of those factors, misuse at the pharmacy is currently the fastest growing category of unnecessary spend, leading to faster copay erosion. Historically, the response to inappropriate copay transactions at the pharmacy level has been retrospective, with teams reviewing claims data after payment, identifying unusual patterns, and attempting recovery. But once funds are paid, your challenge is recouping dollars, not saving them.
That reality is pushing manufacturers toward catching suspicious activity at adjudication – in real time – before funds leave the program. I spoke with Cindy Baksh, ConnectiveRx's Chief Product Officer, about why prevention is becoming as important as recovery in copay program oversight, and what manufacturers should be evaluating now.
Cindy, when manufacturers talk about “erosion” in copay programs, what are they actually referring to?
They’re usually referring to copay dollars that aren’t being used the way the program was intended. That can take several forms, including offer manipulation at the point of dispensing, or in more extreme cases, claims submitted for patients who never actually received the medication.
Not all misuse is deliberate. In some situations, it comes down to how a claim is processed or how the person managing the transaction interprets program rules and requirements at the pharmacy counter.
From a compliance standpoint, intent matters. But from a financial standpoint, it really doesn’t. If copay dollars are being spent incorrectly, then there is a direct impact to gross-to-net. Moreover, there is real-world impact on patients – misused funds reduce the amount of benefit available to those in your ideal population who need the support to be treated and stay adherent.
For that reason, it’s more accurate to think of copay erosion as a program integrity issue rather than strictly an abuse issue.
How big is this problem, really?
Even modest exposure rates become significant when applied across a large copay investment. Copay programs are now one of the largest controllable commercial line items for many brands. Executive teams are scrutinizing them the same way they scrutinize pricing and contracting.
If you assume even a low single-digit percentage of inappropriate claim activity and apply that across a high-volume specialty brand, the financial impact adds up quickly. It’s not uncommon for that exposure to translate into millions of dollars annually for a single product.
As copay investment continues to grow, the opportunity for misuse grows with it.
So what have manufacturers been doing about it, and where does that approach hit its limits?
The standard approach has been retrospective, and there is real value in that work. Post-payment analytics can surface complex patterns that are difficult to detect in real time. Data also provides insight into emerging behaviors that may not be obvious at transaction or adjudication. Pharmacies exhibiting unusual claim behavior are flagged and copay capabilities can be terminated if it is determined that there is a pattern of misuse. In some cases, manufacturers attempt to recover funds.
The industry has accepted "detect and mitigate future misaligned spending" as the standard, and while that approach continues to deliver value, the opportunity now exists to complement it with prevention.
What changes when you shift that intervention to the point of transaction?
When oversight shifts to the transaction level, you’re dealing with the claim much earlier in the process and the evaluation happens before funds are released. That gives manufacturers the opportunity to address activity that doesn’t align with program rules before it shows up in net results.
Most prescriptions will move through without disruption. Oversight and mitigation won’t create unnecessary friction. Addressing these unqualified transactions earlier simply adds a layer of financial protection that post-payment analysis alone can't provide.
That raises an obvious concern. How do you do this without slowing down legitimate claims?
Copay programs are intended to support patient access and appropriate utilization. Any oversight approach that interferes with legitimate prescriptions would undermine that objective.
Most claims are not problematic and will process without interruption. Oversight needs to be targeted, based on clear indicators, so that only the exceptions are addressed.
It’s also important to recognize that most pharmacies are acting appropriately. The goal isn’t to police the channel. It’s to make sure copay dollars are used as intended. With the right controls in place, protecting program integrity and preserving access don’t have to be at odds.
You've talked about real-time prevention and post-payment analysis as distinct approaches. Do they compete, or do they work together?
They're complementary, and the most effective strategy is to layer real-time prevention on top of the retrospective work that's already proving its value.
Real-time intervention stops misuse before it costs the brand anything. That's the first line of defense and the most economically powerful move. Retrospective analysis then works on everything that follows: understanding patterns across all claims, identifying emerging misuse tactics that may be too nuanced to flag at adjudication, and providing the intelligence that makes real-time systems smarter over time.
Payers and bad actors are always evolving their approach, looking for new ways to access available copay dollars, often in ways that don't benefit the patient. The only effective response is a system that catches problems in real time and learns continuously from what it sees.
If someone reading this wants to pressure-test their own program, where should they start?
The first question is simple. When misuse occurs in your program, when do you find out, and how much has already been spent by then? If the answer is weeks or months later, that's a signal the model is purely reactive.
Then ask whether the way you monitor copay reflects how the market actually operates. Payer behavior keeps shifting. Accumulators and maximizers continue to evolve. If the solution is not built to evolve with the landscape, your program will be vulnerable to misuse before you realize it.
Your copay program is one of your most powerful commercial tools. It should be managed like one.
Sidebar: Key Questions Market Access Leaders Should Ask
- When inappropriate claim activity occurs in our copay program, how quickly do we know?
- By the time we identify a problem, how much has already been spent?
- Does our oversight approach evolve as tactics and misuse behaviors change?
- Are we relying solely on post-payment recovery, or do we have safeguards in place before funds are released?