Perhaps we’re concerned premiums won’t firing our costs?

In a typical year, PBMs written document that 5% to 6% (or more) of the direction course rate each year is attributable to the new drugs that have been introduced in the previous 12 months.
With 2002 existence a year with only 17 new drug introductions, unless 2003 is a reaction year and the FDA approves a significantly increased amount of agents this year, we should expect this area of economic process to be significantly less than that reported in a typical year.
Some experts have estimated that drugs with letters patent expirations during the year 2002 represented as much as 9% to 10% of 2001 drug costs.
While not all of these products have made it to mercantile establishment in ware form, many have.
If in 2003 the cost of these agents is 50% of the cost of their brand-name counterparts, we should be able to save approximately 4% to 5% on our drug payment costs as a statement.
With new good designs and the move of Claritin to OTC condition, the antihistamine year, which cost most plans $1.30 or more per penis per period of time (PMPM) in 2001, should also be significantly reduced.
Without counting exercise organization programs, prior control, higher copay tiers, products losing official document shelter in 2003, and other programs aimed at managing medicinal drug drug costs, it looks as though plans should be able to reap a savings of $2.00 PMPM or more on their medication drug budgets based on the events of 2002.
This should ending in plans projecting a reduced tendency rate for apothecary’s shop costs in 2003 of 10% to no more than 15% if all other factors remain constant quantity.
So, why do apothecary’s shop directors continue to quotation mark the same old disposition rate number?
Is it because we believe each year will be the same as the year before?
Or is it because we don’t get the data we need from our PBMs to more accurately assess a projected appreciation rate?

Or maybe we’re afraid of the costs of new biotech agents approach to marketplace, and estimating the blowup course on the high side is a way to protect ourselves from accomplishment over program?
I’m not sure what the mental faculty is, but with employers continuing to look at where to cut costs, I hope the premiums we’re charging for a much-needed payment are based on accurate trends projections that reflect commercial enterprise events and that we’re not just output a grammatical category that sounds good.
Otherwise, we may find that we’ve priced ourselves out of the sales outlet.
This is a part of article Perhaps we’re concerned premiums won’t firing our costs? Taken from "Generic Claritin (Loratadine)" Information Blog