Pharmacy Benefit Managers [PBMs]

Dr. David Edward Marcinko; MBA MEd

***

***

Structure, Influence and Ongoing Debate

Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) occupy a pivotal yet often misunderstood position in the U.S. healthcare system. Originally created to help employers and insurers manage prescription drug benefits, PBMs have evolved into powerful intermediaries that influence which medications patients receive, how much they pay, and how pharmacies operate. Their expanding role has sparked intense debate about transparency, cost control, and market power. Understanding PBMs requires examining their core functions, economic incentives, and the controversies that shape current policy discussions.

At their foundation, PBMs administer prescription drug plans on behalf of insurers, employers, unions, and government programs. Their responsibilities include negotiating drug prices, managing formularies, processing pharmacy claims, and operating mail‑order or specialty pharmacies. These functions were designed to streamline administrative tasks and leverage purchasing power to secure lower prices. As drug spending grew—particularly for specialty medications—PBMs became central to cost‑containment strategies across the healthcare system.

One of the most influential tools PBMs use is the formulary, a curated list of medications that determines coverage and cost‑sharing. By placing certain drugs in preferred tiers, PBMs can steer patients toward lower‑cost or negotiated options. This system gives PBMs significant leverage when negotiating with pharmaceutical manufacturers. In exchange for favorable placement on the formulary, manufacturers may offer rebates or discounts. PBMs argue that these negotiations reduce overall drug spending for plan sponsors and help keep premiums in check.

However, the rebate system is also at the heart of the criticism directed at PBMs. Critics contend that rebates create misaligned incentives, encouraging PBMs to favor drugs with higher list prices because those drugs often generate larger rebates. Although PBMs typically pass a portion of rebates to insurers or employers, the lack of transparency makes it difficult to determine how much savings ultimately reach patients. As a result, patients may face higher out‑of‑pocket costs at the pharmacy counter, even when insurers benefit from rebate revenue behind the scenes.

***

***

Another area of controversy involves PBMs’ relationships with pharmacies. Many PBMs own or are affiliated with large mail‑order or specialty pharmacies, raising concerns about vertical integration and potential conflicts of interest. Independent pharmacies have long argued that PBMs reimburse them at unsustainably low rates while steering patients toward PBM‑owned alternatives. Practices such as “spread pricing”—where PBMs charge insurers more for a drug than they reimburse the pharmacy—have drawn scrutiny from regulators and lawmakers who question whether PBMs are inflating costs rather than reducing them.

Despite these criticisms, PBMs maintain that they play a crucial role in controlling drug spending. They point to their ability to negotiate lower prices, promote generic substitution, and implement utilization management tools such as prior authorization and step therapy. These mechanisms, PBMs argue, prevent unnecessary or excessively costly prescribing and help ensure that patients receive clinically appropriate treatments. Without PBMs, they claim, drug spending would rise even faster, placing additional strain on employers, insurers, and government programs.

The debate over PBMs has intensified as drug prices continue to rise and public frustration grows. Policymakers across the political spectrum have proposed reforms aimed at increasing transparency, regulating rebate practices, and altering how PBMs are compensated. Some proposals would require PBMs to pass through all rebates to plan sponsors or patients, while others would ban spread pricing or mandate clearer reporting of financial flows. Supporters of reform argue that these measures would reduce hidden incentives and align PBM behavior more closely with patient interests. Opponents caution that overly aggressive regulation could weaken PBMs’ negotiating power and inadvertently increase costs.

Ultimately, the future of PBMs will depend on how the healthcare system balances cost control, transparency, and competition. PBMs emerged to solve real problems in drug benefit management, and they continue to provide services that many insurers and employers rely on. Yet their growing influence and opaque business practices have raised legitimate concerns about accountability and fairness. As policymakers, industry stakeholders, and patient advocates continue to debate the role of PBMs, the challenge will be crafting reforms that preserve their ability to negotiate savings while ensuring that those savings genuinely benefit patients.

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

EDUCATION: Books

SPEAKING: Dr. Marcinko will be speaking and lecturing, signing and opining, teaching and preaching, storming and performing at many locations throughout the USA this year! His tour of witty and serious pontifications may be scheduled on a planned or ad-hoc basis; for public or private meetings and gatherings; formally, informally, or over lunch or dinner. All medical societies, financial advisory firms or Broker-Dealers are encouraged to submit an RFP for speaking engagements: CONTACT: Ann Miller RN MHA at MarcinkoAdvisors@outlook.com -OR- http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

Like, Refer and Subscribe

***

***

STOCKS: Income

SPONSOR: http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

Dr. David Edward Marcinko; MBA MEd

DEFINITIONS

***

***

A Cornerstone of Long‑Term Financial Stability

Income stocks occupy a distinctive place in the world of investing. While some investors chase rapid growth or speculative gains, others prioritize stability, predictability, and steady cash flow. Income stocks cater to this second group by offering regular dividend payments in addition to the potential for long‑term capital appreciation. They are often viewed as the backbone of a balanced portfolio, especially for individuals seeking reliable returns without excessive volatility.

At their core, income stocks are shares of companies that distribute a portion of their profits to shareholders in the form of dividends. These companies tend to operate in mature, stable industries where earnings are consistent and growth is steady rather than explosive. Because they are not reinvesting every dollar back into expansion, they can afford to reward shareholders with dependable payouts. This characteristic makes income stocks particularly appealing to retirees, conservative investors, and anyone looking to supplement their income with a passive revenue stream.

One of the defining strengths of income stocks is their ability to provide returns even during turbulent market conditions. When stock prices fluctuate, dividends can act as a buffer, offering investors a sense of stability. A company that maintains or increases its dividend during economic downturns signals financial strength and disciplined management. This reliability can help investors stay grounded when markets become unpredictable, reducing the temptation to make emotional decisions that could harm long‑term performance.

Another advantage of income stocks is the power of compounding. Investors who reinvest their dividends can accelerate the growth of their portfolios over time. Each dividend payment buys additional shares, which in turn generate more dividends. This cycle can significantly enhance total returns, especially when held over many years. Even modest dividend yields can produce impressive results when combined with patience and reinvestment.

***

***

Income stocks also play an important role in diversification. Because they are often found in sectors such as utilities, telecommunications, consumer staples, and real estate, they can balance out the higher volatility of growth‑oriented investments. A portfolio that blends income stocks with growth stocks, bonds, and other assets is better positioned to weather market cycles. This balance is crucial for investors who want both stability and the potential for long‑term appreciation.

However, income stocks are not without risks. A company’s ability to pay dividends depends on its financial health. If earnings decline or debt levels rise, dividends may be reduced or eliminated. Investors must also be cautious of unusually high dividend yields, which can sometimes signal underlying problems rather than genuine strength. A yield that seems too good to be true may reflect a falling stock price or unsustainable payout ratio. Careful evaluation of a company’s fundamentals, cash flow, and long‑term prospects is essential.

Another consideration is that income stocks may underperform growth stocks during strong bull markets. Because they prioritize stability over rapid expansion, their share prices may rise more slowly. For investors seeking aggressive growth, income stocks alone may not provide the level of appreciation they desire. The key is understanding one’s financial goals and risk tolerance before deciding how heavily to rely on income‑producing investments.

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

EDUCATION: Books

SPEAKING: Dr. Marcinko will be speaking and lecturing, signing and opining, teaching and preaching, storming and performing at many locations throughout the USA this year! His tour of witty and serious pontifications may be scheduled on a planned or ad-hoc basis; for public or private meetings and gatherings; formally, informally, or over lunch or dinner. All medical societies, financial advisory firms or Broker-Dealers are encouraged to submit an RFP for speaking engagements: CONTACT: Ann Miller RN MHA at MarcinkoAdvisors@outlook.com -OR- http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

Like, Refer and Subscribe

***

***

HOBSON’S CHOICE: The Illusion of Free Choice

***

***

By Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd

The phrase “Hobson’s choice” refers to a situation where a person is offered only one option disguised as a free choice. It’s the classic “take it or leave it” scenario—where declining the offer results in no alternative, making the choice effectively compulsory. Though it may sound paradoxical, Hobson’s choice is a powerful concept that reveals much about human decision-making, power dynamics, and the illusion of autonomy.

The term originates from Thomas Hobson, a 16th-century livery stable owner in Cambridge, England. Hobson rented horses to university students and townsfolk, but to prevent his best horses from being overused, he implemented a strict rotation system. Customers could only take the horse nearest the stable door—or none at all. While it appeared that Hobson was offering a choice, in reality, there was no real alternative. This practice became so well-known that “Hobson’s choice” entered the English lexicon as a metaphor for constrained decision-making.

In modern contexts, Hobson’s choice appears in various forms. In business, a company might present a single product or service as if it were part of a broader selection. In politics, voters may feel they are choosing between candidates, but if all options represent similar policies or ideologies, the choice is superficial. Even in personal relationships or workplace settings, individuals may be given decisions that seem voluntary but are shaped by pressure, necessity, or lack of alternatives.

Philosophically, Hobson’s choice challenges the notion of free will. It forces us to ask: Is a decision truly free if the consequences of refusal are unacceptable? This dilemma is particularly relevant in ethical debates, such as informed consent in medicine or coercion in legal contracts. When someone is pressured to accept terms under duress or limited options, the legitimacy of their consent becomes questionable.

Moreover, Hobson’s choice is often used rhetorically to justify decisions that limit others’ autonomy. For example, a government might present a controversial policy as the only viable solution to a crisis, framing dissent as irresponsible. In such cases, the illusion of choice masks the exercise of power and control.

Despite its negative connotations, Hobson’s choice can also serve as a tool for efficiency and fairness. Hobson’s original intent was to protect his horses and ensure equal access for all customers. In systems where resources are limited, offering a single standardized option may prevent exploitation or favoritism.

In conclusion, Hobson’s choice is more than a historical anecdote—it’s a lens through which we can examine the boundaries of freedom, the ethics of decision-making, and the subtle ways power operates in everyday life. Whether in politics, business, or personal relationships, recognizing Hobson’s choice helps us navigate the complex terrain between autonomy and constraint.

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

EDUCATION: Books

SPEAKING: ME-P Editor Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd will be speaking and lecturing, signing and opining, teaching and preaching, storming and performing at many locations throughout the USA this year! His tour of witty and serious pontifications may be scheduled on a planned or ad-hoc basis; for public or private meetings and gatherings; formally, informally, or over lunch or dinner. All medical societies, financial advisory firms or Broker-Dealers are encouraged to submit an RFP for speaking engagements: CONTACT: Ann Miller RN MHA at MarcinkoAdvisors@outlook.com -OR- http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

Like, Refer and Subscribe

***

***