Browsed by
Tag: clear

Why Clearcover is the clear auto insurance choice for millennials

Why Clearcover is the clear auto insurance choice for millennials


Clearcover

MarketWatch has highlighted these products and services because we think readers will find them useful. This content is independent of the MarketWatch newsroom and we may receive a commission if you buy products through links in this article.

Adults in their twenties and thirties are now facing the same financial responsibilities their parents once did as they become homeowners, car owners, and insurance holders. While these financial matters can seem complicated, millennial adults have the added benefit of improved mobile apps to simplify banking, money transfers, and now, auto insurance.

Clearcover Car Insurance offers just that: clear, comprehensive, and affordable auto coverage at a better price than its competitors. “Clear” also describes how easy it is to use Clearcover’s digital platform: everything from purchasing your policy to managing an insurance claim can be done through their user-friendly mobile app.

Clearcover simply designed an app that makes sense to millennials: these days, there’s no need for in-person agents and phone calls when we do pretty much everything from our smartphones. And if you can do something that’s easier and a better value, it doesn’t make sense to pay for a price markup just for an insurance agent.

Mobile apps that allow users to make their own educated financial decisions aren’t so new: Robinhood makes stock market investment simple by allowing you to invest directly in the market through a mobile app. That strategy works for this generation of adults: Robinhood has over 2 million views in Apple’s App Store, and it enjoys a 4.8-star rating. Similarly, Clearcover enjoys 4.7 stars from nearly 1,000 satisfied customers in the Apple App Store. Over and over, user reviews describe Clearcover as “the best insurance ever”, with user Sobhan H. saying, “I am honestly really surprised to see that Clearcover is not the #1

Read the rest
New Analysis Shows Contract Pharmacies Financially Gain From 340B Program With No Clear Benefit to Patients

New Analysis Shows Contract Pharmacies Financially Gain From 340B Program With No Clear Benefit to Patients

New Analysis Shows Contract Pharmacies Financially Gain From 340B Program With No Clear Benefit to Patients

PR Newswire

WASHINGTON, Oct. 8, 2020

WASHINGTON, Oct. 8, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — Today, the Berkeley Research Group (BRG) published an analysis of historical trends in 340B contract pharmacy arrangements. The findings conclude that the growth in the number of these arrangements is fueling explosive growth in the program at large and driving the 340B program farther and farther away from its original intended goal of providing discounted medicines to safety-net entities treating uninsured and vulnerable patients. 

New Analysis Shows Contract Pharmacies Financially Gain From 340B Program With No Clear Benefit to Patients
New Analysis Shows Contract Pharmacies Financially Gain From 340B Program With No Clear Benefit to Patients

Congress created the 340B program to help safety-net providers, including certain qualifying hospitals and federally-funded clinics, access discounts on prescription medicines for low-income or uninsured patients. In 2010, a Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) policy opened the door to allow all 340B entities to contract with an unlimited number of for-profit retail pharmacies (e.g., CVS, Walgreens) to dispense 340B medicines. While this policy may have been intended to improve patient access to needed medications, it had the misguided effect of creating an opening that allowed for-profit vendors, pharmacies and pharmacy benefit managers to exploit the program and make a profit on 340B sales – sales intended to benefit low-income and vulnerable patients.

“It is clear that contract pharmacies have leveraged market power to drive unprecedented program growth and siphon money out of the program and away from vulnerable patients,” said Stephen J. Ubl, president and chief executive officer of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). “I urge lawmakers to consider the results of this analysis and pursue policies that ensure the 340B program benefits vulnerable patients rather than just line the pockets of for-profit corporations.”

Read the rest
Argument analysis: No clear consensus on states’ authority to regulate prescription-drug middlemen

Argument analysis: No clear consensus on states’ authority to regulate prescription-drug middlemen

Nicholas J. Bronni, solicitor general of Arkansas, argues remotely for petitioner (Art Lien)

The justices heard argument on Tuesday in Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, which asks them once again to consider the extent of preemption under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, commonly called ERISA. In this case, the court considers an Arkansas law that regulates the reimbursements that pharmacies receive when they sell prescription drugs.

The problem arises from the routine use by employee health-insurance plans of pharmacy benefit managers, or “PBMs,” to administer the prescription drug benefits that the plans provide (OptumRX, for example, is one major PBM). Typically, at least with respect to generic drugs, the PBM sets the price it will pay a pharmacy for each drug by reference to a document that establishes a maximum allowable cost, or “MAC,” for each particular medication. Local pharmacies argue that the prices set in the MAC lists are so low that they cannot profitably sell many of the medications on the lists. Responding to those complaints, more than 40 states have adopted rules regulating various activities of PBMs. The statute in this case obligates PBMs to pay retail pharmacies the invoice price stated by the pharmacies’ wholesaler (even if that “invoice price” is higher than the price at which the pharmacy actually purchased the drug from the wholesaler). It also imposes numerous procedural requirements related to the timing for appeals when pharmacies challenge MAC prices, the speed with which PBMs must update their MAC lists, and the like.

The propriety of the Arkansas law – and other similar state statutes – warrants the court’s attention because ERISA preempts state laws that “relate to any employee benefit plan” covered by ERISA. The wide-ranging argument on Tuesday reflected the difficulty the court has had in

Read the rest