Jeremiah Franklin Shrack writes about pharmacy-benefit contracts and employer health-plan procurement. Their posts explain how contract terms can affect costs and describe tools for reviewing PBM and broker compensation.
Most useful for PBM contract review and pharmacy-benefits procurement audits aimed at self-funded employers and benefits advisory firms.
Best for
PBM contract review or pharmacy-benefits procurement audit campaigns with a named commercial tool and direct response.
Not for
Broad or consumer audiences, product-free editorial voice, long-form video, or independently verified savings claims.
Key takeaways
Contract language, not fees, decides how much money leaves
A guarantee protects the PBM’s average, not your spend
Compare brokers by how they get paid, not by how they pitch
Check first: Confirm current audience data and independent verification for modeled financial figures.
Main ideas
Contract language, not fees, decides how much money leaves · A guarantee protects the PBM’s average, not your spend · Compare brokers by how they get paid, not by how they pitch
Jeremiah Franklin Shrack writes about pharmacy-benefit contracts and employer health-plan procurement.
Their posts argue that the details beneath headline fees and guarantees—such as exclusions, rebate definitions and true-up rules—can shape an employer’s costs and visibility into its plan.
They also apply contract scrutiny to broker selection and frame careful procurement as a responsibility to employees.
Readers interested in understanding PBM deals and evaluating procurement pitches will find practical questions to take into those decisions.
Shrack turns contract language into questions finance and benefits leaders can act on.
In one post, they examine a BER guarantee by asking what share of claims it covers, who defines the denominator and how a one-way true-up works.
In another, they frame modeled PBM leakage as capital that could otherwise support hiring or investment.
Their procurement lens is not only financial: they also write about the responsibility to make equivalent therapies accessible to employees.
Together, these ideas encourage readers to test guarantees and polished broker pitches against contract terms, compensation and employee impact.
Ask for independent verification of the financial figures and case results, which the posts present as modeled or reported claims.
Jeremiah Franklin Shrack argues that pharmacy-benefit contracts move money through drafting choices—definitions, exclusions, denominators, and true-up mechanics—rather than headline fees, so employers cannot judge a deal by what it costs on paper.
Read more
The recurring priority is traceability: a fiduciary cannot manage what the organization cannot trace, test, and quantify, and the contract’s information advantage becomes the employer’s financial disadvantage.
That leads to specific positions: treat a brand-effective-rate guarantee as an average against a PBM-chosen denominator, not a floor under spend; compare brokers by how they are paid, not how they present; and open negotiations before the RFP with provision-level evidence and replacement language.
Underlying these positions is a fiduciary frame: procurement as a promise the employer makes to the people who build the company.
They state that frame in moral terms in one post and capital-allocation terms in another.
Contract language, not fees, decides how much money leaves
The most expensive contract isn’t necessarily the one with the highest fees; it’s the one whose provisions allow the most value to be extracted.
Read more
Spread pricing, rebate reclassification, and specialty margins are described as invisible taxes on EBITDA.
Even “100% of rebates” loses meaning when the PBM controls what qualifies as a rebate.
An audit right without data access is “governance theater.”
The framing: this is not necessarily fraud, but architecture.
The contract’s information advantage becomes the employer’s financial disadvantage, so the task is to trace, test, and quantify provisions rather than renegotiate a feeling.
A 10,000-life plan is modeled at $65.1 million in annual leakage across 15 contractual fracture points, with an $8.5 million specialty-margin figure presented as a board-level economic signal.
A guarantee protects the PBM’s average, not your spend
A brand-effective-rate guarantee promises an average on a denominator the PBM defines.
Read more
The PBM can overcharge the sickest members and undercharge cheap, high-volume scripts and still pass to the decimal.
The exclusions are the product: strike specialty drugs, compounds, and authorized generics, and the guarantee covers a shrinking slice.
The true-up runs one way: if the PBM misses the number, it pays; if it beats it, it keeps the difference.
Meanwhile, the employer’s money floats for about twelve months.
AWP is a benchmark, not a price.
Because the terms are disclosed in the contract, Shrack calls this worse than fraud in effect: the employer is measured against a rubric written by the party being graded.
The line presented as the number that changes a CFO conversation is “guaranteed on 61 percent, silent on the rest.”
Compare brokers by how they get paid, not by how they pitch
Polished finalist decks and identical promises can hide differences that compensation data exposes.
Read more
The buyer’s move is to check each candidate’s actual pay and grade the pharmacy deal behind each pitch, turning a sales meeting into an audit. A related contrast pits personal responsiveness against institutional familiarity: a fifteen-year local broker who takes the 9 p.m. call when an HR director’s family lands in the emergency room, versus a national incumbent whose advantages are a logo the CFO knows from airports, a stewardship report thick enough to prop a door, and a relationship two renewals deep.
A self-funded CFO couldn’t tell her broker candidates apart: three finalists, three polished decks, three identical promises. She used a Broker Compensation Study to see how each one gets paid and a contract-grading tool to read the pharmacy deal behind every pitch.
Intervene before the RFP, and carry replacement language
The strongest negotiation position begins before the RFP, with provision-level evidence and substitute contract clauses rather than a complaint.
Read more
Finding leakage isn’t the competitive advantage; converting evidence into executable contract language is. Speed and cost matter because a fast screen can change a live renewal conversation.
A $500 report delivered in 24 hours is described as changing the economics of a multimillion-dollar renewal conversation.
Anonymized composite cases are cited at $29.2 million in first-renewal recoveries across three engagements.
These are the platform’s modeled and composite figures, not independent measurements; ask for the methodology behind them.
Procurement is a promise, and the breach is invisible
A benefits plan is a promise the employer makes to the people who build the company: to spend the money as carefully as if it were the employees’ own.
Read more
Each month a cheaper, equivalent therapy sits behind a contractual wall, that promise is broken in small, invisible installments.
The same fiduciary logic appears in the leakage argument: leadership cannot manage what it cannot trace, test, and quantify.
The question is whether it would still approve the status quo if it knew how much capital the contract could divert.
The concrete image is a cheaper, equivalent therapy sitting behind a contractual wall, with the employer’s promise broken quietly rather than visibly.
One post makes the moral case without a contract mechanism or quantified example, and directs readers only to a website. It sits alongside heavily quantified posts, showing the account’s range from values-based framing to mechanism-and-number arguments.
Tension: the promise argument sometimes stands without the numbers
Shrack’s most quoted posts pair a claim with a mechanism and a figure, but the moral-framing post does neither.
Read more
It argues the ethics of procurement directly and points readers to a website, without dissecting a contract term or attaching a dollar amount. The fiduciary argument stands on its own, not only as a conclusion drawn from arithmetic.
The post argues that a plan is a promise and that a contractual wall blocking a cheaper, equivalent therapy breaks it in invisible installments. Its only call to action is the site.
Explains why PBM contract terms can matter more than headline fees and how contract architecture can transfer value.
Read more
Newcomers can start here for the central thesis and concrete dollar categories.
This post models a 10,000-life plan at $65.1 million in annual leakage across 15 contractual fracture points.
It frames leakage not only as a healthcare-cost problem but as a capital-allocation failure: if contract language authorizes extraction, the market will not correct it.
It identifies spread pricing, rebate reclassification, and specialty margins as invisible taxes on EBITDA, and presents the $8.5 million specialty-margin exposure as a board-level economic signal.
It also cites a $500 report delivered in 24 hours and $29.2 million in first-renewal recoveries across three engagements.
The closing question asks leadership whether it would still approve the status quo knowing how much capital the contract could divert.
For brands planning a campaign
For a PBM contract review or pharmacy benefits procurement audit, this is a proof-of-concept: it quantifies leakage categories, presents a low-cost diagnostic offer, and shows how to turn contract language into an executive decision. Use it to open an audit pitch or campaign brief.
Explains what a BER guarantee actually guarantees.
Read more
Start here if a client believes their current guarantee is protection.
The post argues that a BER guarantee promises an average on a denominator the PBM defined, not a floor under spend.
It says 'average' can launder overcharges on the sickest members and undercharges on cheap, high-volume scripts.
AWP is called a benchmark, not a price, and one veterans have called 'Ain't What's Paid' for thirty years.
The exclusions are described as the product: strike out specialty, compounds, and authorized generics, and the guarantee covers a shrinking slice.
The true-up runs one way, and money floats twelve months first.
The line 'guaranteed on 61 percent, silent on the rest' is presented as the number that changes a CFO conversation.
The post concludes that the guarantee was never the protection; reading it is—and the guarantee counts on you not to.
For brands planning a campaign
For an audit offer, this reframes a client's existing guarantee as incomplete and specifies the deliverable: read the guarantee language, identify exclusions, and quantify what it actually covers. Use it in a campaign to evaluate or renegotiate an existing PBM guarantee.
Explains how a buyer can compare brokers when pitches sound identical.
Read more
Start here for a concrete procurement process.
A self-funded CFO could not tell her broker candidates apart.
The post describes three finalists, three polished decks, and three identical promises.
Rather than let them run the process, the CFO used the Broker Compensation Study to see how each one actually gets paid and PBM Contract Clarity 360 to grade the pharmacy deal behind every pitch.
The result, as the post puts it, is turning a sales meeting into an audit.
It directs readers to SiriusB.Ai.
For brands planning a campaign
This shows a buyer-side use case for broker compensation transparency and PBM contract grading. An advisory firm can position a procurement audit as a way to compare finalists on actual economics rather than presentation quality, and use this story as the narrative spine of a campaign.
Explains why a familiar national broker may not be the best fit.
Read more
Start here for broker selection or scrutiny of a stewardship report.
The post contrasts a good local broker, fifteen years in—the kind who takes the 9 p.m. call when an HR director's son lands in the ER and actually helps—with the national incumbent: a logo the CFO knows from the airport, a stewardship report thick enough to prop a door, and a relationship two renewals deep.
It promotes the Broker Compensation Study and PBM Contract Clarity through SiriusB.Ai and a text number.
The contrast is between personal responsiveness and institutional familiarity; the compensation study makes the difference visible.
For brands planning a campaign
Addresses the local-versus-national broker tension.
An advisory firm can use it to frame an audit as a way to level a relationship advantage with visible economics.
It also shows a direct-response channel the campaign can study.
Start here for an ethical frame that can motivate a benefits leader to audit contract walls.
The post argues that procurement has a moral dimension.
It describes a plan as a promise employers make to the people who build their companies: we will spend this money as carefully as if it were yours, because it is.
Every month a cheaper, equivalent therapy sits behind a contractual wall, that promise is broken in small, invisible installments.
The post directs readers to SiriusB.Ai.
For brands planning a campaign
Frames PBM contract review as a fiduciary promise, not just cost engineering. Useful for an employer-facing campaign or an advisory firm pairing values-based language with financial analysis, especially when the buyer is motivated by stewardship as well as savings.
Format: one mechanism per post, closed with a named tool5
Broker selection and how brokers actually get paid2
Procurement as a promise, not just a process2
PBM contract terms as a hidden cost center1
Guarantees that don't guarantee what buyers assume1
Where to intervene: before the RFP, with replacement language1
Exception: the moral-framing post omits the mechanism.1
PBM contract terms as a hidden cost center
Jeremiah Franklin Shrack's longest post treats a pharmacy benefit manager contract as a capital-allocation problem, not a line-item expense.
Read more
It models $65.1 million in annual leakage for a 10,000-life plan across 15 contractual points, driven by spread pricing, rebate reclassification, and specialty margins. The post singles out an $8.5 million specialty-margin figure as a board-level number and argues that “100% of rebates” means little when the PBM decides what counts as a rebate, and that an audit right without data access is “governance theater.”
Take one contract mechanism, translate it into a dollar figure for a stated plan size, and turn it into a board-level question about capital allocation.
For brands planning a campaign
A brand selling contract-analytics software, benefits consulting, or fiduciary-services reviews can sponsor work on this exact territory: the post offers a ready-made frame in which contract language, not market pricing, lets the money leave.
Guarantees that don't guarantee what buyers assume
A short post explains how a brand-effective-rate guarantee works: it guarantees an average using a denominator the PBM defined, allowing the PBM to overcharge the sickest members and undercharge high-volume, low-cost scripts while still hitting the number.
Read more
Exclusions do the work: striking specialty drugs, compounds, and authorized generics leaves the guarantee covering a shrinking slice.
The true-up runs one way, the employer's money floats for about twelve months, and “AWP” is described as a benchmark rather than a price.
The post calls this disclosed rather than fraudulent and frames the fix as reading the guarantee.
Invert a term the buyer believes protects them, then show how the mechanism makes that protection partial.
For brands planning a campaign
Contract-review, actuarial, and pharmacy-benefit audit providers can use the guarantee-as-average argument as a content angle, especially if they offer to grade or rewrite specific guarantee language.
Broker selection and how brokers actually get paid
Two posts take the broker's side of the procurement table.
Read more
One describes a CFO unable to distinguish three finalist brokers from their polished decks promising the same thing.
The CFO uses a Broker Compensation Study to see how each candidate gets paid and a PBM Contract Clarity 360 tool to grade the pharmacy deal behind each pitch, turning a sales meeting into an audit.
The other contrasts a fifteen-year local broker who takes a 9 p.m. call when an HR director's family lands in the emergency room with a national incumbent whose advantages are a logo the CFO knows from airports, a thick stewardship report, and a relationship two renewals deep.
Use a narrative vignette featuring a named buyer role (CFO, HR director) to contrast two recognizable broker types, then end with a tool that resolves the comparison.
For brands planning a campaign
Benchmarking, broker-compensation disclosure, and benefits-advisory brands can sponsor this buyer-education angle, which sets finalist decks apart using compensation data.
One post reframes benefits procurement in moral terms: a plan is a promise employers make to the people who build the company, and every month a cheaper equivalent therapy sits behind a contractual wall, that promise breaks in invisible installments.
Read more
The leakage post makes the same fiduciary case in financial terms: a fiduciary cannot manage what the organization cannot trace, test, and quantify. It asks whether leadership would still approve the status quo if it knew how much capital the contract could divert.
For brands planning a campaign
Fiduciary-services, mission-driven benefits platforms, and employer-brand campaigns can borrow this framing, which pairs an ethical claim with contract mechanics.
Where to intervene: before the RFP, with replacement language
The leakage post says the strongest negotiation position starts before the RFP, with provision-level evidence and replacement language.
Read more
It describes a $500 report delivered in 24 hours as something that can change the economics of a multimillion-dollar renewal conversation. It also describes anonymized composite cases totaling $29.2 million in first-renewal recoveries across three engagements, and identifies turning evidence into executable contract language—not merely finding leakage—as the competitive advantage.
Claims are presented as the platform's own modeled or composite case figures, not independent measurements.
For brands planning a campaign
A brand offering a fast, low-cost contract screen or a library of replacement clauses has a direct content fit: the argument is about timing and deliverable format as much as analysis.
Format: one mechanism per post, closed with a named tool
Across the five posts, the recurring structure is one argument about a contract mechanism (BER guarantee, broker compensation, spread pricing, specialty margin), expressed in short declarative lines with parallel structure and closed by naming a specific product, website, text number, or email.
Read more
Products referenced are PBM Contract Clarity, PBM Contract Clarity 360, and the Broker Compensation Study; response channels include a SiriusB.Ai website, a text contact number, and one email address.
Argument, dollar quantification or mechanism, then a named next step.
For brands planning a campaign
Sponsored work should follow a single-idea format with a hard call to action; campaigns that need long-form education, video, or multi-topic episodes do not match the demonstrated style.
Exception: the moral-framing post omits the mechanism.
One post breaks the pattern.
Read more
It argues the ethics of procurement and points only to a website, with no contract mechanism, dollar figure, or named tool beyond the site. This suggests the account varies the level of contract detail by topic; it is also the only post in this set without a quantified example.
For brands planning a campaign
Brands should not assume every collaboration will have the same technical depth: the moral-framing angle is available but thinner on specifics.
The posts promote PBM Contract Clarity and related resources through SiriusB.Ai and give a Kincaid RMC email contact, but they do not state whether Jeremiah Franklin Shrack owns, works for, is sponsored by, or invests in those businesses.
Read more
Based only on the posts, the relationships are disclosed partnerships with unstated terms.
SiriusB.Ai
Disclosed partnership
Posts direct readers to SiriusB.Ai for more information about PBM contract and broker compensation resources.
Read more
They do not state Shrack’s ownership, employment, sponsorship, or investment relationship with SiriusB.Ai.
Posts describe a tool or service for reviewing PBM contracts, also referred to as PBM Contract Clarity 360, and offer it through SiriusB.Ai with an email contact.
Shrack's posts are easiest to explore one contract mechanism at a time.
Read more
Start with two posts that invert terms buyers rely on: a brand-effective-rate guarantee that protects the PBM's average rather than the employer's spend, and PBM contract language that moves money through definitions, exclusions, denominators, and true-up mechanics.
Then read the broker-compensation pair, which argues that broker candidates should be compared by how they are paid, not how they pitch.
The procurement-ethics post is the outlier: it states the fiduciary promise directly and points to a website, without a contract mechanism or dollar figure.
These three clusters show whether the recurring focus on contract traceability, pharmacy-benefit economics, and fiduciary procurement is what you want to follow.
For adjacent reading, Mark Coulson questions procurement benchmarks and media-agency rebate transparency, Michael Taylor writes about contract-to-invoice compliance and recovery, and Nancy Taylor covers benefits-payroll integration and FICA savings.
Both treat procurement opacity as a contract and incentive problem.
Read more
Mark Coulson's benchmark-platform post argues that an experienced negotiator can beat a benchmark tool, while the six-agency post asks whether rebates, bonuses, and discounts return to the client. Shrack likewise argues that contract terms, rebate definitions, and true-up mechanics—not headline benchmarks or fees—decide where money goes.
Mark Coulson's examples span software and media buying, often ending with an open question to peers, while Shrack's focus on pharmacy benefits and employer health plans features modeled dollar figures and a named PBM-contract tool.
Both treat contracts as operational documents to measure against invoices and behavior.
Read more
Michael Taylor's compliance post lists a central repository, obligation tracking, and audit trails; the contract-invoice post describes reviewing hundreds of supplier agreements for early payments and recovery. Shrack likewise wants employers to trace, test, and quantify contract provisions rather than take a guarantee or audit right at face value.
Michael Taylor writes about procurement, AP, ERP, and supplier contracts, often through a technology-and-services partner, while Shrack focuses on pharmacy-benefit contracts and the fiduciary frame for self-funded employers.
Both address employer benefits costs and the broker relationship.
Read more
Nancy Taylor explains a layer that sits alongside brokers to reduce FICA liability and says the broker relationship stays the same, while Shrack writes about broker pay and how to grade the pharmacy deal behind a pitch.
Nancy Taylor focuses on benefits-payroll integration and payroll tax savings, not PBM contract mechanics, rebate definitions, or guarantee language. Nancy Taylor's calls to action ask readers to comment HOW or REVIEW.
Consider Jeremiah Franklin Shrack for a campaign aimed at self-funded employers or benefits advisers evaluating pharmacy-benefit contracts.
Read more
Their posts focus on PBM contract terms, employer health-plan costs, and procurement.
Before committing, request current LinkedIn audience demographics and recent reach or engagement for posts on PBM contracts and benefits procurement.
If reaching CFOs, benefits leaders, or brokers is essential, ask for documented audience survey results or another source on occupation and seniority; platform demographics alone do not establish those professional attributes.
The posts present paid pharmacy-benefit contract review products for self-funded employers or advisory firms—not sponsored-content or brand-partnership formats: PBM Contract Clarity, PBM Contract Clarity 360, and the Broker Compensation Study.
Read more
For more information, contact jer@kincaidrmc.com, text 219.256.3331, or visit SiriusB.Ai. For a brand partnership, ask whether sponsored-content options are available and request the sponsor policy.
PBM Contract Clarity
Buyer requirement
Provide the plan's PBM contract for review and pay for a report; one post describes a $500 report delivered in 24 hours.
PBM Contract Clarity 360
Buyer requirement
Have the pharmacy deal and broker finalist pitches ready to be graded; the post presents this as a way to assess the PBM arrangement behind each broker candidate.
Broker Compensation Study
Buyer requirement
Provide broker compensation information or candidate broker details so the study can show how each broker is paid.
Use Jeremiah Franklin Shrack for a PBM contract review or pharmacy-benefits procurement audit aimed at self-funded employers and benefits advisory firms.
Read more
All five posts focus on the same buying decision: how contract language moves money out of a plan.
The $65.1 million leakage model and $8.5 million specialty-margin figure give an audit pitch its opening numbers.
The guarantee post reframes protection a client already believes it has.
The two broker posts offer a buyer-side workflow that starts with how finalist brokers are paid.
The format also suits a PBM contract review or pharmacy-benefits procurement audit: one mechanism per post, a dollar figure or stated contract mechanism, then a named tool and a direct response channel (email jer@kincaidrmc.com, text 219.256.3331, SiriusB.Ai).
They already sell three adjacent offers — PBM Contract Clarity, a $500 report delivered in 24 hours; PBM Contract Clarity 360; and the Broker Compensation Study — so an audit campaign extends an existing line rather than requiring a new capability.
Two limits matter: there is no documented reach or engagement showing that CFOs and benefits leaders see the posts, and the dollar figures are presented as the platform's own modeled and composite case results, not audited outcomes.
Before committing, ask for current audience data and agree how modeled figures will be labeled.
When to choose a specialist
Turn down work that needs a broad or consumer audience, a product-free editorial voice, or long-form video.
Read more
The posts address plan sponsors and their advisers in contract-mechanics language — spread pricing, rebate reclassification, BER denominator, AWP — and all but the procurement-ethics post close on a named product and call to action.
A campaign that cannot name a commercial tool or include a direct response would run against the demonstrated format.
The posts include no video or transcript, so on-camera or episodic work is unproven.
A sponsor needing independently verified savings claims is also a poor fit: the $65.1 million, $8.5 million, and $29.2 million figures come from the creator's own platform modeling and anonymized composite cases, not independent measurement.
Before commissioning work requiring regulated claims or accreditation, ask for the relevant credentials and independent figures.
A worked campaign example
Worked campaign angle: "One Clause, One Number."
An audit provider or an employer's own benefits team commissions a six-post LinkedIn run, one contract mechanism per post, matching the creator's existing format.
Each post states the mechanism, puts one number on it for a stated plan size, and closes with the same next step — send a contract for review.
Suggested sequence: the BER denominator and the exclusions that shrink what the guarantee covers; the one-way true-up and the twelve-month float; rebate reclassification and who decides what counts as a rebate; specialty margin as a board-level number; broker compensation and the three-identical-decks problem; and the fiduciary argument as the closer.
Pair the run with one portable asset: a short contract-review request form and a one-page clause checklist buyers can take into a renewal meeting, mirroring the low-cost, 24-hour diagnostic already offered.
Measure the handoff, not just impressions: count contracts submitted for review and campaign briefs requested.
The leakage and recovery figures are the creator's own modeled and composite cases, so label them that way on the asset and keep any unverified figure out of paid promotion.
If the sponsor needs the same material to work for consumer readers or as video, this is the wrong engagement.
Choose Mark Coulson when the campaign is about procurement transparency and savings discipline outside pharmacy benefits, especially when the buyer wants to challenge a benchmarking platform, stress-test a rebate arrangement, or show that an experienced negotiator can beat a tool's recommended target.
Read more
Two posts make that case directly: one describes an online benchmarking platform that advised a 15% saving while an experienced procurement specialist delivered 44%; the other tests six media agencies on whether they return every rebate, bonus, and discount. That makes Mark Coulson a fit for a broader procurement or marketing-spend audit campaign where the buyer must decide whether to trust the benchmark or the negotiator.
The tradeoff is domain distance.
The posts do not cover PBMs, pharmacy claims, rebate reclassification, specialty margin, BER guarantees, or plan-sponsor fiduciary duties.
A PBM contract review campaign would need to translate Mark Coulson's procurement-transparency argument into pharmacy-benefits language, with proof points from software and media spend rather than pharmacy contracts.
If the buyer needs a creator who already speaks to benefits leaders about PBM-specific clauses, ask Shrack for relevant examples; they are the closer choice.
Mark Coulson is better when the campaign can be framed as general procurement contract leakage.
Choose Michael Taylor when the campaign focuses on contract compliance and recovery across a large supplier base, including centralized contract repositories, obligation tracking, invoice-to-contract reconciliation, rebate and payment-term reviews, or AI-assisted contract review.
Read more
The posts suit a finance, procurement, or healthcare supply-chain buyer looking to find money after invoices drift from agreed terms.
One lays out six contract-compliance practices; the other describes thematic reviews and a case where a national retailer ran 900+ supplier agreements through contract-analysis software and unlocked $22 million in working capital plus $2.8 million in interest savings.
That fits a campaign promising to check what was agreed against what was actually paid.
The tradeoff is that the posts are not pharmacy-benefits specific.
They speak to finance and supply-chain audiences through ERP, accounts payable, and invoice reconciliation, rather than addressing PBM contract structures, pharmacy rebates, specialty drugs, or benefits-advisory buyers.
A PBM audit campaign could borrow Michael Taylor's contract-to-invoice method, but would lack the pharmacy contract detail and plan-sponsor framing in Shrack's posts.
Choose Michael Taylor when the buyer task can be broader contract recovery; choose Shrack when the buyer needs pharmacy-benefits language and a PBM contract review offer.
Choose Nancy Taylor when the campaign targets small and mid-size employers, benefits brokers, or HR and finance teams around payroll-tax savings and benefits-payroll integration—not PBM contract review.
Read more
The posts position Nancy Taylor as a layer that works alongside a benefits broker, focuses on FICA liability and Section 125, and cites employer savings of $50,000+ in year one. That fits a campaign where the buyer is deciding whether to review how benefits connect to payroll, with a benefits-payroll integration review as the offer.
The tradeoff is that the posts do not cover pharmacy procurement or PBM contract mechanics, including spread pricing, rebate definitions, BER guarantees, specialty margin, or contract clauses.
Nancy Taylor's broker-respectful, complementary-services framing may also not suit an audit campaign that positions an outside reviewer against the incumbent PBM or broker.
If the buyer needs a creator who can speak to PBM contract leakage and pharmacy-benefits procurement, ask Shrack for relevant examples; they are the better match.
Nancy Taylor is better when the campaign can stay on payroll-tax and benefits-integration ground.
Jeremiah Franklin Shrack's five LinkedIn posts cover PBM contract terms, brand-effective-rate guarantee mechanics, broker compensation, benefits procurement and the ethics of procurement.
The posts do not show publication dates, so this page describes recurring arguments and priorities rather than a timeline of how the positions developed.
The dollar figures and case results quoted in the posts — a $65.1 million leakage model, an $8.5 million specialty-margin figure, a $29.2 million composite recovery total — are the creator's own modeled or reported numbers, not independently verified measurements, and are labeled that way here.
The profile shows roughly 7,700 followers, as of October 9, 2026.
Posts by Mark Coulson on procurement benchmarking and media-agency rebates (September–October 2026), Michael Taylor on contract compliance and contract-to-invoice review (September–October 2026), and Nancy Taylor on benefits-payroll integration and FICA savings (May–June 2026) offer points of comparison.
Gaps that remain open: no full account history, no video or transcripts, no engagement or audience-composition data, and no independent verification of savings claims.
Where a decision turns on reach or on verified results, those checks still need dated audience data and audited figures.