MedPAC called for changes to Medicare Part D to remove the financial disincentives that block the use of lower-cost biosimilar therapies.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), an independent congressional agency that advises Congress on issues affecting the Medicare program, provided a status report on Medicare Part D during a public meeting on January 11, 2018. MedPAC called for changes to Part D to remove the financial disincentives that block the use of lower-cost biosimilar therapies.
According to the report, the Medicare Part D program had nearly $80 billion in spending in 2016, with $79 billion spent on payments to Part D plans and $1 billion spent on the retiree drug subsidy. Plan enrollees paid approximately $13 billion in premiums (excluding premium subsidies for low-income enrollees), plus additional amounts in cost-sharing.
The status report notes that, while high-cost enrollees (those who have reached the catastrophic phase) were only 8% of Part D enrollees in 2015, these enrollees accounted for 57% of overall spending. “Nearly all of the growth in spending for high-cost enrollees is due to higher prices,” notes the report, and the “use of higher-priced drugs will continue to put strong upward pressure on program spending.” This trend is likely to continue long-term because of the increased focus on specialty drugs—including costly biologic therapies—in drug developers’ pipelines.
Growth in Part D enrollment, says the report, especially among non—low-income-subsidy (non-LIS) enrollees, has driven more catastrophic spending; enrollment in the Part D program has grown approximately 6% per year since 2007, reaching 42.5 million enrollees in 2017. Also driving up spending are the coverage gap discount, plan incentives to put high-price and high-rebate drugs on formularies, and higher drug prices overall.
MedPAC notes that high-cost biologics will only continue to grow in importance in the years ahead, increasing the cost burden on enrollees and on Medicare. Biosimilars, MedPAC says, are important tools that can to promote price competition.
However, some Part D policies, such as copays for LIS enrollees, are negatively affecting biosimilar uptake. MedPAC also notes that the coverage gap discount provides a financial advantage for originator biologics rather than for cheaper biosimilars, and calls for a removal of the financial disincentive for using lower-cost biosimilar options.
13 Strategies to Avoid the Nocebo Effect During Biosimilar Switching
December 18th 2024A systematic review identified 13 strategies, including patient and provider education, empathetic communication, and shared decision-making, to mitigate the nocebo effect in biosimilar switching, emphasizing the need for a multifaceted approach to improve patient perceptions and therapeutic outcomes.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
Commercial Payer Coverage of Biosimilars: Market Share, Pricing, and Policy Shifts
December 4th 2024Researchers observe significant shifts in payer preferences for originator vs biosimilar products from 2017 to 2022, revealing growing payer interest in multiple product options, alongside the increasing market share of biosimilars, which contributed to notable reductions in both average sales prices and wholesale acquisition costs.
The Rebate War: How Originator Companies Are Fighting Back Against Biosimilars
November 25th 2024Few biologics in the US have multiple biosimilar competitors, but originator biologics respond quickly to competition by increasing rebates and lowering net prices, despite short approval-to-launch timelines for biosimilars.
Boosting Health Care Sustainability: The Role of Biosimilars in Latin America
November 21st 2024Biosimilars could improve access to biologic treatments and health care sustainability in Latin America, but their adoption is hindered by misconceptions, regulatory gaps, and weak pharmacovigilance, requiring targeted education and stronger regulations.