The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) is apprehensive that “without substantial changes, the demonstration program could disrupt patient access to care, worsen the rheumatology workforce shortage, and exacerbate geographic disparities in access to medical care.”
In recently submitted comments to CMS, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) expressed concern that the proposed International Pricing Index (IPI), announced November 2018, may disrupt patient access to care.
Specifically, ACR is apprehensive that “without substantial changes, the demonstration program could disrupt patient access to care, worsen the rheumatology workforce shortage, and exacerbate geographic disparities in access to medical care.”
The IPI proposal would allow CMS to implement a reference pricing structure over a 5-year period from 2020-2025, which would enable Medicare to more closely align its payment amount for selected Part B drugs with prices paid in other nations, as well as allow for private-sector negotiations of drugs. CMS believes that the proposal could generate 30% in cost savings, although this figure does not include the prices of biosimilars; instead, it only compares the prices of reference products.
ACR explained in its letter that although it does not have a policy on international reference pricing, the group does support Medicare using its authority to lower drug prices, but does not support mandatory demonstration projects.
“Our current policy is that we support Medicare having the ability to negotiate for reduced drug prices; however, there are many specific pricing mechanisms described in the [IPI] that the ACR cannot support without having specific details on the policy,” read the ACR comment letter.
The organization suggested several modifications to the program:
“We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the proposed IPI model and are encouraged by the agency’s efforts to make needed therapies more affordable for patients,” said Paula Marchetta, MD, MBA, president of ACR, in a statement. “However, we believe that changes must be made to ensure the proposal does not result in significant disruptions in patient care for the 54 million Americans who live with rheumatic disease.”
The ACR is not the only organization that has expressed concern about the index, as just last month 339 patient, provider, and caregiver groups, on behalf of the Part B Access for Seniors and Physicians Coalition, sent a letter to Congress encouraging lawmakers to block the implementation of the index.
Comments on the IPI model have closed, and CMS will aim to issue a proposed rule this spring.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
Review Calls for Path to Global Harmonization of Biosimilar Development Regulations
March 17th 2025Global biosimilar regulatory harmonization will be needed to reduce development costs and improve patient access, despite challenges posed by differing national requirements and regulatory frameworks, according to review authors.
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.
From Amjevita to Zarxio: A Decade of US Biosimilar Approvals
March 6th 2025Since the FDA’s groundbreaking approval of Zarxio in 2015, the US biosimilars market has surged to 67 approvals across 18 originators—though the journey has been anything but smooth, with adoption facing hurdles along the way.