The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has issued an official position statement addressing the affordability of cancer drugs. The position was guided, the organization says, by several key principles.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has issued an official position statement addressing the affordability of cancer drugs. The position was guided, the organization says, by the principles that value-based solutions should be patient-centered, that oncology professionals should define optimal care using a clinical perspective, that there must be a relationship between the value and cost to the patient, that physicians must be accountable for using drugs appropriately, and that cost-containment strategies should not restrict drug access but should incentivize innovation that leads to clinically meaningful improvements in patient outcomes.
Meaningful Value Frameworks
While the United States tends to make new therapies available to patients with relative speed, ASCO notes, only 19% of recently approved cancer drugs meet the organization’s goals for producing clinically meaningful survival outcomes, and the financial impact of these treatments on patients cannot be ignored. ASCO suggests that establishing a patient-focused value framework will require assessment of a broader range of clinical trial endpoints during research and development as well as the expansion of databases collecting real-world outcomes that allow for the comparison of safety and efficacy.
ASCO points to its article “Raising the Bar for Clinical Trials by Defining Clinically Meaningful Outcomes,” in which it recommends a primary focus on median overall survival and hazard ratios with secondary endpoints of improved 1-year survival and progression-free survival rates, as a useful context for considering a patient-focused framework. The position even suggests that the FDA might limit its approval of new oncology drugs to treatments that meet these suggested endpoints.
ASCO suggests that value-based pathways could be used to align drug pricing and utilization with the value they demonstrate for patients, as well as indication-specific pricing, which would adjust drug prices according to effectiveness in different approved indications. In another approach, outcomes-based pricing would depend upon the treatment outcome of a patient and could be scaled to a population level. With ourcomes-based pricing contracts, if a drug performs poorly in a treatment population, manufacturers would be required to provide discounts and rebates to payers and patients.
Support market competition
Further development and use of generics and biosimilars, ASCO says, also holds the potential to increase value; the organization calls for the government to consider reducing data exclusivity periods for biologics from 12 years to 7 years, and to disallow practices including the following:
ASCO further notes that it opposes the use of tiered formularies, which place a higher coinsurance burden on patients for specialty drugs, as well as current prohibitions on the negotiation of volume discounts for the Medicare program. The organization also notes that, though some provider groups have suggested that greater transparency concerning manufacturers’ costs could allow payers and patients greater insight into the relationship between development costs and drug costs, ASCO holds that the establishment of a methodology for value-based pricing would achieve the same goal. Finally, ASCO urges caution concerning re-importation of lower-priced drugs, noting regulatory difficulty and the possible unintended consequence of driving up drug costs in other nations.
Finally, ASCO proposes the following guidelines to help frame policymakers’ thinking as they attempt to address the problem of growing drug costs:
Ultimately, says ASCO, the solution to drug affordability will require redoubled efforts to define value, and to standardize a tested, valid, and reliable framework for assessing value to ensure the patient’s well-being.
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.
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.
Experts Pressure Congress to Remove Roadblocks for Biosimilars
April 12th 2025Lawmakers and expert witnesses emphasized the potential of biosimilars to lower health care costs by overcoming barriers like pharmacy benefit manager practices, limited awareness, and regulatory delays to improve access and competition in chronic disease management during a recent congressional hearing.
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.
BioRationality: Commemorating the 15th Anniversary of the BPCIA
April 8th 2025Affirming that analytical characterization is often sufficient for biosimilar approval, minimizing unnecessary clinical testing, and enhancing FDA-led education to counter stakeholder misconceptions are key recommendations put forth in this opinion piece by Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD.