Yesterday, 9 physician groups sent a joint letter to HHS Secretary Alex Azar in which they voiced concerns about the President’s 2019 Budget and the Council of Economic Advisers’ drug plan.
Yesterday, 9 physician groups sent a joint letter to HHS Secretary Alex Azar in which they voiced concerns about the President’s 2019 Budget and the Council of Economic Advisers’ drug plan.
The groups say that the proposal to increase Medicare Part D formulary flexibility to limit or reduce coverage for patients could create problems for patients taking high cost drugs like biologics and biosimilars. This proposal would change the Part D plan formulary standards to require a minimum of 1 drug per category or class rather than the current 2. “We believe Part D benefits should not limit patients’ access to the medical therapy judged by the treating physician to be the most efficacious choice,” say the groups.
In addition, consolidating Part D drug coverage under the Medicare Part D program could also lead to access problems and force patients to use higher-cost sites of care. Given the different formulary structure and cost sharing between Part B and Part D, the groups worry that out-of-pocket costs for patients would increase, particularly for patients taking biologics prescribed by rheumatology, oncology, and neurology providers.
The groups also oppose a restructuring of Medicare Part B physician reimbursement for in-office treatment that would pay physicians 3% above the average sales price (ASP) of a drug rather than the current ASP plus 6%, and the letter urges HHS to repeal the sequester cuts to Part B drug reimbursements: “Many small and rural practices lack the ability to negotiate bulk discounts in their drug purchases and have already been forced to stop administering biologic therapies to Medicare patients,” the letter states.
Finally, the groups call for further clarification on introducing physician reimbursement that is not tied to drug prices, as physicians have no control over the cost of drugs or ancillary services, nor do they control the severity of the illnesses that these drugs treat. “Our physicians should not be penalized for rampant inflation in these sectors,” they said.
The physician groups made it clear that they support proposals that would:
The letter was signed by the American Academy of Dermatology Association, American Academy of Neurology, American Academy of Ophthalmology, American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, American College of Gastroenterology, American College of Rheumatology, American Gastroenterological Association, American Urological Association, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
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.
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.
Breaking Down Biosimilar Barriers: Interchangeability
November 14th 2024Part 3 of this series for Global Biosimilars Week, penned by Dracey Poore, director of biosimilars at Cardinal Health, explores the critical topic of interchangeability, examining its role in shaping biosimilar adoption and the broader implications for accessibility.
Breaking Down Biosimilar Barriers: Payer and PBM Policies
November 13th 2024Part 2 of this series for Global Biosimilars Week dives into the complexities of payer and pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) policies, how they impact biosimilar accessibility, and how addressing these issues may look under a second Trump term.