Yesterday, the Trump administration released a new plan aimed at reducing Medicare’s costs for prescription drugs. Under the plan, CMS would be able to set its prices for some drugs, including biologics, based on the prices paid in other nations. Since the announcement, several stakeholders have spoken out about the proposed change.
Yesterday, the Trump administration released a new plan aimed at reducing Medicare’s costs for prescription drugs. Under the plan, CMS would be able to set its prices for some drugs, ncluding biologics, based on the prices paid in other nations.
Extending over a 5-year period, from 2020 to 2025, the proposal would allow CMS to implement a mandatory model deemed the International Pricing Index (IPI), which would enable Medicare to more closely align its Medicare payment amount for selected Part B drugs with prices paid in other nations, as well as allow for private-sector negotiation of drug costs. According to CMS, the proposal could generate 30% savings in total spending for the selected drugs. However, the report's figures do not take into account the prices of biosimilars; instead, it only compares prices of reference products.
Since the announcement yesterday, many industry stakeholders have spoken out about the proposed change.
The Community Oncology Alliance (COA), cautions the Trump administration against “disruptive changes” to the current Part B distribution and cancer care delivery system.
“COA is concerned that the IPI will either repeat past reform mistakes (such as the Competitive Acquisition Program, CAP) or introduce the same cancer treatment access challenges experienced by cancer patients today with pharmacy benefit managers and other middlemen under Medicare Part D,” read the statement.
Additionally, COA commented that “The notion that physicians, and oncologists in particular, practice medicine driven by financial incentives is not only false, but also highly offensive.”
In an interview with The Center for Biosimilars®, Ted Okon, executive director of COA, underscored his concerns about the proposal. "By bringing in private sector entities, which translates to middlemen like [pharmacy benefit managers]...we're extremely concerned about the adverse impact that this could have on patients. [CMS is proposing to] unduly complicate what is a very efficient system now."
The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) echoed COA’s concerns, explaining that while the organization agrees with the President that drug prices are too high, it is also important that efforts to address these costs do not limit access to treatment for Americans with chronic illnesses.
ACR stated that sometimes efforts to combat high costs create significant access issues and penalize doctors for providing quality care. “These proposals include those restructuring reimbursement for Medicare Part B drugs through either flat fee payments or a competitive acquisition program or allowing utilization management such as step therapy or ‘fail first’ protocols in the Medicare Part B program.”
Additionally, the president and CEO of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), Stephen J. Ubl, had harsh words in regard to the proposal. “The administration is imposing foreign price controls from countries with socialized healthcare systems that deny their citizens access and discourage innovation,” Ubl said in a statement.
"These proposals are to the detriment of American patients…the proposed Medicare Part B model would jeopardize access to medicines for seniors and patients with disabilities living with devastating conditions such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and other autoimmune diseases,” he added.
However, some organizations did not share these apprehensions.
Though the report did not specifically mention the savings that could be generated by biosimilars, Juliana Reed, president of the Biosimilars Forum said, “We agree with President Trump on the importance of providing Medicare patients with access to affordable treatments and reducing overall costs…The White House’s continued support for biosimilar treatments will help increase the growth of this critical industry.”
Similarly, David Mitchell, the founder of Patients for Affordable Drugs (P4AD), tweeted that the organization “Back[s] reference pricing for Part B; it will lower drug prices for patients on some of most expensive drugs. It’s a good step. But rather than have other nations bargain Part B prices for us, I wish we did it ourselves.”
CMS is currently taking comments on the IPI model until Monday, December 31, 2018, and will aim to issue a proposed rule next spring.
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.