Is It Working? Evaluating The First Round Of Medicare Drug Price Negotiations

Laura Tollen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2024.00994

Abstract:In the short and longer terms, the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program should be evaluated based on four categories of outcomes: beneficiary access, prices and spending, promotion of value, and effects on innovation.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Medicare Drug Price Negotiation in the United States: Implications and Unanswered Questions

Sean D Sullivan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.11.015

Abstract:The United States is a relatively free-pricing market for pharmaceutical manufacturers to set list prices at the product launch. Few drug price controls exist, and federal price negotiation as a policy has historically been politically untenable. After decades of debate on whether the federal government, specifically the Medicare program, should more actively manage drug prices, the US Congress passed legislation authorizing Medicare to directly negotiate prices with manufacturers. The purpose of this article is to describe elements and implementation of the price negotiation provisions and then comment on the potential impacts on payers, innovations, and the pharmaceutical industry. While impacting only a few drugs each year in the beginning, price negotiation in the Medicare program will have secondary and long-term effects in the US market and beyond. It is clear that in the United States, the Medicare market for drugs will no longer be a free-pricing environment in the industry.
Predicting the next round of drugs for Medicare price negotiation

Matthew Vogel,Adam Tellier,Rena M. Conti

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.adq5711

IF: 17.1

2024-12-06

Science Translational Medicine

Abstract:There is uncertainty regarding which brand-name prescription drugs will have their prices negotiated by Medicare in 2025. This Viewpoint analyzes the process that will be used to select the next 15 drugs for price negotiation.

cell biology,medicine, research & experimental
Assessing clinical benefit in the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program: A 2-step approach for improving transparency, consistency, and meaningful patient engagement

Michael J DiStefano,Antal Zemplenyi,R Brett McQueen,Michael J. DiStefano,R. Brett McQueen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2024.23255

2024-01-19

Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy

Abstract:In early 2024, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will send initial price offers to the manufacturers of the first 10 drugs selected for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, established under the Inflation Reduction Act. However, CMS has not specified exactly how it will adjust the starting point for an initial price offer based on assessment of a drug's clinical benefit. This article addresses unanswered questions relating to CMS' methods for assessing clinical benefit. Specifically, we address how CMS can weigh various measures of evidence, ensure transparency and consistency, meaningfully incorporate patient and other stakeholder perspectives, and support addressing evidence gaps. We propose a 2-step approach for assessing the overall clinical benefit of a selected drug compared with its therapeutic alternatives that builds on the framework outlined by CMS. In step 1, CMS would evaluate conventional clinical benefit, defined in terms of outcomes commonly used in clinical studies for the selected drug and indications. In step 2, CMS would evaluate other outcomes broadly related to patient experience that are not adequately represented in the clinical literature. Overall, our approach incorporates the advantages of both qualitative and quantitative approaches to value assessment and decision-making. We describe a set of loose decision rules to improve transparency and consistency, recommend incorporating ranks and weights to signal to researchers and manufacturers which elements of clinical benefit and sources of data are the most important, and center meaningful deliberation with clinical experts, patients, and caregivers.

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services
Getting the Price Right: Lessons for Medicare Price Negotiation from Peer Countries

Leah Z. Rand,Aaron S. Kesselheim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01195-x

2022-11-10

PharmacoEconomics

Abstract:The USA pays more for brand-name prescription drugs than any other country and new legislation from August 2022 gives Medicare the authority to directly negotiate certain drug prices with manufacturers starting in 2026—something the federal insurer had been prohibited from doing for its prior history. As the USA prepares for negotiations, we therefore surveyed how comparable industrialized countries use statutory requirements and procedures to negotiate brand-name drug prices. Guidance documents, regulations, government and academic publications were reviewed to identify the process of negotiating drug prices in peer countries that have been cited as potential examples for US payment reform: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, and the UK. Processes for arriving at a final price for a drug generally fall under three approaches: statutory rebates, setting a maximum price, and arbitration between national (public) insurers and manufacturers. Each approach to price negotiation could be adopted by Medicare and reduce spending even if Medicare does not adopt an exclusionary or closed formulary. Much remains to be determined about how the new price negotiation authority in the USA will be implemented, and policymakers can learn from comparator countries' statutory and regulatory strategies for price negotiation.

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services,health policy & services,economics
Integrating Price Benchmarks and Comparative Clinical Effectiveness to Inform the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program

Sean D Sullivan,Olivier J Wouters,Emma M Cousin,Ayuri S Kirihennedige,Inmaculada Hernandez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.08.001

2024-08-21

Abstract:Objectives: By September 2024, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will publicly report the negotiated prices (Maximum Fair Prices) for the first 10 drugs selected for price negotiation. We estimate initial price offers based on net prices, statutorily defined ceilings, and comparative effectiveness data for the 10 drugs and their therapeutic alternatives. Methods: We utilized net prices and other price benchmarks for the 10 drugs and their therapeutic alternatives. We searched for data on comparative clinical effectiveness for the primary indications. We outlined a range of plausible initial price offers based on CMS guidance and our interpretation of regulatory intent. Results: For ibrutinib and ustekinumab, statutorily defined ceiling prices will likely determine the initial price offers. The integration of net pricing and clinical evidence from comparator branded products will inform the initial price offers for apixaban, empagliflozin, etanercept, and insulin aspart. Rivaroxaban and sacubitril/valsartan have therapeutic alternatives that are generics; therefore, CMS may apply a discount to current net prices. To achieve savings in the negotiation of dapagliflozin and sitagliptin, CMS will have to leverage additional negotiation factors because statutory defined ceilings and net prices of therapeutic alternatives are similar or higher. Conclusions: This analysis sheds light on important price benchmarks and clinical evidence factors for the determination of the initial price offers. Although we were not able to simulate the offer and counter-offer process, our findings provide a transparent and systematic way to produce initial offers that are consistent with CMS guidance.
A Comparative Analysis of International Drug Price Negotiation Frameworks: An Interview Study of Key Stakeholders

ISELIN DAHLEN SYVERSEN,KEVIN SCHULMAN,AARON S. KESSELHEIM,WILLIAM B. FELDMAN

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12714

2024-09-19

Milbank Quarterly

Abstract:Policy Points Health care systems around the world rely on a range of methods to ensure the affordability of prescription drugs, including negotiating prices soon after drug approval and relying on formal clinical assessments that compare newly approved therapies with existing alternatives. The negotiation framework established under the Inflation Reduction Act is far more limited than other frameworks explored in this study. Adding elements from these frameworks could lead to more effective price negotiation in the United States. Context In 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which allowed Medicare, for the first time, to begin negotiating the prices for certain high‐cost brand‐name prescription drugs. Many other industrialized countries negotiate drug prices, and we sought to compare and contrast key features of the negotiation process across several health systems. We focused, in particular, on the criteria for selecting drugs for price negotiation, procedures for negotiation, factors that influence negotiated prices, and how prices are implemented. Methods We included four G7 countries in our analysis (Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom [England]), two Benelux countries (Belgium and the Netherlands), and one Scandinavian country (Norway) with long‐established frameworks for drug price negotiation. We also analyzed the Veterans Affairs Health System in the United States. For each system, we gathered relevant legislation, government publications, and guidelines to understand negotiation frameworks, and we reached out to key drug price negotiators in each system to conduct semistructured interviews. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded, and data were analyzed based on an internal assessment tool that we developed. Findings All eight systems negotiate the prices of brand‐name prescription drugs soon after approval and rely on formal clinical assessments that compare newly approved drugs with existing therapies. Systems in our study differed on characteristics such as whether the body performing clinical assessments is separate from the negotiating authority, how added health benefit is assessed, whether explicit willingness‐to‐pay thresholds are employed, and how specific approaches for priority disease areas are taken. Conclusions High‐income countries around the world adopt different approaches to conducting price negotiations on brand‐name drugs but coalesce around a set of practices that will largely be absent from the current Medicare negotiation framework. US policymakers might consider adding some of these characteristics in the future to improve negotiation outcomes.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Medicare price negotiation and pharmaceutical innovation following the Inflation Reduction Act

Matthew Vogel,Pragya Kakani,Amitabh Chandra,Rena M. Conti

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-023-02096-w

IF: 46.9

2024-02-01

Nature Biotechnology

Abstract:The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) requires Medicare to negotiate lower prices for some medicines with high Medicare spending. Using historical data from public and proprietary sources to apply the IRA's negotiation criteria retrospectively, we identify all drugs that met the eligibility criteria from 2012 to 2021 to classify drugs that would have had a negotiated price in effect in 2022 and to calculate associated decreases in industry revenues. Our results suggest that the IRA's reduction in overall industry revenue will be modest, will not affect most top-selling drugs and will not likely result in large-scale defunding of research and development. Changes in the net present value of drug-development projects will be concentrated in medicines where Medicare is a notable purchaser and where the ratio between expected revenue and development costs was only marginally positive before the IRA. Policymakers considering narrowing or expanding the scope of Medicare negotiation should carefully consider the tradeoffs across medicines with diverse characteristics.

biotechnology & applied microbiology
Drugs anticipated to be selected for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program in 2025

Emma M Cousin,Sean D Sullivan,Ryan N Hansen,Nico Gabriel,Ayuri S Kirihennedige,Inmaculada Hernandez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2024.24167

Abstract:Background: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced the Maximum Fair Price for the first 10 Medicare Part D drugs selected for price negotiation. By February 2025, CMS should announce the list of Part D drugs to be negotiated with implementation of the negotiated prices in 2027. Objective: To identify up to 15 Medicare Part D single-source drugs anticipated to be selected by CMS for price negotiation in 2025. Methods: We followed selection criteria identified in the Inflation Reduction Act and CMS guidance to identify drugs. We projected 2023 Part D gross spending using 2020-2022 data reported by CMS and linear prediction models. We ranked products according to the projected spending figure and identified those not eligible for selection because of (1) number of years since approval, (2) availability of a biosimilar or generic version, (3) approval for a single orphan indication, (4) whole human blood or plasma-derived, or (5) eligibility for the small biotech exception. Results: We identified 13 products likely subject to Medicare drug price negotiation, including 4 anticancer therapies, 3 noninsulin antidiabetic products, 2 inhalers, 1 antifibrotic therapy, 1 gastrointestinal agent, 1 enzyme replacement therapy, and 1 product indicated for dyskinesia. These 13 products each had projected annual gross Part D spending more than $1 billion. We identified 7 additional products with uncertainty to complete the list of 15, including an insulin, an antiviral, an antibiotic, an immunologic agent, an antidiabetic, and 2 cancer drugs. These products had projected gross Part D spending between $877 million and $1.399 billion. Twenty-two products with comparable levels of spending were deemed ineligible for selection because of availability of a generic or biosimilar version (10 products), insufficient years since approval (8 products), eligibility for the small biotech exception (3 products), and expected market discontinuation (1 product). Conclusions: Our identification of products anticipated to be selected for negotiation in 2025 (with implementation of negotiated prices in 2027) will help inform manufacturers, payers, patients, and policymakers of the products that will likely see a decrease in Medicare drug prices as result of negotiation. We identified 22 products with levels of spending that are comparable with those anticipated to be selected for negotiation but are not eligible, primarily because of generic or biosimilar availability or insufficient time on market.
Identifying therapeutic alternatives in Medicare drug price negotiation: The case of etanercept

Helen Mooney,Matthew Martin,Liam Bendicksen,Aaron S Kesselheim,Benjamin N Rome,Hussain S Lalani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2023.23209

2024-03-01

Abstract:As the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) navigates the process of negotiating drug prices, it plans to compare the cost, safety, and effectiveness of each drug with its therapeutic alternatives. How CMS selects therapeutic alternatives is a consequential decision, and there remains uncertainty about their methodology. To understand the challenges CMS will face in selecting therapeutic alternatives, we developed a methodology that leverages clinical guidelines by US medical professional associations to identify potential therapeutic alternatives for etanercept, one of the first 10 drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation. For each of etanercept's 5 US Food and Drug Administration-approved indications, we identified all drugs with the same mechanism of action as etanercept and considered drugs with different mechanisms if they were recommended in place of etanercept at the same treatment stage, or if there was no strong comparative safety or effectiveness evidence that the drug differed from etanercept. We identified 22 potential therapeutic alternatives to etanercept, including 4 drugs with the same mechanism, 10 biologics with different mechanisms, and 8 small-molecule drugs. We faced several challenges in selecting therapeutic alternatives using clinical guidelines, such as how to reconcile strong recommendations that were based on weak evidence and how to consider combination therapies. This exercise demonstrates the complex considerations that CMS will face as it negotiates drug prices based on therapies' cost, safety, and effectiveness relative to therapeutic alternatives.
Administrative action on drug pricing: Lessons and opportunities for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation

Ian T T Liu,Hussain S Lalani,Aaron S Kesselheim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2023.23208

2024-03-01

Abstract:Background: In October 2022, the Biden administration issued an executive order to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) to develop new health care payment and delivery models to lower prescription drug costs and promote access to innovative therapies. In response, the agency proposed 3 novel drug payment models for testing. Objective: To understand the impact that CMMI demonstration projects can have on the prescription drug market. Methods: We examined each of the models listed on the CMMI website and searched the Federal Register and news articles for additional models that contained interventions related to patient out-of-pocket drug costs, Medicare drug spending, or Medicaid drug spending. We excluded models with indirect effects on drug costs (for example, bundled payments). We comprehensively reviewed all previous cases in which CMMI has attempted models addressing prescription drug costs and spending and evaluated the circumstances, impact, and lessons learned that may aid policymakers in the design and implementation of new models. Results: We identified 9 CMMI models containing direct interventions related to drug costs. Among prior models addressing drug prices, nearly half (44%, 4/9) were not implemented because of their scope, voluntary nature, and procedural challenges. No implemented models met the CMMI standard for expansion, although key elements of the Senior Savings model limiting monthly insulin costs to $35 were later incorporated into the Inflation Reduction Act. Conclusions: In future CMMI implementation efforts, we suggest maximizing voluntary collaboration when selection bias concerns are minimal, using mandatory models when not, ensuring that the geographic scope is not overly ambitious, and adhering closely to statutory authority and established administrative procedure to minimize legal challenges and maximize model demonstration utility.
A summit on amplifying voices of patients, caregivers, and people with disabilities in Inflation Reduction Act drug price negotiations

Maxine Miller,Sara van Geertruyden,M Claire Saxton,Courtney Yohe Savage,Debbie Weir,Sally Werner,M. Claire Saxton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2024.23278

2024-01-30

Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy

Abstract:On September 18, 2023, Cancer Support Community convened patient and caregiver advocates, health care providers, policy experts, and health care innovators and thought leaders for a roundtable discussion on the need to ensure that patients, people with disabilities, and caregivers have a voice in defining "clinical benefit" for the purpose of Medicare Part D drug price negotiations and future health care policies that impact patients. The meeting featured presentations from Lara Strawbridge, Deputy Director for Policy at the Medicare Drug Rebate and Negotiations Group in the Center for Medicare, regulatory expert, Dr Monique Nolan, Counsel at Arnold and Porter, LLP, and 3 panel discussions: IRA Implementation-What Matters to Patients, a discussion of policies expected to impact patients and caregivers who are likely to rely heavily on high-cost drugs or biologics to treat cancer or other chronic illnesses, as well as the future development of novel therapies; The Science of Measuring Patient Experience, a discussion of current science of measuring patient experience and how it should be incorporated into the definition of clinical benefit; and Developing an Infrastructure for External Feedback, a discussion of actions and goals for patient engagement, advocacy opportunities, and how to best coordinate such efforts. This article represents an analysis of relevant resources as well as highlights from these sessions and subsequent discussions. It also outlines principles for engaging patient and provider advocacy organizations, whether in policy, media, or online discussions, surrounding the implementation of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program.

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services
Drug Pricing Stewardship from Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Generic Drug Program

Snigdha Gulati,Mohak Gupta,TingTing Yan,Sneha Yelamanchili,Lucy Qinghua Xu,Tina Bharani,Ali Naji,Divyansh Agarwal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01426-3

2024-08-21

PharmacoEconomics

Abstract:Importance: The exceedingly high US spending per capita on prescription medications is mediated, at least in part, by the inefficiencies of existing generic pharmaceutical distribution and reimbursement systems; yet, the extent of potential savings and areas for targeted interventions for generic drug prescribers remains underexplored. Objective: We aimed to analyze 2021 Medicare Part D spending on generic drugs in comparison with pricing of a low-cost generic drug program, the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC), to gauge the extent of achievable potential savings. Design, setting, and participants: In this retrospective, observational study, we performed a systematic analysis of potential Medicare Part D savings when using MCCPDC generic pricing. The 2023 MCCPDC data, as of August 2023, were obtained from the provider's publicly available database. The 2021 Medicare Part D data and prescriber datasets were obtained from the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Main outcomes and measures: Outcomes included total prescription volume, proportion of drugs with savings, total US dollar Medicare savings, and average weighted price reduction per unit drug. Results were stratified by medical and surgical subspecialties to identify areas for targeted interventions. Subspecialty-wise contribution to total savings versus contribution to total prescription volume was characterized. Results: Total estimated Medicare Part D savings were $8.6 billion using 90-day MCCPDC pricing, with surgical drugs accounting for over $900 million. Nearly 80% of the examined drugs were more price effective through MCCPDC using 90-day supply. Commonly prescribed drugs in cardiology, psychiatry, neurology, transplant surgery, and urology demonstrated the highest estimated absolute savings. The most disproportionate savings relative to prescription volume were observed for drugs in oncology, gynecology, infectious disease, transplant surgery, and colorectal surgery. Conclusions and relevance: This study underscores the significant potential for Medicare Part D savings through strategies that address the systemic overpayment for generic medications. We identified key areas for reform as well as specific medical and surgical subspecialties where targeted interventions could yield substantial savings.
The Influence of Medicare Part D on the List Pricing of Brand Drugs

Benedic N. Ippolito,Joseph F. Levy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14139

2023-02-04

Health Services Research

Abstract:Objective To compare the Medicare Part D market share of brand drugs with their net‐to‐list price ratio. Data Sources and Study Setting SSR Health Brand Net Price Tool and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2007‐2019. Study Design For each drug, we calculated the ratio of net to list price and the percent of users that were Medicare‐eligible. We compared these cross sectionally in each year and estimated a difference‐in‐differences model comparing drugs with high or low Medicare market shares (MMS) after following changes to program incentives in 2010. Data Collection/Extraction Methods The sample included brand drugs without generic competitors appearing in both data sets. Principal Findings Net‐to‐list price ratios were negatively correlated with MMS in the later years of our sample. In 2019, a 10% increase in MMS was associated with a significant 4.6% [95% CI:2.1%,7.1%] decrease in net‐to‐list ratio. Difference‐in‐differences showed net to list price ratios of drugs with above median MMS fell relative to those with below median MMS. By 2019, we observe an absolute reduction of ‐0.2 [95% CI:‐0.29,‐0.11], representing 28% reduction relative to the average ratio in 2010. Conclusions Greater exposure to the Medicare Part D market was associated with larger differences between net and list prices of drugs.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
The impact of reimbursement negotiations on cost and availability of new pharmaceuticals: evidence from an online experiment

Dominik J Wettstein,Stefan Boes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-020-00267-y

2020-05-21

Abstract:Background: The necessity to measure and reward "value for money" of new pharmaceuticals has become central in health policy debates, as much as the requirement to assess the "willingness to pay" for an additional, quality-adjusted life year (QALY). There is a clear need to understand the capacity of "value-based" pricing policies to impact societal goals, like timely access to new treatments, sustainable health budgets, or incentivizing research to improve patient outcomes. Not only the pricing mechanics, but also the process of value assessment and price negotiation are subject to reform demands. This study assesses the impact of a negotiation situation for life-extending pharmaceuticals on societal outcomes. Of interest were general effects of the bargaining behaviour, as well as differences caused by the assigned role and the magnitude of prices. Methods: We ran an online experiment (n = 404) on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Participants were randomly assigned into four treatment groups for a reimbursement negotiation between two roles (health minister, pharma representative) in two price framings. Payoff to players consisted of a fixed salary and a potential bonus, depending on their preferences, their price offer and the counter offer of a randomly paired negotiation partner. Success had real social consequences on other MTurk users (premium payers, investors) and via donations to a patient association. Results: Margins between reservation prices and price offers increased throughout the game. Yet, 47% of players reduced at least once and 15% always their bonus probability to zero in favour of an agreement. 61% of simulated negotiation pairs could have reached an agreement, based on their preferences. 63% of these were successful, leaving 61% of patients with no access to the new treatment. The group with "real world" prices had lower prices and less agreements than the unconverted payoff group. The successful markets redistributed 20% of total assets from premium payers to investors over five innovation cycles. Conclusions: The negotiation situation for pharmaceutical reimbursement has notable impact on societal outcomes. Further research should evaluate policies that align preferences and increase negotiation success.
Alternative approaches to measuring value: an update on innovative methods in the context of the United States Medicare drug price negotiation program

Michael J. DiStefano,Antal Zemplenyi,Kelly E. Anderson,Nicholas D. Mendola,Kavita V. Nair,Robert Brett McQueen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2023.2283584

2023-11-14

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: The United States has begun assessing the value of pharmaceuticals to inform negotiated prices in the Medicare program. Given strong political objections in the United States to the use of QALYs, Medicare will need to adopt an alternative approach to measuring value.AREAS COVERED: In this narrative review, we identified six alternative approaches to measuring value (equal value life-years, health years in total, generalized risk-adjusted cost-effectiveness, severity weighting based on absolute or proportional shortfall, comparative effectiveness based on conventional clinical endpoints, and comparative effectiveness based on both conventional endpoints and patient-centric value elements) and five criteria for assessing these approaches (responsiveness to concerns about discrimination, feasibility, transparency, flexibility, and the ability to incorporate factors beyond traditional value elements).EXPERT OPINION: Four of the alternatives are broadly aligned with the cost-effectiveness framework, but none fully addresses all aspects of the stated concerns that QALYs may be used to unintentionally implement discrimination. We note, however, that the extent to which these concerns lead to discrimination in practice is unknown. Finally, we recommend an approach for measuring value in terms of comparative effectiveness that combines quantitative ranking and weighting of distinct criteria (including patient-centric value elements) with deliberation.

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Estimating Rebates and Other Discounts Received by Medicare Part D

William B Feldman,Benjamin N Rome,Véronique C Raimond,Joshua J Gagne,Aaron S Kesselheim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.0626

2021-06-04

JAMA Health Forum

Abstract:Importance: Spending in Medicare Part D continues to increase. Yet, studies of Medicare Part D are plagued by a common limitation: none can fully account for confidential rebates and other discounts that drug manufacturers and pharmacies pay to Medicare Part D plans. Objectives: To review existing methods and to propose an approach for estimating rebates and other discounts received by Medicare Part D. Evidence review: Publicly available data from the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, and the Office of Inspector General. Findings: Existing methods for estimating rebates and other discounts in Medicare Part D have several limitations. This analysis used an approach that aims to improve on those methods. Based on this approach, estimated discounts on brand-name drugs increased in Medicare Part D from 25.4% of gross brand-name spending in 2014 to 37.3% in 2018. There was substantial variation between classes, with estimated 2016 discounts surpassing 50% for some drugs (eg, ophthalmologic and gastrointestinal tract agents) while remaining below 10% for others (eg, antineoplastic and immunologic agents). Between 2014 and 2018, estimated net Medicare Part D spending on prescription drugs increased by 21% from $99 billion to $119 billion. With increasing enrollment, estimated annual net spending per beneficiary remained stable, increasing by just 3% from $2622 to $2694, which was below the 6% rate of inflation during the same period. Conclusions and relevance: Models that fail to properly account for increasing rebates and other discounts will overestimate Medicare Part D expenditures. Rigorous and transparent methods for estimating discounts are critical for understanding patterns in spending and developing new cost-containment strategies.
Current issues in pharmaceutical reimbursement

Steven Fijalka,David Fye,Philip E Johnson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp070620

2008-01-15

Abstract:Purpose: Six issues in pharmaceutical reimbursement arising from recent or proposed changes in Medicare rules or rates or the health care environment are described, along with possible strategies for addressing these issues. Summary: Recent reductions in Medicare pharmaceutical reimbursement rates, increases in use of specialty pharmacies, proposed changes in rules for erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) reimbursement, increases in need for patient assistance programs, proposed changes in the clinical trial policy, and possible reductions in reimbursement for cases involving medication errors or other negative events as part of pay-for-performance initiatives are cause for concern. A multidisciplinary team approach to improving reimbursement can reduce institutional financial losses and increase options for Medicare beneficiaries. Health-system pharmacists can address concerns about the use of specialty pharmacies by collaborating with payers and specialty pharmacies on the development of workable models for safely obtaining, handling, and administering medications. Proposed rules for ESA reimbursement contain numerous flaws that could compromise patient outcomes. Pharmacists should provide the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and their fiscal intermediaries with feedback on the potential impact of the proposed rules. The use of patient assistance programs can decrease financial losses associated with providing pharmaceuticals to underinsured or uninsured patients, but these programs can present pharmacists with logistical challenges. The proposed clinical research policy gives priority for research efforts and limited health care dollars to the health issues that are most important to Medicare beneficiaries, but details pertaining to implementation and funding have not yet been worked out. Pharmacists should voice opposition to pay-for-performance models that do not support a nonpunitive culture of openness in reporting quality indicators. Conclusion: An understanding of issues in the current health care environment arising from recent and proposed changes in Medicare rules and rates for pharmaceutical reimbursement can help position pharmacists to manage these issues.
Recent Pricing Negotiations on Innovative Medicines Pilot in China: Experiences, Implications, and Suggestions

Hong Li,Gordon G. Liu,Jing Wu,Jiu-Hong Wu,Chao-Hui Dong,Shan-Lian Hu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2018.01.009

2018-01-01

Value in Health Regional Issues

Abstract:The China National Formulary (CNF) for reimbursable drug use, also known as the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL), was formally established in 2000, revised in 2004 and 2009, and covers 52% of China’s population under the government urban health insurance programs. A third major and long-awaited update to the formulary was completed in February 2017 based on intensive reviews by a group of experts in medicine, pharmacology, health economics, and health policy. Shortly after this major update, a pilot project at the central government level was implemented for negotiations mainly on innovative but expensive medicines that were still outside the National Formulary. The pilot, conducted between March and July 2017, eventually reached an overall agreement rate of 81.8% regarding approved indications and drug prices between China’s government and the pharmaceutical companies. This pilot showcased numerous leading edge features including a working definition of innovative medicines and opportunities to submit dossiers on drug clinical and economic information. This pilot covered 44 medications for negotiations in a breakthrough attempt to increase the appropriate access to innovative but expensive medicines. The implications to the future of the CNF go beyond the drugs included in the pilot. This paper describes the background of the CNF and the negotiation pilot. In addition, authors of this paper make six recommendations critical to CNF future developments, including enhancing criteria and process for evaluations, standardizing the dossier format, specifying data requirements, refining pricing calculation, and cultivating evaluation professional development.
Estimated Savings Under the Medicare High-Value Drug List Model

Christopher L. Cai,Aaron S. Kesselheim,Benjamin N. Rome

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.4846

2024-09-23

JAMA Internal Medicine

Abstract:This cross-sectional study describes potential reductions in out-of-pocket costs for generic medications among Medicare beneficiaries.

medicine, general & internal
Industry price guarantees for publicly funded medicines: learning from Project NextGen for pandemics and beyond

Holly Fernandez Lynch,Rena M Conti,Jorge L Contreras

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsae019

2024-09-11

Abstract:The affordability of publicly funded medicines has been a longstanding concern. In 2023, the Biden administration took several steps on this front, including incorporation of a price constraint in an agreement between the US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to develop a new COVID-19 monoclonal antibody. The agreement included a 'Most Favored Nation' (MFN) clause in which Regeneron agreed that the US commercial list price of certain products developed using BARDA funding would not exceed their retail price in comparable global markets. The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR) included similar language in subsequent agreements, with a promise that this would become a new standard. Even beyond the preparedness context, government funders and purchasers might consider incorporating similar clauses in future contracts, especially given that the Regeneron agreement and its progeny have been praised as 'groundbreaking.' Yet a closer look reveals cause for skepticism. Regeneron's MFN clause includes several loopholes related to covered purchasers and reference countries, prices, and conditions. We describe agreement terms that can make the difference between legally meaningful price constraints and mere window dressing. Our critical analysis offers important lessons for future efforts to improve the affordability of medical technology developed with public funds.

Is It Working? Evaluating The First Round Of Medicare Drug Price Negotiations

Medicare Drug Price Negotiation in the United States: Implications and Unanswered Questions

Predicting the next round of drugs for Medicare price negotiation

Assessing clinical benefit in the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program: A 2-step approach for improving transparency, consistency, and meaningful patient engagement

Getting the Price Right: Lessons for Medicare Price Negotiation from Peer Countries

Integrating Price Benchmarks and Comparative Clinical Effectiveness to Inform the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program

A Comparative Analysis of International Drug Price Negotiation Frameworks: An Interview Study of Key Stakeholders

Medicare price negotiation and pharmaceutical innovation following the Inflation Reduction Act

Drugs anticipated to be selected for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program in 2025

Identifying therapeutic alternatives in Medicare drug price negotiation: The case of etanercept

Administrative action on drug pricing: Lessons and opportunities for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation

A summit on amplifying voices of patients, caregivers, and people with disabilities in Inflation Reduction Act drug price negotiations

Drug Pricing Stewardship from Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Generic Drug Program

The Influence of Medicare Part D on the List Pricing of Brand Drugs

The impact of reimbursement negotiations on cost and availability of new pharmaceuticals: evidence from an online experiment

Alternative approaches to measuring value: an update on innovative methods in the context of the United States Medicare drug price negotiation program

Estimating Rebates and Other Discounts Received by Medicare Part D

Current issues in pharmaceutical reimbursement

Recent Pricing Negotiations on Innovative Medicines Pilot in China: Experiences, Implications, and Suggestions

Estimated Savings Under the Medicare High-Value Drug List Model

Industry price guarantees for publicly funded medicines: learning from Project NextGen for pandemics and beyond