During the last panel at the Alliance for Patient Access 4th Annual National Policy and Advocacy Summit on Biologics and Biosimilars, panelists discussed some of the administration’s proposals, such as moving Medicare Part B drugs to Part D, a proposal to end protected drug classes in Medicare, and the International Price Index.
What would the ramifications be in terms of price and access for patients if some of the administration’s price proposals took effect?
During the last panel of the day at the Alliance for Patient Access 4th Annual National Policy and Advocacy Summit on Biologics and Biosimilars, panelists discussed some of the administration’s proposals, such as moving Medicare Part B drugs to Part D, a proposal to end protected drug classes in Medicare, and the International Price Index (IPI).
HHS has proposed shifting Medicare Part B drug costs to Medicare Part D in an effort to reduce pharmaceutical spending and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. Some fear that while the plan may reduce total drug spending, it could increase OOP costs for some beneficiaries.
Kevin Kirby, a partner with The Moran Company said the idea has not yet “died on the vine.”
Physicians are concerned that moving expensive therapies that used to be paid for Part B to Part D prescription drug plans would make them less accessible to patients because of the cost.
“A lot of our patients can’t afford Part D,” said Madelaine Feldman, MD, representing the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, referring to drugs that patients may receive in doctors’ offices, such as injectable biologics.
Feldman said she fears that patient access would be harmed and that the introduction of “middlemen” (ie, pharmacy benefit managers) would negate any savings or hinder patient access.
In Medicare Part D, CMS wants to give the plans more flexibility for which drugs must be included in the protected drug classes. Those classes are antidepressants, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, immunosuppressants for treatment of transplant rejection, antiretrovirals, and antineoplastics.
Currently, all drugs in those classes must be included on Part D formularies; CMS has said that creates an incentive to keep prices high.
Gavin Clingham, with the Alliance for Patient Access, said an insurer would be allowed to go down to 1 drug in each class and expand utilization management tools. He questioned the amount that would be saved, saying that most drugs that are prescribed are already generics.
“Is the disruption [to patients] worth the savings that may come?” he asked.
Feldman said those drugs are protected for a reason. “We’re going to have problems with some of the sickest, most vulnerable patients,” she said.
Another administration proposal, to use an IPI based on drug prices in other countries to determine reimbursement for Part B therapies, was discussed. The IPI model was announced by the Trump administration in October.
Clingham said the proposal, if it applies to 50% of practices in the United States, should not be considered a “demonstration” project as originally envisioned under the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) and said it would have a “disruptive” effect on pricing.
Do reimbursement rates impact physician prescribing behavior? Or whether or not patients have the same access to medication? There is some debate on both those points; Feldman said that the inability to “buy and bill” would hurt practices and that about 30% of patients stop treatment if they can no longer get treatment in their doctor’s office.
Partnering for Biosimilar Security: India's Role in US Health Care Savings, Supply Chain Stability
May 9th 2024As Indian pharmaceutical companies supplied 4 of every 10 prescriptions in the US in 2022, generating $1.3 trillion in health care savings, a new IQVIA report highlights concerns about supply chain risks and advocates for partnerships to bolster biosimilar security and overall supply chain resilience.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for April 2024—Podcast Edition
May 5th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® glances back at all the major biosimilar policy updates from April, including 2 FDA approvals, 1 European approval, and several insights into possible policy changes from the Festival of Biologics USA conference.
Cencora Analysis Shows Differences in Payer Coverage Between G-CSF Biosimilars
May 2nd 2024Data from a Cencora study showed some misalignment in payer coverage of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilars, highlighting that while filgrastim biosimilars are often favored over the originator, reference pegfilgrastim still dominates over its biosimilars.
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
Dr Sophia Humphreys Provides Calls to Action to Ensure Biosimilar Market Sustainability
April 30th 2024During her presentation during Festival of Biologics USA, Sophia Humphreys, PharmD, director of formulary management at Sutter Health, gave an overview of current challenges and opportunities for the biosimilar market and offered calls to action for multiple stakeholders.
Eye on Pharma: EU Ustekinumab Approval; New Golimumab Data; Evernorth Adds Humira Biosimilar
April 29th 2024The European Union gained a new ustekinumab biosimilar; Alvotech released positive results from a clinical trial evaluating a golimumab biosimilar and the reference products (Simponi and Simponi Aria), and Evernorth announced that it is set to cover an adalimumab biosimilar at zero cost to patients.