While policymakers are grappling with ways to reduce to cost of expensive prescription drugs, one of the proposed solutions—targeting rebates negotiated by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)—will not on its own be enough to reduce overall pharmaceutical spending, according to a new brief from The Commonwealth Fund.
While policymakers are grappling with ways to reduce to cost of expensive prescription drugs, one of the proposed solutions—targeting rebates negotiated by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)—will not on its own be enough to reduce overall pharmaceutical spending, according to a new brief from The Commonwealth Fund.
The brief’s authors, Elizabeth Seeley and Aaron S. Kesselheim, reached out to 5 experts and conducted a literature review, and they found 2 main themes—the practice of rebates and the prospect of future changes to the industry.
There is an overall lack of transparency in prescription drug pricing, given the complex web between PBMs, drug companies, and health plans. PBMs negotiate a rebate from pharmaceutical companies and in turn pass some of the rebate back to health plans; in return, the drug company may receive better placement for its product on a multi-tiered formulary. The size of the rebate, and its impact on price, is typically murky.
Manufacturers pay the rebates at the point of sale to the PBM, and these rebates can make up 40% or more of the drug’s list price. The size depends on a number of factors, including the number of competing products and the formulary placement.
By negotiating rebates, PBMs say they tackle the issue of high list process set by pharma companies. But since drug-specific rebates are kept confidential in contracts between manufacturers and PBMs, commercial payers have limited ability to assess savings success.
PBMs report that in many of their contracts, 90% of rebates are passed on to health plans and payers, although small payers and employers have reported that they did not receive that percentage.
Critics contend that PBMs may have an incentive to prioritize high-priced drugs over more cost-effective medicines, since PBMs are reimbursed partially on the rebates they obtain, which are calculated as a percentage of a drug’s list price.
As a result, policymakers have begun questioning the PBMs in a larger context—how do they impact the value of pharmaceutical spending overall?
There have been 2 main proposals put forth about rebates—a pass-through to payers and a pass-through to patients. Similar to a paper released last month by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), however, the authors of the current brief found potential unintended consequences to the reforms.
Passing rebates to payers
If, as some in Congress as well as HHS have suggested, rebates are passed to payers, there could be unintended ramifications, the authors suggest. If PBMs are not allowed to keep any of the rebates they negotiate, they may have reduced incentives to negotiate greater savings.
Another alternative includes a legislative requirement that PBMs pass through at least 90% of their rebate savings to all payers, including small health plans and employers—in other words, to enforce what the PBM industry claims is current practice. The authors note some challenges with this approach. If there is no public disclosure of rebate levels, manufacturers could offer lower rebates, or may not grant rebates at all. However, the authors suggest that the government could avoid public disclosure of confidential data through the use of a central oversight body, similar to the Medicaid Best Pricing Rule, that requires manufacturers to submit their best price data to CMS.
Passing rebates to patients
UnitedHealthcare announced a plan to pass rebates back to customers to reduce their out-of-pocket costs (OOP), and last year, HHS proposed tying Medicare Part D beneficiary cost-sharing to rebate levels. The authors said that, while this approach may improve transparency and reduce OOP costs in the short term, the change would also result in higher overall drug spending from reduced savings passed on from PBMs to health plans, and ultimately, higher health plan premiums. As a result, the Congressional Budget Office estimates a budget increase of $43.4 billion over 10 years to cover the additional premium increases for Part D plans.
More recently, HHS proposed to exclude rebates from safe harbor protections that currently shelter drug makers’ rebates from penalties under the federal anti-kickback statute, and would create new safe harbor for discounts offered to patients, as well as fixed-fee service arrangements between drug makers and PBMs. Manufacturers and PBMs could negotiate rebates on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries only if the rebates are fully passed through at the point of sale. The authors write that, if passed, “this regulatory change could completely alter the current pharmaceutical reimbursement methodology in the [United States] without a clear understanding of the impact.”
Consequences
It is unlikely that drug makers would lower list prices in the absence of rebates; more likely they would keep them around the same level, the authors write. Instead, they might choose to offer up front discounts to different PBMs, which may not be any more transparent than rebates.
Another option could be a system based on a comparison of clinical value; the authors noted that both CVS and Express Scripts have introduced new reimbursement models for PBM formulary management, which could signal a realization by the industry that change is on the horizon. What remains unknown is the degree to which price and rebate data must be publicly available and whether changes improve the value of drugs purchased.
In deciding what creates value in the context of overall healthcare spending, the authors wrote, policymakers seeking to reform pharmaceutical reimbursement rebates will need to consider these changes in light of vertical consolidation in the healthcare industry as well as new market entrants, such as the Amazon-PillPack combination.
Exploring the Biosimilar Horizon: Julie Reed's Predictions for 2024
February 18th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, returns to discuss her predictions for the biosimilar industry for 2024 and beyond as well as the impact that the Forum's 4 new members will have on the organization's mission.
The 6 Key Policy Factors to Ensure Biosimilar Market Sustainability
April 16th 2024Magnus Bodin, senior director and head of international access and policy at Biogen, presented warning signs for unsustainable biosimilar markets as well as key factors needed to create effective policies and future-proof biosimilar markets globally.
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.
Global Biosimilar Market Projected to Reach $1.3 Trillion by 2032
April 11th 2024The global biosimilar market is projected to surge from $25.1 billion in 2022 to approximately $1.3 trillion by 2032, with a compound annual growth rate of 17.6%, driven mainly by the increasing prevalence of cancer and the cost-effectiveness of biosimilars, as outlined in a report by Towards Healthcare.
Biosimilars Council: PBM Rebate Schemes Cost Americans, Payers $6 Billion
April 10th 2024A report from the Biosimilars Council evaluating IQVIA data found that rebate schemes orchestrated by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are costing US patients and payers billions of dollars by suppressing biosimilar adoption.
Exploring the Biosimilar Horizon: Julie Reed's Predictions for 2024
February 18th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, returns to discuss her predictions for the biosimilar industry for 2024 and beyond as well as the impact that the Forum's 4 new members will have on the organization's mission.
The 6 Key Policy Factors to Ensure Biosimilar Market Sustainability
April 16th 2024Magnus Bodin, senior director and head of international access and policy at Biogen, presented warning signs for unsustainable biosimilar markets as well as key factors needed to create effective policies and future-proof biosimilar markets globally.
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.
Global Biosimilar Market Projected to Reach $1.3 Trillion by 2032
April 11th 2024The global biosimilar market is projected to surge from $25.1 billion in 2022 to approximately $1.3 trillion by 2032, with a compound annual growth rate of 17.6%, driven mainly by the increasing prevalence of cancer and the cost-effectiveness of biosimilars, as outlined in a report by Towards Healthcare.
Biosimilars Council: PBM Rebate Schemes Cost Americans, Payers $6 Billion
April 10th 2024A report from the Biosimilars Council evaluating IQVIA data found that rebate schemes orchestrated by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are costing US patients and payers billions of dollars by suppressing biosimilar adoption.
2 Commerce Drive
Cranbury, NJ 08512