Patients using expensive specialty medications, such as those that treat inflammatory diseases, are particularly impacted by pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) rebates, given the relationship of rebates to price. In the case of biosimilars, rebate strategies may lead to reference biologics being placed on preferred formularies in the United States while less expensive options are kept off the formulary.
Patients using expensive specialty medications, such as those that treat inflammatory diseases, are particularly impacted by pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) rebates, given the relationship of rebates to price. In the case of biosimilars, rebate strategies may lead to reference biologics being placed on preferred formularies in the United States while less expensive options are kept off the formulary.
Noting those points, a 48-page white paper from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) discusses possible alternatives to the pharmaceutical rebate system that currently exists with PBMs. The paper, “Value, Access, and Incentives for Innovation: Policy Perspectives on Alternative Models for Pharmaceutical Rebates,” discusses 3 alternative options to the current rebate model, along with their respective pros and cons.
The paper cautions that while nearly all players realize that change is coming—for instance, this week UnitedHealthcare said it will expand its drug rebate program that passes rebates from drug makers directly to patients—abrupt change could have unintended consequences.
In January, HHS proposed a rule to exclude rebates from safe harbor protections that currently shelter drug makers’ rebates from federal kickback penalties and reduce patients’ out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs by blocking rebates and discounts given to PBMs, Part D plans, and Medicaid managed care organizations. Instead, the rule would encourage that discounts be turned directly over to patients. The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, the PBM industry association, is actively campaigning against the idea.
Therapeutic areas with substantial rebates include drugs for diabetes and immunologic agents used for conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis. Rebates are also more common in categories with significant competition among branded drugs, especially when the drugs have similar mechanisms of action and few or no differences in risks or benefits. In addition, in the case of biosimilars, some manufacturers of reference biologics contend that these newer therapies cannot get preferable formulary placement over existing leading drugs. The older drugs have multiple indications and billions of dollars of sales, which in turn generate substantial rebates, meaning that payers would lose money by switching.
ICER, an independent, nonprofit organization that seeks to improve healthcare value by providing comprehensive clinical and cost-effectiveness analyses of treatments, tests, and procedures, conducted a literature review and evaluated written responses to the HHS blueprint on drug pricing. They also held 10 interviews with representatives from PBMs, public and private payers, manufacturers, academics, benefit consultants, and trade associations.
The first 2 alternatives ICER presents represent some adjustments to and tweaking of the current system and may be implemented alone or together. The third, more transformative option, would end rebates altogether, moving exclusively to a system of upfront discounts.
All 3 options were evaluated against the following criteria:
Under the first option, PBMs would be paid only through fees from insurers in an effort to end the incentive for PBMs to develop restrictive formularies that favor highly rebated drugs despite higher net costs for payers. However, one possible pitfall is that new “fees” could be developed that would create the same effect. Therefore, the paper said, only if this option were implemented alongside transparent contacting would any real change take place.
The paper notes a 100% pass-through model will be most effective; patients might see the most benefit from this model if their cost-sharing is linked to list price (which could lead to better adherence and outcomes), because with less incentive for higher rebates, list prices and the gross-net gap may decline.
A 100% pass-through model could be combined with the second option, which would require some proportion of rebates to be shared with patients at the point of sale (POS), as UnitedHealthcare plans to do. The issue with this option is that providing POS rebates would require providing information to patients that inadvertently discloses the gross-to-net price gap, eliminating confidentiality of the rebate level and undermining the negotiating power held by payers through their ability to get confidential rebates.
In addition, giving some POS rebates to individual patients that would have otherwise gone back to the insurer means the insurer would not have the option to use those funds to lower premiums. As a result, the broader population could see higher premiums even if individual costs fall at the pharmacy level.
The third option, ending rebates and moving to upfront discounts, is what the Trump administration is trying to do with its plan to end rebates in Medicare Part D. However, implementing this strategy more broadly would require a change to the payment structures for wholesalers and pharmacies, and it could face legal challenged. A chargeback model would likely have to be implemented, under which manufacturers and wholesalers could coordinate pharmacy reimbursement based on compiled reporting or prescription claims records. This would require technology investments, and it may be more difficult for independent pharmacies to quickly adapt to.
The third option is the option that would comprehensively benefit the entry of new biosimilars into the marketplace, however, since discounts would not be linked to market share; in addition, it would be easier to create a value-based formulary based on market share.
The first 2 options would either have no effect on competition or on the ability to create value-based formularies, or it would be more complicated to do so, the paper said.
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.