Major drug companies poured hundreds of millions of dollars into nonprofit patient advocacy groups last year, as a fight over federal legislation to curb rising pharmaceutical prices is underway, Bloomberg Government reports.
Major drug companies poured hundreds of millions of dollars into nonprofit patient advocacy groups last year, as a fight over federal legislation to curb rising pharmaceutical prices is underway, Bloomberg Government reports.
Six drug companies—AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson—gave nonprofits more than $680 million last year, more than double the $321 million donated in 2015, according to tax filings and data provided to the Senate Finance Committee earlier this year. Some of the money also went to educational grants and fellowship programs for physicians, parts of which were run through nonprofits, according to an analysis by Bloomberg.
However, many of those nonprofits are now raising concerns about the bipartisan Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act of 2019, which the Senate Finance Committee cleared in July.
Among other things, the bill includes a major restructuring of the Medicare Part D benefit, one that Congress says would help steer utilization of generics and biosimilars. It would eliminate the coverage gap and establish 25% cost sharing between the annual deductible and the catastrophic threshold, which would be set at $3100 in 2022.
It would also make Medicare responsible for 20% of drug spending in the catastrophic phase, and insurers would pay 60%. Drug makers would provide 20% discounts in the catastrophic phase, including for low-income subsidy beneficiaries, instead of the 70% discount in the coverage gap.
The $680 million sent to nonprofits is far beyond what the drug industry’s official lobbying organization, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, last year: $27.5 million. through the second quarter of 2019, it spent more than $16 million, Bloomberg says.
The report says it’s uncertain how drug maker cash influences patient advocacy groups and what kind of return on investment the companies receive.
However, the opinion of the pharmaceutical industry is at the lowest point it has ever been, according to a recent Gallup poll. Patient advocacy groups, which fund research, medical education, patient education and support, and sometimes co-pay assistance, generally enjoy a greater degree of trust and goodwill. Many often conduct lobbying activities alone or together as a group, sending patients to testify in Congress and in state legislatures.
One group is the coalition MapRx, which was founded by the Lupus Foundation of America in 2005. One of its members, the Patient Access Foundation, received the most amount of funding from the 6 pharmaceutical firms over the past 3 years, Bloomberg says; a spokeswoman said the donations do not influence their activities.
According to a letter sent to the finance committee by MapRx in July, it is in favor of an out-of-pocket cap but is concerned that changes to Part D will restrict beneficiaries’ access to drugs.
Reports about pharma’s influence on the activities of nonprofits are not new. A 2017 report in The New England Journal of Medicine noted that concerns have been raised about industry influence on patient groups, and attempted to quantify the extent of policies related to transparency and conflicts of interest, as well as the breadth of financial support. The authors called for the creation of a “sunshine law” that would cover industry payments to patient organizations.
Reference
McCoy MS, Carniol M, Chockley K, Urwin JW, Emanuel EJ, Schmidt H. Conflicts of interest for patient-advocacy organizations. N Engl J Med 2017; 376:880-885. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1610625.
Julie Reed: Why 2024 Is Important for Biosimilars
April 17th 2024Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, showcases how the biosimilar industry is expected to develop throughout 2024, including major policy changes and hope for continued improvement in market share for adalimumab biosimilars.
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.
BioRationality: Removing the Misconceptions Surrounding Interchangeability
April 15th 2024Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, outlines the current state of interchangeable biosimilars in the US and policy changes needed to clear up misconceptions surrounding the meaning behind interchangeability designations.
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.
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.
Rising Biosimilar Adoption for an Italian Payer Will Benefit National Health Care System, Patients
April 9th 2024Data from 2021 and 2022 indicates increasing biosimilar use in an Italian health care company, with potential for full adoption in the future, benefiting both the National Health System and citizens through efficient and sustainable health care policies.