A Kaiser Health News (KHN) analysis found that about one-half of the patient advocacy groups appearing in national ads opposing a Trump administration proposal to change how Medicare Part D covers drugs in protected classes have received pharmaceutical industry funding.
A Kaiser Health News (KHN) analysis found that about one-half of the patient advocacy groups appearing in national ads opposing a Trump administration proposal to change how Medicare Part D covers drugs in protected classes have received pharmaceutical industry funding.
KHN created a database that tracks the financial links between such groups and drug makers. Some critics have questioned whether the patient groups are truly representing patients or the views of their funders.
The ads, for instance, say that lives are in jeopardy and that care will be delayed if the proposed change happens.
For its part, CMS says the plan force lower drug costs for patients by applying step therapy for physician-administered and other Part B and Part D drugs. Step therapy, sometimes called “fail first,” requires a patient to try, and then to fail to respond adequately to, 1 or more less expensive alternative therapies before gaining access to the prescribed treatment. CMS has indicated that step therapy for Part D drugs could include a beneficiary starting treatment with a low-cost biosimilar before receiving a costlier reference biologic.
Currently, all drugs in protected classes must be included on Part D formularies, and that creates an incentive to keep prices high, CMS says. While all 6 classes would remain, Part D plans would have 3 ways in which they could seek to limit drug utilization:
CMS is reviewing comments and the changes will take effect in 2020.
One ad that has started running is from the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, KHN noted. It includes a list of 56 other patient advocacy groups, and includes a link to auto-populate emails to legislators and the administration.
KHN compared the list of groups in the ad with those in its database and found that about half of the groups on the list receive pharma donations; in 2015 they received more than $58 million, collectively.
Other researchers have discussed the ties between patient groups and industry funders.
In 2017, The New England Journal of Medicine published a study showing that in its sample of 101 patient advocacy organizations, at least 83% received financial support from drug, device, and biotechnology companies.1 However, only 27% had any conflict-of-interest policies published on their websites, and just 12% had any published policies regarding the management of institutional conflicts of interest.
“In the context of organization—industry relations, concerns have been raised that industry-supported patient-advocacy organizations have spoken out for access to drugs with questionable therapeutic benefit and remained silent on policy proposals, such as drug-pricing reforms, that might benefit their constituents,” noted the authors.
In response to the journal article, the National Health Council released a statement in 2017 saying its member organizations must adhere to a set of 38 standards, 16 of which address some of the concerns raised by the authors in regards to patient advocacy groups’ independence from drug company funders.
Reference
McCoy MS, Carniol M, Chockley K, Urwin J, Emanuel EJ, Schnidt H. Conflicts of interest for patient-advocacy organizations. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376:880-885 doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1610625.
Escaping the Void: All Things Biosimilars With Craig & G
May 4th 2025To close out the Festival of Biologics, Craig Burton and Giuseppe Randazzo from the Association for Accessible Medicines and the Biosimilars Council tackle the current biosimilar landscape and how the industry can emerge from the "biosimilar void."
Eye on Pharma: Interchangeability Labels and Expanded Biosimilar Partnerships
May 29th 2025The FDA designates 2 biosimilars as interchangeable, enhancing access to treatments for inflammatory diseases and multiple sclerosis, while 2 other companies expand their biosimilar partnership to include more products.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
What Stands in the Way of Biosimilar Use Across MENA Countries?
May 21st 2025Despite the clear promise of cost savings and expanded access, the path to integrating generics and biosimilars across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is tangled in a web of distrust, inconsistent policies, and deep-rooted cultural preferences for branded drugs.