This week, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) raised concerns that CMS’ final 2019 Payment Notice Rule, which provides states with increased flexibility to determine which plan options they can select as Essential Health Benefit- (EHB) benchmark plans and select their own sets of benefits, could seriously jeopardize care for patients with inflammatory diseases.
This week, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) raised concerns that CMS’ final 2019 Payment Notice Rule, which provides states with increased flexibility to determine which plan options they can select as Essential Health Benefit- (EHB) benchmark plans and select their own sets of benefits, could seriously jeopardize care for patients with inflammatory diseases.
David Daikh, MD, PhD, president of ACR, said in a statement, “While we are pleased to see that [CMS] is using this rule to reduce regulatory burdens and promote drug price transparency, we are disappointed that the agency did not heed the advice of the ACR and other health groups regarding Essential Health Benefits coverage.” Daikh added that “It is absolutely critical that people living with rheumatic diseases are able to access insurance coverage on the federal exchanges without having to worry about whether the treatments they need to manage their conditions will be covered.”
In its November 2017 comments to CMS, ACR warned that any weakening or removal of EHB requirements could lead to only 1 drug per class to be covered under benchmark plans, and could undermine providers’ clinical decisions about which biologic drug to use in treating rheumatic diseases. In its comment letter, ACR explained that the decision to treat a patient with 1 biologic rather than another takes into consideration a variety of factors, from the patient’s age, diagnosis, and comorbidities to access to transportation, antibody status, and concomitant medications.
“Entities such as insurers or states should not be able to determine the treatment of the patient, nor should they mandate use of [1] therapy over another,” said ACR’s letter.
Separately, ACR praised CMS for its choice not to move forward with a prior plan to designate Children’s Health Insurance Program buy-in programs that provided coverage identical to state CHIP programs as “minimum essential coverage” without first being assessed via an application process. ACR had urged CMS to abandon its proposal, saying that it would leave children with rheumatic diseases in “medical limbo” without the guarantee that the coverage provided under these programs would in fact be the same.
Perceptions of Biosimilar Switching Among Veterans With IBD
December 2nd 2024Veterans with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) prioritize shared decision-making, transparency, and individualized care in biosimilar switching, favoring delayed switching for severe cases and greater patient control.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
Boosting Health Care Sustainability: The Role of Biosimilars in Latin America
November 21st 2024Biosimilars could improve access to biologic treatments and health care sustainability in Latin America, but their adoption is hindered by misconceptions, regulatory gaps, and weak pharmacovigilance, requiring targeted education and stronger regulations.
Eye on Pharma: EU Aflibercept Approvals; Biosimilars Canada Campaign; Celltrion Data
November 19th 2024The European Commission grants marketing authorization to 2 aflibercept biosimilars; Biosimilars Canada launches new campaign to provide sustainable solutions to employers; Celltrion shares positive data for 2 biosimilars.