Advocates took to Capitol Hill last week to brief lawmakers and their staff about the implications the recent CMS policy change may have on patient access to treatments.
Last month, CMS announced that it would begin to allow Medicare Advantage plans to implement step therapy as a negotiation tool for drug prices. The announcement was met with concern as various industry stakeholders, such as the Community Oncology Alliance, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology, all spoke out against the change.
Hosted by the Part B Access for Seniors and Physicians (ASP) Coalition, advocates took to Capitol Hill last week to brief lawmakers and their staff about the implications the policy may have on patient access to treatments covered under the Medicare Part B program.
Read more about how seniors may be impacted by the Medicare policy change.
Providing the physician viewpoint of step therapy during the meeting was Angus Worthing, MD, FACP, FACR, a practicing rheumatologist and chair of the ACR’s government affairs committee. “Far too many of my patients with Medicare prescription drug plans have experienced frustrating delays in getting treatment due to step therapy,” he said. “Expanding step therapy to [Medicare Advantage] plans will only add more people to the list of those who will face difficulties assessing the care prescribed by their physician as the best course of care.”
Lawmakers also heard from Katie Roberts, a patient advocate with the Arthritis Foundation. “As an individual with psoriatic arthritis, I am unfortunately all too familiar with how even seemingly brief delays in treatment can make a crucial difference in a patient’s life… Lawmakers must understand that this policy change will do real harm to individuals with chronic diseases by delaying treatment access at a time when it is most critically needed.”
During the briefing, a representative from Xcenda, a policy research and consulting firm, provided an overview of their recent report that analyzed physicians’ prescribing behavior through the Medicare Part B program. The report, titled “Medicare Physician-Administered Drugs: Do Providers Choose Treatment Based on Payment Amount?” found that “there is no meaningful correlation between drug payment and utilization, challenging the theory that physicians significantly favor drugs with high add-on payments.”
Though many industry groups have spoken out against the policy change, CMS has remained firm in its decision. The policy change will take effect in January 2019.
Review Calls for Path to Global Harmonization of Biosimilar Development Regulations
March 17th 2025Global biosimilar regulatory harmonization will be needed to reduce development costs and improve patient access, despite challenges posed by differing national requirements and regulatory frameworks, according to review authors.
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.
From Amjevita to Zarxio: A Decade of US Biosimilar Approvals
March 6th 2025Since the FDA’s groundbreaking approval of Zarxio in 2015, the US biosimilars market has surged to 67 approvals across 18 originators—though the journey has been anything but smooth, with adoption facing hurdles along the way.
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.
Biosimilar Approvals Streamlined With Advanced Statistics Amidst Differing Regulatory Requirements
February 25th 2025The FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) mandate high similarity between biosimilars and reference products, but their regulatory processes differ, especially with multiple reference products.