According to the report, Medicare Part D drugs that demonstrated the lowest annual cost increases offered higher average rebates than drugs with the highest annual cost increases.
While the Trump administration is considering a proposal from HHS to overhaul safe harbor protections for rebates given by drug makers to health plans and pharmacy benefit managers as a way to bring down high drug prices, a new report prepared for America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) suggests that much-maligned rebates are not to blame for increases in drug prices.
AHIP engaged consulting company Milliman to examine Medicare Part D drug prices and manufacturer rebates to help the organization prepare its comments in response to the administration’s blueprint to lower the price of drugs for American patients. Milliman used publicly available Part D drug spending and utilization data from 2013 to 2016, combined with 2016 data from contributing health plans on rebates.
According to the report, rebates are typically offered only for brand-name drugs; 81% of all of the Part D drugs analyzed offered no rebates. Furthermore, 64% of brand-name drugs did not offer rebates, and non-specialty drugs—rather than pricier specialty products—had the highest rebates when measured as a percentage of gross drug costs.
Of the 706 branded products analyzed, representing 95% of brand drug spending, only 36% had more than a nominal manufacturer rebate (rebates representing more than 1% of the drug’s gross cost), and only 27% offered significant rebates (representing 12% or more of the drug’s gross cost).
Products that face direct brand competition had a higher proportion of drugs that offered rebates (as well as a higher average rebate as a percentage of gross costs), while those in protected classes had the lowest proportion of rebates (and the lowest average rebate as a percentage of gross costs). Those products that faced direct competition offered rebates that totaled approximately 39% of gross costs, while products that were in protected classes offered rebates that totaled just 14% of the same.
Notably, while drugs with rebates offered in 2016 had higher price trends than did drugs without rebates, the average annual gross cost per Medicare beneficiary has increased more quickly for drugs that offered no rebates. Products that demonstrated the lowest annual cost increases offered higher average rebates than drugs with the highest annual cost increases.
The report’s findings suggest that addressing rebates alone will not reduce drug prices; while Milliman and AHIP’s report did not offer direct proposals as to how to address the problem of high drug prices outside of targeting rebates, competition, the findings suggest, may be the key.
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."
How AI Can Help Address Cost-Related Nonadherence to Biologic, Biosimilar Treatment
March 9th 2025Despite saving billions, biosimilars still account for only a small share of the biologics market—what's standing in the way of broader adoption and how can artificial intelligence (AI) help change that?
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.
British Columbia’s Biosimilar Policy Shows No Impact on Hospital Visits
May 28th 2025Despite a dramatic shift toward biosimilar use following British Columbia’s policy, researchers found no rise in hospital visits or complications, underscoring the real-world reliability of etanercept biosimilars in managing inflammatory arthritis.