A recent issue brief, published by the Commonwealth Fund, described Germany’s approach as an alternative to the current US model that imposes high cost-sharing on patients.
The high cost of prescription drugs for US patients has become a hot topic among policy and law makers, and the current administration has put forth a number of proposals to address ever-rising costs. Among the proposals is the administration’s plan to allow CMS to set prices for some drugs, including high-cost biologics, based on the prices paid in other nations.
Under the proposal, CMS would, beginning in 2020 and extending until 2025, use a reference pricing model that it calls the International Pricing Index (IPI) to align payment for selected Part B drugs with prices paid in other countries. An HHS report released alongside the announcement of the IPI compared US prices with those paid elsewhere, including Germany, a country with a healthcare system similar to that of the United States. Like the United States and unlike many other European nations, Germany uses multiple nongovernmental insurers rather than a single government payer.
As the United States further considers a move to a reference pricing model, it is worthwhile to consider how the German system operates and its system’s potential implications for the United States. A recent issue brief, published by the Commonwealth Fund, described Germany’s approach as an alternative to the current US model that imposes high cost-sharing on patients.
In the German system, new drugs are centrally assessed by the Federal Joint Committee, which includes providers, insurers, and hospital organizations (patient groups have nonvoting positions on the board). If a new drug does not have alternatives available, no patient cost-sharing is applied by the committee.
If a drug has alternatives available, and if the committee does not believe that a drug offers incremental benefits over other available treatments, the drug is assigned to a therapeutic class subject to reference pricing. In the brief, the authors explain that, in a reference pricing model, a healthcare purchaser establishes the maximum amount it will contribute toward a drug’s price and often takes into consideration the minimum or median price of drugs in a therapeutic class.
If a patient is prescribed a drug that is cheaper than the reference limit, the patient is responsible for a small co-payment. If the cost is higher than the limit, the patient pays a co-payment plus the difference in the prices between the limit and the product.
Approximately 34% of drugs in Germany, and 80% of prescriptions, are subject to reference pricing, with patients paying the difference in cost and potentially paying additional co-payments that do not count toward their annual out-of-pocket limit, which is set at 1% of gross income for patients with chronic diseases and 2% for all others.
For drugs determined to provide incremental benefits, prices are negotiated collectively by an umbrella organization that comprises all health insurers (rather than by insurers individually, as in the US).
If negotiations between the insurer umbrella association and the drug manufacturer do not result in an agreement, the drug is referred to a 3-person arbitration panel that will render a final decision on price. If the drug maker does not agree with the arbitration’s outcome, it can withdraw its drug from the market.
The German model, write the brief’s authors, offers an alternative to the US system, where the burden of cost-sharing on patients is high, especially for those with complex medical conditions.
“US payers often impose modest copayments on low-cost drugs with many direct substitutes but onerous coinsurance on high-cost drugs with few substitutes,” write the authors, adding that “coinsurance does not point the patient toward the most cost-effective drug choices.”
Samsung Bioepis Report Signals Turning Point for US Biosimilars
May 1st 2025A wave of biosimilar approvals, aggressive pricing strategies, and a regulatory sea change are setting the stage for unprecedented momentum in the US biologics market, with 2025 already proving to be a landmark year in reshaping cost, access, and innovation across therapeutic areas.
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?
Biosimilar Market Development Requires Strategic Flexibility and Global Partnerships
April 29th 2025Thriving in the evolving biosimilar market demands bold collaboration, early global partnerships, and a fresh approach to development strategies to overcome uncertainty and drive future success.
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.
BioRationality: EMA Accepts Waiver of Clinical Efficacy Testing of Biosimilars
April 21st 2025Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, shares his latest citizen's petition to the FDA, calling on the agency to waive clinical efficacy testing in response to the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) efforts towards the same goal.
President Trump Signs Executive Order to Bring Down Drug Prices
April 16th 2025To help bring down sky-high drug prices, President Donald Trump signed an executive order pushing for faster biosimilar development, more transparency, and tougher rules on pharmacy benefit managers—aiming to save billions and make meds more affordable for everyone.