Revisions to the CMS billing code system could be announced November 1, 2017, potentially impacting how biosimilars will compete with reference products.
Revisions to the CMS billing code system could be announced November 1, 2017, potentially impacting how biosimilars will compete with reference products.
The proposed CMS rule change could give every biosimilar its own Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) (“J-code”). Currently, Medicare Part B pays for biosimilars under the Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) based on average sales price (ASP) of all biosimilar products within the same HCPCS code—biosimilar products with the same reference product are grouped together to calculate an ASP, and physicians are reimbursed the same amount for all biosimilars with the same reference product. The coding system for biosimilars is also separate from the coding system for their reference products, so that as a biosimilar’s price is reduced, the ASP also declines, which is the basis for reimbursement. However, the reference products’ ASPs remain unaffected.
A proposed CMS rule change was posted in July 2017 concerning current CMS payment policies under the PFS and other revisions to Medicare Part B for 2018. If a rule change occurs, it would apply beginning January 1, 2018.
Amanda Forys, MSPH, Director at Xcenda, notes that because Medicare will be such a large payer for biosimilars, coding and payment policy set forth by CMS will have a significant effect on the success, sustainability, and availability of biosimilars. CMS’s controversial decision to group biosimilars into single HCPCS codes can cause confusion among providers and create concerns around pharmacovigilance. In addition, the rule increases the administrative burden and claims processing delays and can inadvertently prompt physicians to continue using reference drugs because they have better clarity in their coding and billing guidance. “Ultimately, this scenario could limit patient access to products that could significantly reduce out-of-pocket payments for specialty medications,” Forys explains in her blog.
In comments submitted to CMS, industry group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) urged CMS to revise its biosimilar reimbursement policy to provide for separate HCPCS codes for each biosimilar and to reimburse each biosimilar based on its own ASP—this would encourage a robust competitive market for biosimilars and clinically appropriate, safe use of these medicines. The Biotechnology Innovations Organization (BIO) agreed, noting that this change would maximize patient safety and access to appropriate therapies and foster a competitive, innovative market for biosimilars.
The Biosimilars Council also recommended that each biosimilar be assigned its own code in the HCPCS system and be paid at a rate based on that biosimilar’s own ASP: “To have a level playing field, the Medicare payment rate for biosimilars should reflect the same approach applied to other nonsubstitutable products.” The group said that without a level playing field, it is doubtful biosimilars will be able to achieve the kind of success Congress envisioned when it passed the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act. Biosimilar maker Novartis also encouraged CMS to revise its reimbursement policy in the final rule to allow for distinct coding and payment for each biosimilar. “We request that CMS pay each biosimilar at 100% of its own individual ASP (plus a fixed percentage of the reference product’s ASP, as is already clearly established) and under its own HCPCS code,” the company said. “Such a policy would spur competition in the market and allow patients greater access to drugs at lower prices.”
Patient organizations including the Arthritis Foundation, the Cancer Support Community of Arizona, and the U.S. Pain Foundation asked CMS to end the blended reimbursement policy for biosimilars to help increase the number of biosimilar products available to patients.
QuintilesIMS also called on CMS to assign each biosimilar a unique HCPCS code rather than blending multiple biosimilars into a single code. “CMS’ current policy of using modifiers for biosimilars reimbursed under the same HCPCS code makes such data collection difficult,” the company wrote. “First, the use of these modifiers, which is unique to biosimilars, applies only to Medicare and not other payers. Thus, tracking of adverse events across different payers would prove challenging.”
Budget Impact Analysis of Biosimilar Natalizumab in the US
Projected savings from biosimilar natalizumab were $452,611 over 3 years, driven by decreased drug acquisition costs and a utilization shift from reference to biosimilar natalizumab.
Biosimilars in America: Overcoming Barriers and Maximizing Impact
July 21st 2024Join us as we explore the complexities of the US biosimilars market, discussing legislative influences, payer and provider adoption factors, and strategies to overcome industry challenges with expert insights from Kyle Noonan, PharmD, MS, value & access strategy manager at Cencora.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for April 2024—Podcast Edition
May 5th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® glances back at all the major biosimilar policy updates from April, including 2 FDA approvals, 1 European approval, and several insights into possible policy changes from the Festival of Biologics USA conference.
Hesitancy in MENA Nations to Adopt WHO Biosimilar Guidelines Hinders Market Development
July 17th 2024The World Health Organization’s (WHO) new guidelines for biosimilar approvals aim to save time and money for manufacturers in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), but hesitancy among nations to adopt the guidelines is stifling market development of biosimilars.
BioRationality: Time to Get Rid of PBMs if Biosimilars Are to Succeed
July 15th 2024Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, discusses the challenges with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that plague the biosimilar industry and new legislation that attempts to reform their practices and encourage biosimilar adoption.