On Thursday, the Trump administration unveiled a new plan that it hopes will reduce Medicare’s costs for prescription drugs. Under the plan, announced by President Donald Trump in a speech made at HHS, CMS could set its prices for some drugs—including high-cost biologics—based on the prices paid in other nations.
On Thursday, the Trump administration unveiled a new plan that it hopes will reduce Medicare’s costs for prescription drugs. Under the plan, announced by President Trump in a speech made at HHS, CMS could set its 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 model that it calls the International Pricing Index (IPI). This index would allow Medicare to more closely align its Medicare payment amount for selected Part B drugs with prices paid in other nations, and would allow for private-sector negotiation of drug costs. The payment model would overhaul current reimbursement for Part B drugs—which is based on average sales prices plus 4.3% as an add-on—in favor of a target price derived from the international price index. CMS says that this approach could generate a 30% savings in total spending for the selected drugs.
The IPI model would include mandatory participation from physician practices and hospital outpatient departments the supply included drugs (which would initially comprise single-source drugs and biologics). CMS adds that it hopes this model will reduce out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries, increase access and adherence, and create greater competition in the acquisition process for Part B drugs.
Announcement of the proposal came shortly after CMS revealed a new report comparing the prices charged by drug makers in the United States versus those charged in other countries. The report, which found that US prices are 1.8 times higher than ex-US prices, identified 27 products for comparison, and found that US prices are higher among 19 of these products. For another 8 products, US prices are within range of what other nations pay. According to the report, Medicare and its beneficiaries spend $8.1 billion more on drugs than they would if payments were scaled by international price ratios.
For example, in 2016, the United States spent approximately $1.7 billion on brand-name rituximab (Rituxan), but if Part B spending were scaled to an international volume-weighted price, it could spend approximately $640 million on rituximab. Similarly, 2016 spending on brand-name trastuzumab (Herceptin) was approximately $704 million, but could drop to approximately $340 million under the proposed plan.
Notably, the report’s figures do not take into account the prices of biosimilars; instead, it only compares prices for reference products. According to the report’s authors, this is in part because Medicare bills for biosimilars under separate billing codes.
In announcing the plan, Trump said that, with the new proposal, “We are taking aim at the global freeloading that forces American consumers to subsidize lower prices in foreign countries through higher prices in our country.” He went on to say that America conducts research and development for the rest of the world, and that “the world rigs the benefits of American genius and innovation,” and that seniors pick up the tab.
CMS will receive comments on the IPI model until Monday, December 31, and plans to issue a proposed rule on the model in the spring of 2019.
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.
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?
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.
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.
Experts Pressure Congress to Remove Roadblocks for Biosimilars
April 12th 2025Lawmakers and expert witnesses emphasized the potential of biosimilars to lower health care costs by overcoming barriers like pharmacy benefit manager practices, limited awareness, and regulatory delays to improve access and competition in chronic disease management during a recent congressional hearing.