Medicare drug re­bates re­ward in­dus­try play­ers — and of­ten hurt pa­tients

Medicare and its ben­e­fi­cia­ries aren’t the win­ners in the be­hind-the-scenes re­bate game played by drug­mak­ers, health in­sur­ers and phar­ma­cy ben­e­fit man­agers, ac­cord­ing to a pa­per pub­lished Tues­day in JA­MA In­ter­nal Med­i­cine.

The pa­per, which dives in­to the com­plex and opaque world of Medicare drug price ne­go­ti­a­tions, finds that re­bates may ac­tu­al­ly dri­ve up the amount Medicare and its ben­e­fi­cia­ries pay for drugs — es­pe­cial­ly for in­creas­ing­ly com­mon high-priced drugs — and it of­fers some sys­temic so­lu­tions.

“How these re­bates and price con­ces­sions hap­pen be­tween the man­u­fac­tur­er of the drug and the PBMs [phar­ma­cy ben­e­fit man­agers] and health plans can di­rect­ly im­pact pa­tient cost in a big way,” said the pa­per’s lead au­thor, Sta­cie Duset­z­i­na of the Uni­ver­si­ty of North Car­oli­na-Chapel Hill’s phar­ma­cy school.

The pa­per’s find­ings and pro­posed so­lu­tions come as Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump’s ad­min­is­tra­tion, Con­gress and state law­mak­ers grap­ple with ways to con­trol drug prices and over­all health spend­ing. Trump’s ad­min­is­tra­tion has said it wants to low­er drug prices and hint­ed at man­dat­ing re­bates in Medicare. Lead­ers on Capi­tol Hill have called for Medicare price ne­go­ti­a­tions.

In the JA­MA pa­per, Duset­z­i­na cites the EpiPen as one ex­am­ple. Last year, ex­ec­u­tives at My­lan, the mak­er of the EpiPen, said the list price of the drug for life-threat­en­ing al­ler­gic re­ac­tions was $600, but the com­pa­ny earned $274 af­ter re­bates and oth­er fees.

That sav­ings, though, isn’t nec­es­sar­i­ly passed on to pa­tients in Medicare’s sys­tem. In­stead, the mon­ey tends to be swal­lowed up by health in­sur­ers and mid­dle­men like phar­ma­cy ben­e­fit man­agers.

And, even though pa­tients don’t pay list prices for their drugs, those high prices (like $600 for the EpiPen) are used to cal­cu­late how much Medicare cov­ers for any in­di­vid­ual pa­tient — and some­times what pa­tients pay out-of-pock­et, Duset­z­i­na said.

“We’ve heard over the years that the list price doesn’t re­al­ly mat­ter, that it’s not the re­al price,” Duset­z­i­na said. “It mat­ters.”

The way it mat­ters is not eas­i­ly ap­par­ent. Here’s what hap­pens: When a Medicare pa­tient picks up a pre­scrip­tion, what they pay to­ward it is gen­er­al­ly based on that high­er list price and not the price af­ter re­bates, so the amount the ben­e­fi­cia­ry pays is scaled up­ward as a re­sult.

And Medicare us­es that high-end list price to cal­cu­late how rapid­ly ben­e­fi­cia­ries reach the dread­ed dough­nut hole, where pa­tients pay a big­ger share of the price of the drug af­ter their spend­ing hits $3,700, the 2017 bench­mark. Once through the dough­nut hole, Medicare picks up the bulk of the drug’s cost.

High list prices dri­ve pa­tients in­to and out of the dough­nut hole faster, rais­ing their out-of-pock­et costs and Medicare ex­pen­di­tures.

Duset­z­i­na and co-au­thors Re­na Con­ti, as­sis­tant pro­fes­sor of health pol­i­cy and eco­nom­ics at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Chica­go, and Dr. Pe­ter Bach, di­rec­tor of Memo­r­i­al Sloan Ket­ter­ing Can­cer Cen­ter’s Cen­ter for Health Pol­i­cy and Out­comes, pro­pose so­lu­tions to this prob­lem.

Bach called the cur­rent Medicare sys­tem “ab­solute­ly dev­as­tat­ing for peo­ple on high-cost spe­cial­ty drugs.”

Bach’s drug pric­ing lab at Memo­r­i­al Sloan Ket­ter­ing of­fers an in­ter­ac­tive tool for com­par­ing how dol­lars shift when us­ing the list price and post-re­bate price.

The au­thors rec­om­mend that pa­tients should be charged flat-dol­lar co­pays rather than coin­sur­ance charges, which are based on a per­cent­age of the drug’s price. The co­pays could be tiered, de­pend­ing on the cost of the drug, the pa­per sug­gest­ed.

This so­lu­tion comes, in part, be­cause the num­ber of Medicare en­rollees pay­ing coin­sur­ance for their drug, rather than a flat fee, has in­creased to 58 per­cent last year from 35 per­cent in 2014, the pa­per notes.

An­oth­er tac­tic would be to ad­dress the un­der­ly­ing dis­con­nect be­tween re­bate ne­go­ti­a­tions and sav­ings for Medicare and ben­e­fi­cia­ries. The au­thors sug­gest that in­cen­tives for health in­sur­ers need to change to re­quire health plans to pay more of the drugs’ costs af­ter ben­e­fi­cia­ries pass through the dough­nut hole.

In ad­di­tion, Duset­z­i­na said, us­ing the post-re­bate amount in Medicare’s cal­cu­la­tions would al­low Medicare ben­e­fi­cia­ries to move through the dough­nut hole more slow­ly. That would save both pa­tients and Medicare mon­ey.

“It re­al­ly just stops us from ac­cel­er­at­ing peo­ple through the ben­e­fit,” Duset­z­i­na said.

Last month, the Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal Re­search and Man­u­fac­tur­ers of Amer­i­ca, which rep­re­sents the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal and biotech­nol­o­gy in­dus­try, launched a “Share the Sav­ings” ad­ver­tis­ing cam­paign call­ing for pub­lic ed­u­ca­tion about how the sav­ings from re­bates don’t ac­tu­al­ly get passed on to com­mer­cial in­sur­ance pa­tients.

In an email, PhRMA’s Hol­ly Camp­bell said the group’s com­mis­sioned re­searchhas found that re­bates and dis­counts have near­ly dou­bled from 2013 to 2015. Camp­bell said PhRMA be­lieves “in­sur­ance com­pa­nies should share more of the re­bates and dis­counts they re­ceive with pa­tients.”

Amer­i­ca’s Health In­sur­ance Plans, which rep­re­sents the in­sur­ance in­dus­try, calls the as­ser­tion that re­bates and oth­er dis­counts aren’t passed along “ab­solute­ly in­ac­cu­rate” and not­ed the “true is­sue” is that drug prices con­tin­ue to sky­rock­et “with no clear ex­pla­na­tion as to how prices are set.” In­sur­ers pass the sav­ings from re­bates on in dif­fer­ent ways, in­clud­ing low­er month­ly pre­mi­ums and co-pays, said AHIP’s Cathryn Don­ald­son.

Duset­z­i­na said there is one caveat to the Medicare study: It is un­clear how many drugs get a re­bate and for how much be­cause there is lack of trans­paren­cy when it comes to re­bates.

The pa­per’s fi­nal sug­ges­tion is about trans­paren­cy. It says that fed­er­al reg­u­la­tors should re­quire re­bate da­ta to be re­port­ed for in­di­vid­ual drugs and then use that in­for­ma­tion to change Medicare’s ben­e­fit de­sign in a way that “would lead to sav­ings” for Medicare and its en­rollees.

First pub­lished at Kaiser Health News, a non­prof­it health news­room whose sto­ries ap­pear in news out­lets na­tion­wide. KHN is an ed­i­to­ri­al­ly in­de­pen­dent part of the Kaiser Fam­i­ly Foun­da­tion.

Roger Perlmutter, Merck R&D chief (YouTube)

UP­DAT­ED: Mer­ck makes a triple play on Covid-19: buy­ing out a vac­cine biotech, part­ner­ing on an­oth­er pro­gram and adding an an­tivi­ral to the mix

Merck is making a triple play in a sudden leap into the R&D campaign against Covid-19.

Tuesday morning the pharma giant simultaneously announced plans to buy an Austrian biotech that has been working on a preclinical vaccine candidate, added a collaboration on another vaccine with the nonprofit IAVI and inked a deal with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics on an early-stage antiviral.

The deal with IAVI covers recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (rVSV) technology that is the basis for Merck’s successful Ebola Zaire virus vaccine. That’s going into the clinic later this year.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

The Advance Clinical leadership team: CEO Yvonne Lungershausen, Sandrien Louwaars - Director Business Development Operations, Gabriel Kremmidiotis - Chief Scientific Officer, Ben Edwards - Chief Strategy Officer

How Aus­tralia De­liv­ers Rapid Start-up and 43.5% Re­bate for Ear­ly Phase On­col­o­gy Tri­als

About Avance Clinical

Avance Clinical is an Australian owned Contract Research Organisation that has been providing high-quality clinical research services to the local and international drug development industry for 20 years. They specialise in working with biotech companies to execute Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials to deliver high-quality outcomes fit for global regulatory standards.

As oncology sponsors look internationally to speed-up trials after unprecedented COVID-19 suspensions and delays, Australia, which has led the world in minimizing the pandemic’s impact, stands out as an attractive destination for early phase trials. This in combination with the streamlined regulatory system and the financial benefits including a very favourable exchange rate and the R & D cash rebate makes Australia the perfect location for accelerating biotech clinical programs.

Andrew Hopkins, Exscientia founder and CEO (Exscientia)

Af­ter years of part­ner­ships, AI biotech Ex­sci­en­tia lands first ma­jor fi­nanc­ing round at $60M

After years racking up partnerships with biotechs and Big Pharma, the AI drug developer Exscientia has landed its first large financing round.

The UK-based company raised $60 million in a Series C round led by Novo Holdings — more than double the $26 million it garnered in a Series B 18 months ago. The round will help further the company’s expansion into the US and further what it calls, borrowing a term from the software world, its “full-stack capabilities,” i.e. its ability to develop drugs from the earliest stage to the market.

Covid-19 roundup: Janet Wood­cock steps aside — for now — as FDA drug czar; WHO hits the brakes on hy­droxy study af­ter lat­est safe­ty alarm

The biopharma industry will soon get a look at what the FDA will look like once CDER’s powerful chief Janet Woodcock retires from her post.

Long considered one of the most influential regulators in the agency, if not its single most powerful official when it counts, Woodcock is being detached to devote herself full-time to the White House’s special project to fast-forward new drugs and vaccines for the pandemic. The move comes a week after some quick reshuffling as Woodcock and CBER chief Peter Marks joined Operation Warp Speed. Initially they opted to recuse themselves from any FDA decisions on pandemic treatments and vaccines, after consumer advocates criticized the move as a clear conflict of interest in how the agency exercises oversight on new approvals.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Piv­otal myas­the­nia gravis da­ta from ar­genx au­gur well for FcRn in­hibitors in de­vel­op­ment

Leading the pack of biotechs vying for a piece of the generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) market with an FcRn inhibitor, argenx on Tuesday unveiled keenly anticipated positive late-stage data on its lead asset, bringing it one step closer to regulatory approval.

Despite steroids, immunosuppressants, acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, and Alexion’s Soliris, patients with the rare, chronic neuromuscular disorder (more than 100,000 in the United States and Europe) don’t necessarily benefit from these existing options, leaving room for the crop of FcRn inhibitors in development.

Af­ter de­cou­pling from Re­gen­eron, Sanofi says it’s time to sell the $13B stake picked up in the mar­riage

With Regeneron shares going for a peak price — after doubling from last fall — Sanofi is putting a $13 billion stake in their longtime partner on the auction block. And Regeneron is taking $5 billion of that action for themselves.

Sanofi — which has been decoupling from Regeneron for more than a year now — bought in big in early 2013, back when Regeneron’s stock was going for around $165 a share. Small investors flocked to the deal, buzzing about an imminent takeover. The buyout chatter wound down long ago.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Janet Woodcock, director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (AP Images)

Covid-19 roundup: Hit with new con­flict ac­cu­sa­tions, Janet Wood­cock steps out of the agen­cy's Covid-19 chain of com­mand

Two weeks ago, FDA drug chieftain Janet Woodcock was assuring a top Wall Street analyst that any vaccine approved for combating Covid-19 would have to meet high agency standards on safety and efficacy before it’s approved. But over the weekend, after she and Peter Marks took top positions with the public-private operation meant to speed a new vaccine to lightning-fast approvals — they both recused themselves from the review process after an advocacy group argued their roles close to the White House could pose a conflict of interest.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

FDA ap­proves the first gener­ic for Amar­in's Vas­cepa — but is a fish oil price war im­mi­nent?

Late last year, enthusiasm for Amarin’s fish-oil pill Vascepa burgeoned when the FDA signed off on expanding the cholesterol fighter’s label to include the drug’s beneficial impact on cardiovascular risk, but months later the exuberance for the blockbuster-to-be took a big hit when a judge invalidated key patents protecting Vascepa.

Despite Amarin’s $AMRN pledge to appeal — a process that could take months — the ruling opened the door for generic competition. Hikma Pharmaceuticals, one of three challengers in the Nevada suit, on Friday said that its generic copy of pure EPA, the omega-3 fatty acid that constitutes Vascepa, has been approved by the FDA.

Eric Edwards, Phlow president and CEO (PR Newswire)

BAR­DA of­fers a tiny start­up up to $812M to cre­ate a US-based drug man­u­fac­tur­er — and the CEO comes with a price goug­ing con­tro­ver­sy on his ré­sumé

BARDA has tapped a largely unknown startup to ramp up production of a list of drugs that may be at risk of running short in the US. And the deal, which comes with up to $812 million in federal funds, was inked by a CEO who found himself in the middle of an ugly price gouging controversy a few years ago.

The feds’ new partner — called Phlow — won a 4-year “base” contract of $354 million, with another $458 million that’s on the table in potential options to sustain the outfit. That would make it one of the largest awards in BARDA’s history.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 82,200+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.