List prices in drug ads on TV com­ing as CMS fi­nal­izes rule

De­spite nu­mer­ous com­ments rais­ing ques­tions about a pro­pos­al to in­clude list prices in phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal di­rect-to-con­sumer (DTC) ad­ver­tise­ments, the Cen­ters for Medicare and Med­ic­aid Ser­vices (CMS) on Wednes­day moved ahead and fi­nal­ized the pro­pos­al.

The fi­nal rule, which will take ef­fect in Ju­ly, re­quires that tele­vi­sion ad­ver­tise­ments for pre­scrip­tion drugs or bi­o­log­i­cal prod­ucts with a list price of $35 or more con­tain a state­ment in­di­cat­ing the Whole­sale Ac­qui­si­tion Cost (al­so re­ferred to as WAC or the list price) for a typ­i­cal 30-day reg­i­men or for a typ­i­cal course of treat­ment, whichev­er is most ap­pro­pri­ate.

The dis­clo­sure, which will be de­ter­mined on the first day of the quar­ter dur­ing which the ad­ver­tise­ment is be­ing aired or oth­er­wise broad­cast, will be in­clud­ed as fol­lows: “The list price for a (30-day sup­ply of ) (typ­i­cal course of treat­ment with) (name of pre­scrip­tion drug or bi­o­log­i­cal prod­uct) is (in­sert list price). If you have health in­sur­ance that cov­ers drugs, your cost may be dif­fer­ent.”

In de­fend­ing its rule, the CMS ex­plained how in 2017, over $5.5 bil­lion was spent on pre­scrip­tion drug ad­ver­tis­ing, in­clud­ing near­ly $4.2 bil­lion on tele­vi­sion ad­ver­tis­ing. And spend­ing on DTC phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­mer­cials in­creased 62 per­cent be­tween 2012 and 2017.

Mean­while, a re­cent poll by the Kaiser Fam­i­ly Foun­da­tion found that 88% of Amer­i­cans sup­port re­quir­ing drug man­u­fac­tur­ers to in­clude their list prices in DTC ad­ver­tise­ments, the CMS said.

Crit­ics of the pro­pos­al, how­ev­er, have ex­plained how in­clud­ing the prices in DTC ads is not like­ly to low­er drug prices over­all, how list prices are not rep­re­sen­ta­tive of what con­sumers pay, how the CMS has not cre­at­ed an en­force­ment mech­a­nism to en­sure com­pa­nies com­ply with the new rule, and some even ques­tioned whether the new re­quire­ment should fall un­der the CMS’ purview.

In de­fend­ing its right to re­quire the list price dis­clo­sures, the CMS said in the fi­nal rule: “Al­though we ac­knowl­edge that nei­ther sec­tion 1102 nor sec­tion 1871 of the So­cial Se­cu­ri­ty Act specif­i­cal­ly ref­er­ences pre­scrip­tion drugs or bi­o­log­i­cal prod­ucts, their prices, or ad­ver­tise­ments, we nev­er­the­less be­lieve that re­quir­ing man­u­fac­tur­ers to in­clude list prices in DTC tele­vi­sion ad­ver­tise­ments is sup­port­ed by the plain text of these statutes.”

In terms of the WAC not be­ing a mean­ing­ful mea­sure of what a pa­tient will pay for a drug, the CMS coun­tered with a re­cent JA­MA study that found con­sumers could more ac­cu­rate­ly de­ter­mine their out-of-pock­et costs when list prices were dis­closed.

Some crit­ics al­so con­tend­ed that the rule would be a vi­o­la­tion of man­u­fac­tur­ers’ First Amend­ment rights.

But the CMS coun­ters that “the speech here at is­sue does not im­pli­cate core First Amend­ment in­ter­ests. Man­u­fac­tur­ers al­ready dis­close the very same in­for­ma­tion at is­sue, their prod­ucts’ WACs, to pur­chasers as well as pub­lish­ers of var­i­ous pric­ing data­bas­es and oth­er com­pen­dia.”

The CMS al­so took is­sue with in­dus­try group PhRMA’s re­cent­ly im­ple­ment­ed vol­un­tary pro­gram to re­quire mem­ber com­pa­nies to dis­close drug prices on­line.

“PhRMA’s is­suance of a new guid­ing prin­ci­ple in Oc­to­ber 2018 does not change the need for the rule. The
PhRMA prin­ci­ples are vol­un­tary; they are not bind­ing on PhRMA mem­bers, let alone non-mem­bers, and there is noth­ing to pre­vent PhRMA from re­vis­ing its prin­ci­ples at any time … We be­lieve that rel­a­tive­ly few view­ers will make use of the ap­proach ad­vo­cat­ed by the PhRMA pro­pos­al, even as­sum­ing that its mem­bers im­ple­ment the pro­pos­al,” the CMS said.

PhRMA said in a state­ment Wednes­day that it be­lieves “there are op­er­a­tional chal­lenges, par­tic­u­lar­ly the 60-day im­ple­men­ta­tion time­frame, and think the fi­nal rule rais­es First Amend­ment and statu­to­ry con­cerns.”

But as far as en­force­ment of the rule, the CMS does not plan to force com­pa­nies to com­ply, oth­er than by main­tain­ing an an­nu­al list of drugs that have vi­o­lat­ed the rule.

“We an­tic­i­pate that the pri­ma­ry en­force­ment mech­a­nism will be the threat of pri­vate ac­tions un­der the Lan­ham Act sec. 43(a), 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), for un­fair com­pe­ti­tion in the form of false or mis­lead­ing ad­ver­tis­ing,” the CMS added.

Rachel Sachs

But Rachel Sachs, as­sis­tant pro­fes­sor of law at Wash­ing­ton Uni­ver­si­ty in St. Louis, ex­plained to Fo­cus that it’s not clear that all com­pa­nies would even have com­peti­tors to file such suits un­der the Lan­ham Act, or that com­peti­tors would even file such suits be­cause of how ex­pen­sive they are.

Sachs al­so ex­plained how she does be­lieve an en­ti­ty will sue the CMS on Con­sti­tu­tion­al and statu­to­ry grounds be­fore this fi­nal rule is im­ple­ment­ed. She said the CMS will like­ly be chal­lenged be­cause of the broad in­ter­pre­ta­tion of its au­thor­i­ty to reg­u­late drug ad­ver­tis­ing.

“More gen­er­al­ly, we should be skep­ti­cal that trans­paren­cy on its own can en­cour­age phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies to low­er prices,” Sachs added. “It doesn’t mean it’s bad pol­i­cy, but it’s im­por­tant to make sure the ad­min­is­tra­tion is do­ing oth­er re­forms along­side” this one.

Fi­nal Rule


First pub­lished in Reg­u­la­to­ry Fo­cus™ by the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety, the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care prod­ucts. Click here for more in­for­ma­tion.

Author

Zachary Brennan

managing editor, RAPS

De­vel­op­ment of the Next Gen­er­a­tion NKG2D CAR T-cell Man­u­fac­tur­ing Process

Celyad’s view on developing and delivering a CAR T-cell therapy with multi-tumor specificity combined with cell manufacturing success
Overview
Transitioning potential therapeutic assets from academia into the commercial environment is an exercise that is largely underappreciated by stakeholders, except for drug developers themselves. The promise of preclinical or early clinical results drives enthusiasm, but the pragmatic delivery of a therapy outside of small, local testing is most often a major challenge for drug developers especially, including among other things, the manufacturing challenges that surround the production of just-in-time and personalized autologous cell therapy products.

Paul Hudson, Getty Images

UP­DAT­ED: Sanofi CEO Hud­son lays out new R&D fo­cus — chop­ping di­a­betes, car­dio and slash­ing $2B-plus costs in sur­gi­cal dis­sec­tion

Earlier on Monday, new Sanofi CEO Paul Hudson baited the hook on his upcoming strategy presentation Tuesday with a tell-tale deal to buy Synthorx for $2.5 billion. That fits squarely with hints that he’s pointing the company to a bigger future in oncology, which also squares with a major industry tilt.

In a big reveal later in the day, though, Hudson offered a slate of stunners on his plans to surgically dissect and reassemble the portfoloio, saying that the company is dropping cardio and diabetes research — which covers two of its biggest franchise arenas. Sanofi missed the boat on developing new diabetes drugs, and now it’s pulling out entirely. As part of the pullback, it’s dropping efpeglenatide, their once-weekly GLP-1 injection for diabetes.

“To be out of cardiovascular and diabetes is not easy for a company like ours with an incredibly proud history,” Hudson said on a call with reporters, according to the Wall Street Journal. “As tough a choice as that is, we’re making that choice.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Roger Perlmutter, Merck

#ASH19: Here’s why Mer­ck is pay­ing $2.7B to­day to grab Ar­Qule and its next-gen BTK drug, lin­ing up Eli Lil­ly ri­val­ry

Just a few months after making a splash at the European Hematology Association scientific confab with an early snapshot of positive data for their BTK inhibitor ARQ 531, ArQule has won a $2.7 billion buyout deal from Merck.

Merck is scooping up a next-gen BTK drug — which is making a splash at ASH today — from ArQule in an M&A pact set at $20 a share $ARQL. That’s more than twice Friday’s $9.66 close. And Merck R&D chief Roger Perlmutter heralded a deal that nets “multiple clinical-stage oral kinase inhibitors.”

This is the second biotech buyout pact today, marking a brisk tempo of M&A deals in the lead-up to the big JP Morgan gathering in mid-January. It’s no surprise the acquisitions are both for cancer drugs, where Sanofi will try to make its mark while Merck beefs up a stellar oncology franchise. And bolt-ons are all the rage at the major pharma players, which you could also see in Novartis’ recent $9.7 billion MedCo buyout.

ArQule — which comes out on top after their original lead drug foundered in Phase III — highlighted early data on ‘531 at EHA from a group of 6 chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients who got the 65 mg dose. Four of them experienced a partial response — a big advance for a company that failed with earlier attempts.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Paul Hudson, Sanofi

Paul Hud­son promis­es a bright new fu­ture at Sanofi, kick­ing loose me-too drugs and fo­cus­ing on land­mark ad­vances. But can he de­liv­er?

Paul Hudson was on a mission Tuesday morning as he stood up to address Sanofi’s new R&D and business strategy.

Still fresh into the job, the new CEO set out to convince his audience — including the legions of nervous staffers inevitably devoting much of their day to listening in — that the pharma giant is shedding the layers of bureaucracy that had held them back from making progress in the past, dropping the duds in the pipeline and reprioritizing a more narrow set of experimental drugs that were promised as first-in-class or best-in-class.  The company, he added, is now positioned to “go after other opportunities” that could offer a transformational approach to treating its core diseases.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Left top to right: Mark Timney, Alex Denner, Vas Narasimhan. (The Medicines Company, Getty, AP/Endpoints News)

In a play-by-play of the $9.7B Med­Co buy­out, No­var­tis ad­mits it over­paid while of­fer­ing a huge wind­fall to ex­ecs

A month into his tenure at The Medicines Company, new CEO Mark Timney reached out to then-Novartis pharma chief Paul Hudson: Any interest in a partnership?

No, Hudson told him. Not now, at least.

Ten months later, Hudson had left to run Sanofi and Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan was paying $9.7 billion for the one-drug biotech – the largest in the string of acquisitions Narasimhan has signed since his 2017 appointment.

The deal was the product of an activist investor and his controversial partner working through nearly a year of cat-and-mouse negotiations to secure a deal with Big Pharma’s most expansionist executive. It represented a huge bet in a cardiovascular field that already saw two major busts in recent years and brought massive returns for two of the industry’s most eye-raising names.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Paul Hudson. Sanofi

New Sanofi CEO Hud­son adds next-gen can­cer drug tech to the R&D quest, buy­ing Syn­thorx for $2.5B

When Paul Hudson lays out his R&D vision for Sanofi tomorrow, he will have a new slate of interleukin therapies and a synthetic biology platform to boast about.

The French pharma giant announced early Monday that it is snagging San Diego biotech Synthorx in a $2.5 billion deal. That marks an affordable bolt-on for Sanofi but a considerable return for Synthorx backers, including Avalon, RA Capital and OrbiMed: At $68 per share, the price represents a 172% premium to Friday’s closing.

Synthorx’s take on alternative IL-2 drugs for both cancer and autoimmune disorders — enabled by a synthetic DNA base pair pioneered by Scripps professor Floyd Romesberg — “fits perfectly” with the kind of innovation that he wants at Sanofi, Hudson said.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Am­gen puts its foot down in shiny new South San Fran­cis­co hub as it re­or­ga­nizes R&D ops

Amgen has signed up to be AbbVie’s neighbor in South San Francisco as it moves into a nine-story R&D facility in the booming biotech hub.

The arrangement gives Amgen 240,000 square feet of space on the Gateway of Pacific Campus, just a few minutes drive from its current digs at Oyster Point. The new hub will open in 2022 and house the big biotech’s Bay Area employees working on cardiometabolic, inflammation and oncology research.

Ab­b­Vie, Scripps ex­pand part­ner­ship, for­ti­fy fo­cus on can­cer drugs

Scripps and AbbVie go way back. Research conducted in the lab of Scripps scientist Richard Lerner led to the discovery of Humira. The antibody, approved by the FDA in 2002 and sold by AbbVie, went on to become the world’s bestselling treatment. In 2018, the drugmaker and the non-profit organization signed a pact focused on developing cancer treatments — and now, the scope of that partnership has broadened to encompass a range of diseases, including immunological and neurological conditions.

South Ko­rea jails 3 Sam­sung ex­ecs for de­stroy­ing ev­i­dence in Bi­o­Log­ics probe

Three Samsung executives in Korea are going to jail.

The convictions came in what prosecutors had billed as “biggest crime of evidence destruction in the history of South Korea”: a case of alleged corporate intrigue that was thrown open when investigators found what was hidden beneath the floor of a Samsung BioLogics plant. Eight employees in total were found guilty of evidence tampering and the three executives were each sentenced to up to two years in prison.