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

UP­DAT­ED: FDA’s golodirsen CRL: Sarep­ta’s Duchenne drugs are dan­ger­ous to pa­tients, of­fer­ing on­ly a small ben­e­fit. And where's that con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­al?

Back last summer, Sarepta CEO Doug Ingram told Duchenne MD families and investors that the FDA’s shock rejection of their second Duchenne MD drug golodirsen was due to some concerns regulators raised about the risk of infection and the possibility of kidney toxicity. But when pressed to release the letter for all to see, he declined, according to a report from BioPharmaDive, saying that kind of move “might not look like we’re being as respectful as we’d like to be.”

He went on to assure everyone that he hadn’t misrepresented the CRL.

But Ingram’s public remarks didn’t include everything in the letter, which — following the FDA’s surprise about-face and unexplained approval — has now been posted on the FDA’s website and broadly circulated on Twitter early Wednesday.

The CRL raises plenty of fresh questions about why the FDA abruptly decided to reverse itself and hand out an OK for a drug a senior regulator at the FDA believed — 5 months ago, when he wrote the letter — is dangerous to patients. It also puts the spotlight back on Sarepta $SRPT, which failed to launch a confirmatory study of eteplirsen, which was only approved after a heated internal controversy at the FDA. Ellis Unger, director of CDER’s Office of Drug Evaluation I, notes that study could have clarified quite a lot about the benefit and risks associated with their drugs — which can cost as much as a million dollars per patient per year, depending on weight.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

2019 Trin­i­ty Drug In­dex Eval­u­ates Ac­tu­al Com­mer­cial Per­for­mance of Nov­el Drugs Ap­proved in 2016

Fewer Approvals, but Neurology Rivals Oncology and Sees Major Innovations

This report, the fourth in our Trinity Drug Index series, outlines key themes and emerging trends in the industry as we progress towards a new world of targeted and innovative products. It provides a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of novel drugs approved by the FDA in 2016, scoring each on its commercial performance, therapeutic value, and R&D investment (Table 1: Drug ranking – Ratings on a 1-5 scale).

How to cap­i­talise on a lean launch

For start-up biotechnology companies and resource stretched pharmaceutical organisations, launching a novel product can be challenging. Lean teams can make setting a launch strategy and achieving your commercial goals seem like a colossal undertaking, but can these barriers be transformed into opportunities that work to your brand’s advantage?
We spoke to Managing Consultant Frances Hendry to find out how Blue Latitude Health partnered with a fledgling subsidiary of a pharmaceutical organisation to launch an innovative product in a
complex market.
What does the launch environment look like for this product?
FH: We started working on the product at Phase II and now we’re going into Phase III trials. There is a significant unmet need in this disease area, and everyone is excited about the launch. However, the organisation is still evolving and the team is quite small – naturally this causes a little turbulence.

Stephen Hahn, AP

The FDA has de­val­ued the gold stan­dard on R&D. And that threat­ens every­one in drug de­vel­op­ment

Bioregnum Opinion Column by John Carroll

A few weeks ago, when Stephen Hahn was being lightly queried by Senators in his confirmation hearing as the new commissioner of the FDA, he made the usual vow to maintain the gold standard in drug development.

Neatly summarized, that standard requires the agency to sign off on clinical data — usually from two, well-controlled human studies — that prove a drug’s benefit outweighs any risks.

Over the last few years, biopharma has enjoyed an unprecedented loosening over just what it takes to clear that bar. Regulators are more willing to drop the second trial requirement ahead of an accelerated approval — particularly if they have an unmet medical need where patients are clamoring for a therapy.

That confirmatory trial the FDA demands can wait a few years. And most everyone in biopharma would tell you that’s the right thing for patients. They know its a tonic for everyone in the industry faced with pushing a drug through clinical development. And it’s helped inspire a global biotech boom.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: New play­ers are jump­ing in­to the scram­ble to de­vel­op a vac­cine as pan­dem­ic pan­ic spreads fast

When the CNN news crew in Wuhan caught wind of the Chinese government’s plan to quarantine the city of 11 million people, they made a run for one of the last trains out — their Atlanta colleagues urging them on. On the way to the train station, they were forced to skirt the local seafood market, where the coronavirus at the heart of a brewing outbreak may have taken root.

And they breathlessly reported every moment of the early morning dash.

In shuttering the city, triggering an exodus of masked residents who caught wind of the quarantine ahead of time, China signaled that they were prepared to take extreme actions to stop the spread of a virus that has claimed 17 lives, sickened many more and panicked people around the globe.

CNN helped illustrate how hard all that can be.

The early reaction in the biotech industry has been classic, with small-cap companies scrambling to headline efforts to step in fast. But there are also new players in the field with new tech that has been introduced since the last of a series of pandemic panics that could change the usual storylines. And they’re volunteering for a crash course in speeding up vaccine development — a field where overnight solutions have been impossible to prove.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Roche cracks Chi­na's ADC mar­ket open as Kad­cy­la scores its first breast can­cer OK in the coun­try

Roche’s Kadcyla has become the first antibody-drug conjugate to enter the Chinese market, marking a dramatic advance for both the Swiss pharma giant and the therapeutic class.

The local arm of Roche announced the approval late Tuesday, which covers the therapy’s use in the adjuvant setting in patients with early HER-2 positive breast cancer who still have residual invasive disease after receiving paclitaxel and Herceptin as neoadjuvant treatment.

Pascal Soriot, Getty

Pas­cal So­ri­ot and As­traZeneca com­mit to car­bon neu­tral­i­ty by 2025. Where's the rest of Phar­ma?

Pascal Soriot has spent more than 20 years at the top of an industry recently found to emit more carbon than the automotive industry.

He called himself a “global citizen,” and traveled often across three-plus continents. While CEO of AstraZeneca, he commissioned a flight service — media-dubbed AstraZeneca airlines — from Cambridge to the company’s other European hub in Gothenburg. He made few, if any, public statements on the environment or his companies’ impact on it.

Wuhan virus out­break trig­gers in­evitable small-biotech ral­ly

Every few years, a public health crisis (think Ebola, Zika) spurred by a rogue pathogen triggers a small-biotech rally, as drugmakers emerge from the woodwork with ambitious plans to treat the mounting outbreak. In most cases, that enthusiasm never quite delivers.

Things are no different, as the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China takes hold. There have been close to 300 confirmed human infections in China, and at least four deaths. Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses, which include MERS and SARS. On Tuesday, the CDC reported the virus was detected in a US traveler returning from Wuhan.

Fresh tri­al da­ta for­ti­fy po­si­tion of Roche's oral ther­a­py in spinal mus­cu­lar at­ro­phy bat­tle­ground

With an FDA decision date looming, Roche on Wednesday unveiled positive pivotal data on its blockbuster-bound oral spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) drug in patients with the most severe form of the muscle-wasting disease.

The FDA is set to make its decision on the therapy, risdiplam, by May 24. It is expected to compete with Biogen’s Spinraza and Novartis’ Zolgensma.

Partnered with PTC Therapeutics, the Roche drug was tested in 41 patients aged 1-7 months with type 1 SMA, a rare genetic muscle-wasting disease. The trial, dubbed FIREFISH, measured efficacy via the proportion of infants sitting without support after 12 months of treatment, and longer.