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

Novotech CRO Ex­pands Chi­na Team as Biotech De­mand for Clin­i­cal Tri­als In­creas­es up to 79%

An increase in demand of up to 79% for clinical trials in China has prompted Novotech the Asia-Pacific CRO to rapidly expand the China team, appointing expert local clinical executives to their Shanghai and Hong Kong offices. The company is planning to expand their team by 30% over the next quarter.

Novotech China has seen considerable demand recently which is borne out by research from GlobalData:
A global migration of clinical research is occurring from high-income countries to low and middle-income countries with emerging economies. Over the period 2017 to 2018, for example, the number of clinical trial sites opened by biotech companies in Asia-Pacific increased by 35% compared to 8% in the rest of the world, with growth as high as 79% in China.
Novotech CEO Dr John Moller said China offers the largest population in the world, rapid economic growth, and an increasing willingness by government to invest in research and development.
Novotech’s 23 years of experience working in the region means we are the ideal CRO partner for USA biotechs wanting to tap the research expertise and opportunities that China offers.
There are over 22,000 active investigators in Greater China, with about 5,000 investigators with experience on at least 3 studies (source GlobalData).

Daniel O'Day [via AP Images]

UP­DAT­ED: Gilead un­leash­es a $5B late-stage cash al­liance with Gala­pa­gos — lay­ing out O'­Day's R&D strat­e­gy

Daniel O’Day is executing his first major development deal since taking over as CEO of Gilead $GILD. And he’s going in deep to ally himself with a longstanding partner.

O’Day announced today that he is spending $5 billion in cash to add new late-stage drugs to Gilead’s pipeline, picking up rights to Galapagos’ $GLPG Phase III IPF drug GLPG1690 alongside adoption of the biotech’s Phase IIb drug GLPG1972 for osteoarthritis. And Gilead is also putting billions more on the table for milestones, gaining options for everything else in Galapagos’ pipeline, with a shot at all rights outside of Europe.

Altogether, Gilead is gaining rights to 6 clinical-stage assets, 20 preclinical programs and everything else being hatched in translation.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 54,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Hal Barron [File photo]

Hal Bar­ron's team at GSK scores a win with pos­i­tive Ze­ju­la PhI­II front­line study — now comes the hard part

Score one for Hal Barron and the new R&D team steering GlaxoSmithKline’s pipeline.

The pharma giant reported this morning that its recently acquired PARP, Zejula (niraparib), hit the primary endpoint on progression-free survival in a frontline maintenance setting for women suffering ovarian cancer — following chemo and regardless of their BRCA status.

GSK bet $5 billion on the Tesaro buyout primarily to get this drug, drawing the shaking heads of biopharma. Why pay a big premium for a drug like this when AstraZeneca was going from strength to strength with Lynparza, ran the argument, having won a hugely important accelerated approval to jump out ahead — way ahead — of the rest of the PARP players? Lynparza — now co-owned by a powerhouse cancer team at Merck — won the first approval in frontline maintenance in ovarian cancer.

Alk­er­mes adds bipo­lar I dis­or­der to its FDA wish­list; Con­go con­firms first Ebo­la case in large city

→ An ever-ambitious Alkermes $ALKS team plans to add bipolar I disorder to its list of conditions for ALKS-3831, which it plans to pitch to the FDA in Q4. Alkermes says they were persuaded to add bipolar I disorder after a pre-NDA meeting with the agency, which came about 7 months after the biotech reported positive data for schizophrenia. The drug is a combo using olanzapine/samidorphan, which they hope will be shown to be as effective as olanzapine without the substantial increase in the risk of weight gain.

Pe­ter Kolchin­sky and Raj Shah raise a $300M fund de­vot­ed to biotech star­tups

Peter Kolchinsky and Raj Shah have another $300 million-plus to play with on the biotech venture side of their investment business. 

The two announced Monday morning that they’ve put together their first pure-play venture fund at RA Capital Management, which has been known to bet on just about every angle in healthcare investing — from rounds to follow-on investments at public companies. This new fund of theirs arrives well into a go-go era of new startup financing, with a particular focus on building new biotechs.

Boehringer buys Swiss biotech in its lat­est M&A deal, go­ing the next-gen can­cer vac­cine route

Boehringer Ingelheim has snapped up a Swiss biotech startup and added their group as a new platform for the oncology pipeline. 

The German biopharma company has bagged Geneva-based AMAL Therapeutics, paying out an unspecified upfront in a $358 million deal — cash, milestones and everything else, all in. Plus there’s 100 million euros on the line for commercial milestones.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 54,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Ab­b­Vie beefs up the on­col­o­gy pipeline, bag­ging an up­start STING play­er with its own unique ap­proach

AbbVie isn’t letting its $63 billion buyout of Allergan stop its M&A/deals team from continuing their work.

Monday morning we learned that the pharma giant is snapping up tiny Mavupharma out of Seattle, a Frazier-backed startup that has its own unique take on STING — which is on the threshold of their first clinical trial.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 54,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Billing it­self as the first AI biotech to launch hu­man tri­als, Re­cur­sion adds $121M C round

Billing itself as the first AI biotech with programs in the clinic, Salt Lake City-based Recursion now has a $121 million bankroll to start gathering human data to see if it’s on the right track. 

“We’re trying to build this discovery engine,” Recursion CEO Chris Gibson tells me ahead of the C round news. “We now have the first two programs in the clinic.” And that, he adds, qualifies as a first for any AI establishment “that actually have something in the clinic.”

FDA bats back As­traZeneca's SGLT di­a­betes drug for Type 1 di­a­betes — block­ing a class on safe­ty fears

The FDA has just fired its latest salvo at the SGLT class of diabetes drugs, blowing up some commercial opportunity at AstraZeneca as part of the collateral damage.

The pharma giant reported early Monday that the FDA has rejected its blockbuster drug Farxiga for Type 1 diabetes that can’t be controlled by insulin. And while the pharma giant maintained its usual grim silence in the face of a setback, this one should be easy to interpret.