Trump pro­pos­al ta­pers Medicare pro­tec­tion for cer­tain drugs if drug­mak­ers don't tem­per pric­ing

In its op­po­si­tion to the in­dus­try stan­dard of re­lent­less and of­ten ex­or­bi­tant drug price hikes, the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion seems to be do­ing more than huff­ing and puff­ing. Af­ter threat­en­ing to switch to a sys­tem that pegs US prices against cheap­er rates abroad ahead of the mid-term elec­tions last month, HHS out­lined a pro­pos­al on Mon­day that could rule out cer­tain drugs from be­ing in­clud­ed as part of guar­an­teed Medicare cov­er­age, if their mak­ers con­tin­ue to hike prices un­de­terred.

Seema Ver­ma

Medicare part D — a vol­un­tary out­pa­tient pre­scrip­tion drug ben­e­fit for Medicare en­rollees, pro­vid­ed through pri­vate plans ap­proved by the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment — re­quires in­sur­ers to in­clude drugs from six pro­tect­ed class­es (an­ti­de­pres­sants, an­tipsy­chotics, an­ti­con­vul­sants, im­muno­sup­pres­sants for treat­ment of trans­plant re­jec­tion, an­ti­retro­vi­rals and an­ti­neo­plas­tics) as part of their for­mu­la­ries. So if a drug falls in­to any of those cat­e­gories, the in­sur­er is oblig­ed to car­ry it, giv­ing the man­u­fac­tur­er sig­nif­i­cant clout to charge what it likes for the treat­ment.

Al­though fed­er­al law pro­hibits the HHS from di­rect­ly in­ter­fer­ing in drug price ne­go­ti­a­tions be­tween Part D plan spon­sors and drug­mak­ers, the new pro­pos­al, which is open to the pub­lic for com­ment, of­fers the in­sur­er the abil­i­ty to claw some of that ne­go­ti­at­ing pow­er back.

“This move un­der­scores our view that the ad­min­is­tra­tion con­tin­ues to see in­sur­ers (and po­ten­tial­ly PBMs) as their part­ners in their fo­cus to low­er drug costs,” Cred­it Su­isse an­a­lysts wrote in a note.

The pro­pos­al sug­gests the in­sur­er be giv­en the op­por­tu­ni­ty to ex­clude a drug if its mak­er were to raise the price be­yond a cer­tain thresh­old over a spe­cif­ic pe­ri­od. It al­so em­pow­ers the in­sur­er to kick a treat­ment off its for­mu­la­ry if the drug rep­re­sents a new for­mu­la­tion of an ex­ist­ing sin­gle-source drug or bi­o­log­i­cal prod­uct, re­gard­less of whether the old­er for­mu­la­tion is on the mar­ket. In ad­di­tion, in­sur­ers could low­er costs by com­pelling pa­tients to un­der­go step ther­a­py, which in­volves try­ing a cheap­er drug on for size – if that treat­ment doesn’t con­fer ad­e­quate ben­e­fit, on­ly then is a more ex­pen­sive drug giv­en, sim­i­lar to the pol­i­cy al­lowed for Part B drugs in 2019.

In an in­ter­view with Bloomberg, CMS ad­min­is­tra­tor Seema Ver­ma said the pro­pos­al could save $692 mil­lion over a decade.

“We see this as some­what ex­pect­ed and priced in (and not worst case sce­nar­ios) and good pub­lic­i­ty for HHS Sec­re­tary Azar and the ad­min­is­tra­tion. While we ac­knowl­edge drugs that cost CMS the most are like­ly to be im­pact­ed in the long term, many of these changes are like­ly to un­der­go re­vi­sions and a com­ment pe­ri­od that may mod­er­ate and would not be im­ple­ment­ed un­til 2020+,” not­ed Jef­feries’ Michael Yee.

In 2014, the Oba­ma ad­min­is­tra­tion was forced to aban­don an at­tempt to lim­it the num­ber of pro­tect­ed class­es, af­ter the plan pro­voked a storm of crit­i­cism from pa­tient groups and Con­gress. Trump’s pro­pos­al, how­ev­er, has not at­tempt­ed to re­duce the num­ber of pro­tect­ed cat­e­gories or elim­i­nate the cov­et­ed pro­tect­ed class sta­tus, which is “a fear some in­vestors had ex­pressed could im­pact Gilead $GILD — re­al­iz­ing that HIV drugs aren’t even in the top 20 for Medicare ex­pen­di­ture,” added Yee.

The CMS pro­pos­al in­clud­ed a raft of oth­er changes, in­clud­ing pro­vid­ing in­for­ma­tion that could help en­rollees low­er their out-of-pock­et costs, by ne­ces­si­tat­ing the in­clu­sion of drug price in­for­ma­tion and low­er cost al­ter­na­tives in the “Ex­pla­na­tion of Ben­e­fits” that Part D plans send to mem­bers. An­oth­er pro­vi­sion im­ple­ments a statu­to­ry re­quire­ment that pro­hibits phar­ma­cy gag claus­es.

PhRMA, a large lob­by­ing group rep­re­sent­ing the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal in­dus­try, said they were still re­view­ing the CMS pro­pos­al in re­sponse to ques­tions from End­points News.

“But we al­ready have sig­nif­i­cant con­cerns about the im­pact of these pro­pos­als on ac­cess for the sick­est and most vul­ner­a­ble Medicare Part D ben­e­fi­cia­ries,” said Juli­et John­son, deputy vice pres­i­dent of pub­lic af­fairs. “Let­ting plans re­strict ac­cess to the med­i­cines that pa­tients re­ly on, par­tic­u­lar­ly for those with se­ri­ous and com­plex health con­di­tions like HIV/AIDS, can­cer and men­tal ill­ness, re­duces ad­her­ence to those med­i­cines, jeop­ar­diz­ing their health, in­creas­ing their need for in­pa­tient care and re­sult­ing in poor­er health out­comes for se­niors and high­er costs for tax­pay­ers.”

Ac­cord­ing to the Kaiser Fam­i­ly Foun­da­tion, rough­ly 43 mil­lion of the 60 mil­lion with Medicare are en­rolled in Part D plans in 2018. To­tal re­im­burse­ment for brand­ed drugs in Part D in­creased 77% from 2011 to 2015, de­spite a 17% drop in the num­ber of pre­scrip­tions, ac­cord­ing to HHS es­ti­mates re­leased ear­li­er this year, which al­so showed that Part D unit costs for brand­ed drugs rose near­ly 6 times faster than in­fla­tion over the same pe­ri­od.

CMS’ lat­est pro­pos­al, and Trump’s gen­er­al brava­do against the phar­ma in­dus­try, may not nec­es­sar­i­ly trans­late to ma­te­r­i­al change. In the first nine months of 2018, there were 96 price hikes for every price cut, ac­cord­ing to an analy­sis by the As­so­ci­at­ed Press pub­lished this Sep­tem­ber, and more re­cent­ly Pfiz­er $PFE said it planned to in­crease prices on 41 of its drugs in Jan­u­ary.

Mean­while, oth­er law­mak­ers are al­so work­ing on ways to quell the scourge of drug price hikes. Last week Sen­a­tor Bernie Sanders and Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Ro Khan­na re­vealed their in­tent to in­tro­duce a leg­is­la­tion called the Pre­scrip­tion Drug Price Re­lief Act. If signed in­to law, the bill would re­quire the HHS to en­sure Amer­i­cans don’t pay more than the me­di­an price in five ma­jor coun­tries: Cana­da, the Unit­ed King­dom, France, Ger­many and Japan for pre­scrip­tion drugs. It al­so in­cludes a pro­vi­sion that could shat­ter the cur­rent sys­tem of patent pro­tec­tion, by al­low­ing the gov­ern­ment to ap­prove gener­ic ver­sions of patent­ed brand­ed drugs if their mak­ers were to refuse to cur­tail their prices be­low that me­di­an lev­el.

BiTE® Plat­form and the Evo­lu­tion To­ward Off-The-Shelf Im­muno-On­col­o­gy Ap­proach­es

Despite rapid advances in the field of immuno-oncology that have transformed the cancer treatment landscape, many cancer patients are still left behind.1,2 Not every person has access to innovative therapies designed specifically to treat his or her disease. Many currently available immuno-oncology-based approaches and chemotherapies have brought long-term benefits to some patients — but many patients still need other therapeutic options.3

President Donald Trump (left) and Moncef Slaoui, head of Operation Warp Speed (Alex Brandon, AP Images)

UP­DAT­ED: White House names fi­nal­ists for Op­er­a­tion Warp Speed — with 5 ex­pect­ed names and one no­table omis­sion

A month after word first broke of the Trump Administration’s plan to rapidly accelerate the development and production of a Covid-19 vaccine, the White House has selected the five vaccine candidates they consider most likely to succeed, The New York Times reported.

Most of the names in the plan, known as Operation Warp Speed, will come as little surprise to those who have watched the last four months of vaccine developments: Moderna, which was the first vaccine to reach humans and is now the furthest along of any US effort; J&J, which has not gone into trials but received around $500 million in funding from BARDA earlier this year; the joint AstraZeneca-Oxford venture which was granted $1.2 billion from BARDA two weeks ago; Pfizer, which has been working with the mRNA biotech BioNTech; and Merck, which just entered the race and expects to put their two vaccine candidates into humans later this year.

GSK presents case to ex­pand use of its lu­pus drug in pa­tients with kid­ney dis­ease, but the field is evolv­ing. How long will the mo­nop­oly last?

In 2011, GlaxoSmithKline’s Benlysta became the first biologic to win approval for lupus patients. Nine years on, the British drugmaker has unveiled detailed positive results from a study testing the drug in lupus patients with associated kidney disease — a post-marketing requirement from the initial FDA approval.

Lupus is a drug developer’s nightmare. In the last six decades, there has been just one FDA approval (Benlysta), with the field resembling a graveyard in recent years with a string of failures including UCB and Biogen’s late-stage flop, as well as defeats in Xencor and Sanofi’s programs. One of the main reasons the success has eluded researchers is because lupus, akin to cancer, is not just one disease — it really is a disease of many diseases, noted Al Roy, executive director of Lupus Clinical Investigators Network, an initiative of New York-based Lupus Research Alliance that claims it is the world’s leading private funder of lupus research, in an interview.

Bris­tol-My­ers is clean­ing up the post-Cel­gene merg­er pipeline, and they’re sweep­ing out an ex­per­i­men­tal check­point in the process

Back during the lead up to the $74 billion buyout of Celgene, the big biotech’s leadership did a little housecleaning with a major pact it had forged with Jounce. Out went the $2.6 billion deal and a collaboration on ICOS and PD-1.

Celgene, though, also added a $530 million deal — $50 million up front — to get the worldwide rights to JTX-8064, a drug that targets the LILRB2 receptor on macrophages.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 83,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Is a pow­er­house Mer­ck team prepar­ing to leap past Roche — and leave Gilead and Bris­tol My­ers be­hind — in the race to TIG­IT dom­i­na­tion?

Roche caused quite a stir at ASCO with its first look at some positive — but not so impressive — data for their combination of Tecentriq with their anti-TIGIT drug tiragolumab. But some analysts believe that Merck is positioned to make a bid — soon — for the lead in the race to a second-wave combo immuno-oncology approach with its own ambitious early-stage program tied to a dominant Keytruda.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Leen Kawas, Athira CEO (Athira)

Can a small biotech suc­cess­ful­ly tack­le an Ever­est climb like Alzheimer’s? Athi­ra has $85M and some in­flu­en­tial back­ers ready to give it a shot

There haven’t been a lot of big venture rounds for biotech companies looking to run a Phase II study in Alzheimer’s.

The field has been a disaster over the past decade. Amyloid didn’t pan out as a target — going down in a litany of Phase III failures — and is now making its last stand at Biogen. Tau is a comer, but when you look around and all you see is destruction, the idea of backing a startup trying to find complex cocktails to swing the course of this devilishly complicated memory-wasting disease would daunt the pluckiest investors.

Covid-19 roundup: Mod­er­na read­ies to en­ter PhI­II in Ju­ly, As­traZeneca not far be­hind; EU ready to ne­go­ti­ate vac­cine ac­cess with $2.7B fund

Moderna may soon add another first to the Covid-19 vaccine race.

In March, the mRNA biotech was the first company to put a Covid-19 vaccine into humans. Next month, they may become the first company to put their vaccine into the large, late-stage trials that are needed to prove whether the vaccine is effective.

In an interview with JAMA editor Howard Bauchner, NIAID chief Anthony Fauci said that a 30,000-person, Phase III trial for Moderna’s vaccine could start in July. The news comes a week after Moderna began a Phase II study that will enroll several hundred people.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 83,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

José Basel­ga finds promise in new class of RNA-mod­i­fy­ing can­cer tar­gets, lock­ing in 3 pre­clin­i­cal pro­grams with $55M

Having dived early into some of the RNA breakthroughs of the last decades — betting on Moderna’s mRNA tech and teaming up with Silence on the siRNA front — AstraZeneca is jumping into a new arena: going after proteins that modify RNA.

Their partner of choice is Accent Therapeutics, which is receiving $55 million in upfront payment to steer a selected preclinical program through to the end of Phase I. After AstraZeneca takes over, the Lexington, MA-based startup has the option to co-develop and co-commercialize in the US — and collect up to $1.1 billion in milestones in the long run. The deal also covers two other potential drug candidates.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 83,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Gilead bol­sters its case for block­buster hope­ful fil­go­tinib as FDA pon­ders its de­ci­sion

Before remdesivir soaked up the spotlight amid the coronavirus crisis, Gilead’s filgotinib was the star experimental drug tapped to rake in billions competing with other JAK inhibitors made by rivals including AbbVie and Eli Lilly.

Now, long term data on the drug — discovered by Gilead’s partners at Galapagos and posted as part of a virtual medical conference — have solidified the durability and safety of filgotinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, spanning data from three late-stage trials. An FDA decision on the drug is expected this year.