As we noted previously in our introductory blog post on the 2017 User Fee Act (UFA) reauthorization process, the first UFA hearing on Capitol Hill was convened on March 2, 2017 by the House Energy & Commerce Committee’s (E&C) Subcommittee on Health. That hearing focused on the UFAs specific to generic drugs and biosimilar biological products. Since then, Congress has held several more UFA hearings, and multiple FDA-related bipartisan bills that could become important to this process have been introduced. So it’s time for an update on how things are going with the UFA reauthorizations. Continue Reading FDA User Fee Hearings Picking Up Steam on Capitol Hill
In the alphabet soup that is health and FDA law and policy (if you don’t know what we mean, are you sure you should be reading this blog?), one acronym that doesn’t get a lot of respect is “UFA.” This is the first is a series of blog posts that aim to educate and inform our readers about why the UFA acronym matters and how the UFA legislative process may be particularly significant in 2017.
UFA stands for “User Fee Act,” of which there are many flavors in this modern era – from the old-timer Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), born in 1992, to the more toddler-ish Biosimilar User Fee Act (BsUFA) that joined us in 2012. Other important UFAs for the U.S. health care system and stakeholders are the Medical Device User Fee Amendments (MDUFA), which were enacted first in 2002, and the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments (GDUFA) that launched at the same time as their biosimilar companion. Continue Reading Let the 2017 “UFA” Games Begin!
Last week, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (the “Commission”) debated a package of policy reforms that would change the way Medicare reimburses physicians for Medicare Part B drugs. In the midst of calls to lower drug prices, the Commission has been developing its Part B reform package over the last two years and now, finally, appears poised to move forward with a vote at next month’s meeting.
Medicare Part B drugs are a multi-billion dollar benefit and typically include higher cost specialty drugs that are administered in a physician’s office on an outpatient basis. Drugs covered under Medicare Part B are reimbursed through a so-called “buy and bill” approach. That is, the physician buys the drugs and bills Medicare for their use. Medicare pays the provider the average sales price (“ASP”) of the drug plus a markup of 6% of the ASP. The 6% markup is generally considered compensation to physicians for the storage, handling, and other administrative costs associated with these specialty drugs. Continue Reading Medicare Advisors Debate Part B Drug Payment Reforms
As we’ve previously discussed on Health Law and Policy Matters, agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) pushed through several final rules towards the end of the Obama Administration (see here and here). However, since taking office, President Trump has followed through on his campaign promise to significantly roll back Federal regulations and has taken several actions aimed at slowing and reversing agency regulatory processes, including processes at the DHHS sub-agencies CMS and FDA. These executive actions are creating a climate of uncertainty for regulated industries and their stakeholders. Continue Reading Trump Executive Orders Create Uncertainty for Health Care & Pharmaceutical Industries
The pharmacy industry continues to be under scrutiny from all angles. As legislative, agency, and enforcement priorities take shape under the new administration, the industry is faced with what seems like daily developments in terms of policy updates, legislation, and potential regulation. Our 2017 Pharmacy Industry Summit will bring together stakeholders and thought leaders from across the industry to discuss legal and policy challenges facing manufacturers, PBMs, payors, pharmacies, and providers and to assess the various swirling initiatives and their potential impact on the industry.
The Summit will be held on April 5-6 at the Mintz Levin Washington, DC office. Event details can be found here.
Session topics will include:
- A Keynote Address from Mark Merritt, President and CEO of The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA)
- An update on the current state of Affordable Care Act Reform
- Drug Pricing Debate and the Evolving Role of Pharmacy Industry Players
- State Issues Affecting the Pharmaceutical Industry
- Congressional Staffer Panel
- Value-Based and Innovative Contracting and Reimbursement
- FDA’s Impact on the Supply Chain – Evolving Policies and Changing Priorities
- Government Enforcement and the Pharmaceutical Industry
We hope you can join us! Please register by March 29, 2017.
A Trump victory was not the only surprise on election night. California’s drug pricing initiative, which would have required state agencies to negotiate drug prices at least as low as those paid by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, was defeated by a wide margin (46% to 54%). This clear-cut defeat came as a surprise to many considering that polls taken just a couple of months earlier showed widespread support for the initiative. The California ballot initiative was introduced last year in the midst of widespread criticism of soaring drug prices. The initiative had early support but floundered leading up to the election when major pharmaceutical companies expended considerable resources into the campaign to defeat it. Continue Reading In the Wake of the Election, What’s Next for State Drug Pricing Initiatives?
Last month, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report in which it found that manufacturer drug coupon programs for privately insured patients could potentially cause the Medicare Part B program to overspend on certain high-cost Part B drugs. The pricing for most drugs reimbursed by the Medicare Part B program is based on each drug’s average sales price (ASP), which is defined as the amount that physicians and other purchasers pay manufacturers for the drug. Currently, the ASP does not take into account drug coupons offered to privately insured patients. Continue Reading GAO Report Suggests Discount Coupons Impact Medicare Spending for Part B Drugs
As we predicted in yesterday’s post, FDA approved a new biosimilar product, Sandoz’s Erelzi (etanercept-szzs), which is a biosimilar to Amgen’s Enbrel (etanercept), on August 30th. FDA’s decision comes shortly after its Arthritis Advisory Committee voted unanimously in support of approving the biosimilar. FDA followed its draft naming guidance and assigned the biosimilar’s non-proprietary name using the reference product’s drug substance name followed by a nonsense four-letter suffix. Erelzi becomes the third biosimilar to receive FDA approval (the second for Novartis subsidiary Sandoz) and is indicated for rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and plaque psoriasis, similar to Enbrel. However, Erelzi cannot be launched commercially until at least 6 months after Sandoz provides Amgen with the mandatory notice required under the law, which the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed cannot be provided until after FDA approves the biosimilar application.
UPDATE (August 31, 2016): Shortly after we published this blog post, FDA approved Sandoz’s biosimilar to Amgen’s Enbrel (etanercept), called Erelzi (etanercept-szzs). Erelzi becomes the third biosimilar to receive FDA approval (the second for Novartis subsidiary Sandoz) and is indicated for rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and plaque psoriasis, similar to Enbrel.
In a sign of growing scientific acceptance and understanding of the biosimilar regulatory pathway, FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee (AAC) voted unanimously last month in favor of approving two new biosimilar products – GP2015, Sandoz’s biosimilar to Amgen’s Enbrel (etanercept); and ABP 501, Amgen’s biosimilar to Abbvie’s Humira (adalimumab). If approved, both biosimilars would be labeled to reduce inflammation in patients with autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis.
After reviewing data from analytical, pre-clinical, and clinical trials demonstrating that the proposed biosimilars are “highly similar” to their respective reference products, the AAC recommended that FDA approve each of the two abbreviated biologics license applications (aBLAs). The committee also voted that the totality of the evidence presented by each biosimilar sponsor supported extrapolation of those data to all of the reference products’ currently approved indications.
As we previously reported, in 2015 and early 2016, bills and voter initiatives were introduced in several states that would impose drug pricing controls and transparency requirements on pharmaceutical manufacturers. Of approximately a dozen bills that have been introduced in state legislatures over the past year and a half, just one bill, Vermont’s, has made it into law. A bill in California passed the Senate on June 1st and is expected to be voted on by the Assembly by August 31st, and ballot measures to control drug prices in California and Ohio are expected to be on the ballots in 2016 and 2017. All other initiatives have died in committee and never made it to a floor vote.
Since their introduction, these drug price transparency bills have been fiercely opposed by the pharmaceutical industry to apparent effect. The latest casualty is a high-profile Massachusetts drug price transparency bill that Massachusetts lawmakers failed to vote on before adjourning on July 31st. According to an industry spokesperson, Massachusetts is a critical state for the biotech industry as many pharmaceutical companies have headquarters or major research operations in the state. And according to state lobbying reports, 27 pharmaceutical companies, plus PhRMA and the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, lobbied against the bill in 2015.
The pharmaceutical industry has also launched a full scale lobbying effort against the California and Ohio ballot measures. The industry managed to thwart the signature gathering for the Ohio ballot measure through litigation and kept the measure off of the 2016 ballot. As of now, the California initiative is expected to be on the ballot in 2016, but the industry has spent approximately $68.4 million in a campaign against the initiative as well as lining up organizations including consumer and medical groups, to oppose the measure.
With the failure of many state drug pricing initiatives, the pressure will continue to increase for lawmakers at the federal level to contain drug costs – particularly in this election year.