Last week, Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D- Ore.) introduced the “Creating Transparency to Have Drug Rebates Unlocked (C-THRU) Act of 2017.” As its name suggests, it seeks to require parties (e.g., PBMs) that contract with pharmaceutical manufacturers for drug rebates to be more transparent regarding the rebates they receive on behalf of their health plan clients, specifically Part D plans and qualified health benefit plans that participate on ACA Exchanges (“Exchange Plans”). The Act would: (1) require the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) to make available on its website the PBM transparency data submitted by PBMs that contract with Part D Sponsors or Exchange Plans, (2) require the Secretary of HHS to adopt a minimum percentage of drug rebates that a PBM would need to pass through to its Part D or Exchange Plan clients, and (3) amend the definition of negotiated price under the Part D program to change what price concessions would have to be reflected at the point-of-sale. This post focuses on the first two changes. The third change will be addressed in a separate post. Continue Reading Wyden’s C-THRU Act – Publicizing PBM Rebate Data
As the healthcare industry moves towards value-based purchasing, pay-for-performance, and other payment reform models, industry leaders have identified federal fraud and abuse laws as a barrier to full implementation of such models. Last month, the Health Care Leadership Council released a White Paper entitled “Health System Transformation: Revisiting the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute and Physician Self-Referral (“Stark”) Law to Foster Integrated Care Delivery and Payment Models” (“HCL White Paper”), identifying current fraud and abuse laws as impeding transformation of the healthcare system. Pharmaceutical and device manufacturers have also taken advantage of the OIG’s Solicitation of New Safe Harbors and Special Fraud Alerts (“OIG Solicitation”) to advocate for more flexible fraud and abuse laws with respect to value-based arrangements. Continue Reading Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Healthcare Leaders cite Fraud and Abuse Laws as Obstacle to Value-Based Arrangements
Here we are in March 2017 and no one is sure where things stand with the 340B Drug Discount Program. HRSA and its oversight of the 340B program are subject to the recent Executive Orders restricting issuance of federal regulations and the promised repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has the potential to impact 340B operations. In fact, the only thing that appears certain for the 340B program is that nothing is certain. So let’s review several recent 340B developments, and potential developments to come.
In June 2016, I predicted in this blog that the final version of the long-promised HRSA 340B Omnibus Guidance, which would have provided clarity on 340B program standards, would never actually be issued or implemented. And in fact, at the end of January 2017, HRSA withdrew the final 340B Omnibus Guidance while it is was still pending at OMB. Even if it had issued, the Guidance would have been subject to the terms of the regulatory freeze President Trump imposed by Executive Order immediately after his inauguration on January 20, 2017. Continue Reading The Uncertain Future of the 340B Drug Discount Program
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.
The Massachusetts health care industry is facing policy changes from state and federal decision makers. In a recent Alert, my ML Strategies colleagues Julie Cox, Steven Baddour, Dan Connelly, Caitlin Beresin and Max Fathy consider how state and federal government action will affect a wide variety of health care stakeholders.
In addition to certain health care aspects of Governor Baker’s proposed FY2018 budget, the Massachusetts legislature is expected to debate a number of health care issues during the 2017-2018 legislative session. And while Massachusetts is a national leader in health care, federal health care law and policy will always impact the Commonwealth, so ML Strategies is watching how the new presidential administration and Congress move forward with their plans to reshape the nation’s health care policy.
Two key Massachusetts budget items relating to health care are controversial amongst industry:
- A $2,000 per employee “fair share” assessment for certain Massachusetts employers that fail to meet certain enrollment or contribution thresholds for their employee health insurance plans.
- Permanent tiered caps on the rate of growth for all acute hospitals and most professional service providers.
My colleagues also highlight several bills that Massachusetts legislators have introduced relating to drug pricing transparency, recognizing that pharmaceutical spending is a key driver of total health care expenses. We can also expect recommendations from both the Health Policy Commission and the legislature’s Special Commission on Provider Price Variation this spring.
Read the full Alert, and stay tuned as ML Strategies continues to monitor health care in the Commonwealth.
For several years now, the public outcry over the issue of drug pricing and reimbursement has increased in frequency and fervor. At least one government agency wants you to know that it has been listening and wants to help provide the information necessary to forge a solution.
On Friday February 17, 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued an Online Portfolio on Drug Pricing and Reimbursement, pulling together OIG’s body of work related to drug pricing and reimbursement in HHS programs, including Medicaid and Medicare, since 2010. Continue Reading OIG Publishes Online Portfolio Highlighting its Body of Work on Drug Pricing and Reimbursement
From 2015 to 2016, FDA appeared to open the door to loosening the standards around intended use and off-label use, but recent rule-making and public comments suggest that FDA is becoming more sclerotic instead of flexible. However, given the political climate in the federal government and the lack of an appointed FDA commissioner, it is unclear whether FDA will hold its ground or be forced to retreat.