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
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
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 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has withdrawn its controversial rule implementing the Medicare Part B payment demonstration. The agency stated that after consideration of the comments, it will not move forward with the demo.
The demonstration was intended to test new reimbursement methods for Medicare Part B drugs and to promote value-based and cost-effective drug purchasing. Despite its intentions, major patient, pharmaceutical, and physician groups criticized the scope of the rule and the speed in which CMS was implementing it. Many worried it would restrict or limit access to certain drugs. It also drew sharp criticism from several members of Congress, including President-elect’s nominee for the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Rep. Tom Price. Continue Reading The Medicare Part B Demo May be Dead, but Drug Pricing Concerns Still Linger
More than two years since issuing the proposed rule, the HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued the long-awaited and highly anticipated final rule (the Final Rule) that provides amendments to the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) regulatory safe harbors and adds protections for certain payment practices and business arrangements under the beneficiary inducement provisions of the Civil Monetary Penalty Law (CMP). These amendments and updates to the AKS and CMP regulations attempt to clarify the OIG’s enforcement position in light of changes due to health reforms, to streamline the OIG’s advisory opinion workload, and to implement long-existing mandates enacted in statutes. This post discusses the amendments to the beneficiary inducement provisions of the CMP codified in 42 C.F.R. Part 1003 (CMP Regulations). Continue Reading At Long Last, OIG Issues Final Rule for Beneficiary Inducement Safe Harbors
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?
There has been much controversy over the Medicare Part B payment demonstration proposed by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) in March 2016. As we await the release of the final rule, the fate of this demonstration will be in the hands of a Republican-held Congress and President-Elect Trump. To move forward, not only will CMMI need to finalize the implementing regulations, but the Part B payment demonstration will also need to survive review under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Continue Reading The Future of the Medicare Part B Payment Demo under a Republican-held Congress
Last week, CMS released a Fact Sheet announcing that it is further delaying enforcement of the Medicare Part D Prescriber Enrollment Requirements, with full enforcement to begin on January 1, 2019. Under the Medicare Part D Prescriber Requirements, Medicare Advantage and Part D plans must deny coverage of drugs prescribed by providers who are not enrolled in Medicare or who have not validly opted out of Medicare (except under limited circumstances). This represents the third delay since the requirements were finalized.
In an HPMS memo addressed to Part D Sponsors, CMS stated that this delay is in recognition of the need to minimize disruption to beneficiaries and to ensure that they have continued access to the care they need. It also provides Part D sponsors, their pharmacy benefit managers, and Medicare Advantage plans “sufficient time” to finalize system enhancements necessary to comply with these requirements. Continue Reading CMS Delays Enforcement of Part D Prescriber Enrollment Requirements