Skip to main content

Selecting Therapeutic Alternatives: A Critical Perspective for Drug Manufacturers

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 instructed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to initiate drug price negotiations with manufacturers for the first time. A key component of these negotiations involves considering factors like the drug's benefits and costs to establish a "lowest maximum fair price." (MFP) For drug manufacturers, CMS’s process for making comparisons of therapeutic alternative(s) to determine the MFP raises a number of crucial questions.


The IRA's guidance suggests that CMS will initially compare drugs within the same class as the negotiated drug to determine a starting point for pricing. For drug manufacturers, this approach raises concerns regarding price competition within drug classes. As new drugs are often priced in line with preexisting brand-name drugs in the same class, the negotiation process may result in downward pressure on prices for all drugs in the class. This could significantly affect the revenue and profitability of drug manufacturers, especially if their drug is not deemed significantly superior to other options within the class.

On the other hand, CMS’s approach assumes that all therapeutically alternative drugs are priced using the same types of information, which may not necessarily be the case. For drug manufacturers, this raises questions about the fairness of the negotiation process, as the final price may be influenced by factors used to price competitor products and by competitor products that themselves have not yet faced the negotiation process.

CMS also acknowledges the difficulty of comparing drugs with similar mechanisms of action, which often leads to limited head-to-head randomized trials. For drug makers, this poses challenges in establishing the unique value of their drugs relative to others in the class. If the negotiated drug lacks clear evidence of superiority over existing alternatives, it may be subject to price reductions despite significant investment in research and development. This situation may disincentivize drug manufacturers from pursuing innovative treatments within established drug classes.

Many drugs selected for negotiation have multiple indications, each with varying degrees of clinical benefit. CMS plans to adjust prices based on the clinical benefit for each indication. However, the determination of fair prices across indications may lack transparency and could be subject to interpretation. Drug manufacturers may face uncertainty and complexities in pricing their drugs differently for each indication, potentially leading to disputes during negotiations.

From a drug manufacturer's perspective, the IRA's drug price negotiation process may have implications for future research and development investments. If the negotiation process results in lower prices for drugs within established classes, manufacturers may become hesitant to invest in developing new treatments within those classes. The potential financial risks and uncertain rewards of introducing new drugs could discourage innovation and limit patients' access to novel therapies.

CMS’s negotiation process places an onus on drug manufacturers to take an even more active role in their pricing strategies. Drug makers may find benefits to generating and gathering more robust information about the clinical and societal value of their drugs in order to strengthen their own negotiating position. Pricing agreements with payers and health-systems -- including outcomes based agreements and risk sharing agreements, could also serve to boost to the value and support favorable pricing of drugs. Finally, remaining an active participant in policy discussions and providing input on future CMS guidance and regulations will help to ensure that industry voices are heard by policymakers.

In conclusion, drug manufacturers have legitimate concerns about the Inflation Reduction Act's drug price negotiation process. The focus on comparing drugs within the same class and anchoring prices to branded alternatives may lead to downward price pressure, potentially impacting revenue and investment in innovation. Uncertainty in assessing a drug's unique value and its pricing across multiple indications may further complicate negotiations. While the Act aims to reduce drug prices and improve affordability, it also presents challenges that need to be carefully addressed to strike a fair balance between cost control and promoting continued pharmaceutical innovation.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Problem of Limited-Supply Agreements for Medicare Price Negotiation

A recent JAMA Viewpoint article discusses how limited-supply agreements between brand name and generic drug makers could impact Medicare price negotiation under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). These agreements allow brand manufacturers to maintain some market exclusivity by limiting the supply of generic competitors. The article suggests these deals may increase as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implements the IRA's price negotiation provisions. From a business perspective, it's understandable why brand manufacturers might find limited-supply agreements preferable to having their drugs subject to Medicare negotiation. Maintaining even partial exclusivity is likely better for revenue than triggering government-dictated price reductions. However, policymakers and patients are increasingly concerned that these deals keep prices high despite generic availability. The use of limited supply agreements could also produce unintended consequences.  Balancing som...

FDA Green Light Inches Genetic Screening Forward

The FDA recently granted authorization for the first multi-gene test for assessing hereditary cancer risk, marking a significant advancement in genetic screening capabilities. Developed by Invitae Corporation, the Invitae Common Hereditary Cancers Panel analyzes variants in 47 genes associated with increased cancer risk. Using next-generation sequencing on DNA from blood samples, the test looks at BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants linked to breast and ovarian cancer, as well as other cancer-related genes.  (image source: Adobe Stock Images) The FDA’s approval provides a regulatory framework giving labs a clearer roadmap for developing similar multi-gene panels. With an authorized model in place, labs can proceed more confidently in navigating FDA submissions. Specifically, the de novo classification created for Invitae’s test allows future lab-developed panels to gain regulatory clearance through the expedited 510(k) pathway by demonstrating substantial equivalence. This streamlined validat...

The Future of Liquid Biopsies: Endless Possibilities for Cancer Testing

Liquid biopsies are poised to disrupt cancer testing as we know it. These novel blood tests analyze circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and other molecules released by cancer cells, providing a non-invasive option for detection, diagnosis, and monitoring. The promise of liquid biopsies has generated tremendous excitement, along with over $1 billion in investments and acquisitions in recent years. But how close are we to realizing their full potential?  A recent review article sounds a note of caution amidst the hype. While liquid biopsies show ability to detect cancer, evidence that they improve patient outcomes is still lacking. Randomized trials with survival endpoints are needed to prove clinical utility. However, this provides the perfect opportunity for innovative diagnostics companies. Rather than dampening enthusiasm, these evidence gaps highlight major growth possibilities if companies can demonstrate real-world value.   We envision liquid biopsies transforming oncology...