Skip to main content

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 sometimes conflicting public health interests and business goals will require thoughtful consideration by manufacturers and policy-makers alike

For manufacturers, these deals may draw lawsuits, backlash from patient advocacy groups, and demands for profit clawbacks if perceived as artificially inflating costs. The ability, or lack thereof, to enter into limited supply agreements could influence launch prices of new drugs. Leveraging these deals later to retain exclusivity and avoid price negotiation could encourage manufacturers to be more aggressive in establishing launch prices. 

However, manufacturers should be cautious about pricing drugs too aggressively out of the gate. Excessive launch prices - coupled with later reliance on limited supply deals to avoid reductions - may increase scrutiny from policymakers and the public. Savvy manufacturers will likely take a balanced approach - pricing new drugs reasonably at launch while keeping limited supply agreements in reserve as an option if negotiation is triggered down the road.

For Medicare, overly restricting these agreements could discourage investment in new drugs. In the extreme, vital medications might cease being available to beneficiaries. Outright bans on these kinds of agreements could also have downstream consequences. For instance, a total ban on these kinds of agreements could result in manufacturers abandoning their work in certain disease states if they are deemed to be financially unsustainable, in turn leaving beneficiaries with limited access to treatment.

As with any complex policy issue, there are likely trade-offs and second order effects that both sides should consider. A flexible, adaptive approach focused on the shared goals of patient access and program sustainability may be required as real-world experience with limited supply agreements accumulates.

In the end, all parties share an interest in ensuring patient access to vital medicines. This requires balancing policy goals, business realities, and public expectations. With thoughtful engagement on all sides, workable solutions can likely be found to perceived abuses without unduly limiting manufacturers' ability to recoup investments in innovation. Open dialogue and good faith efforts to understand differing perspectives will be key.

Link to full article: 

 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2809761?resultClick=1

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 profitabi...
Post a Comment
Read more

TCET Pathway Could Accelerate Access to Innovating Technologies

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed the Transitional Coverage for Emerging Technologies (TCET) pathway to enable quicker coverage decisions for breakthrough devices needing accelerated regulatory review. As described in JAMA Health Forum, TCET allows tailored oversight based on an innovation’s specific benefits and risks. TCET focuses on FDA Breakthrough-designated devices for serious conditions supported by limited clinical data for market authorization. By facilitating transitional coverage, TCET aims to help make cutting-edge technologies accessible to patients while additional real-world evidence is gathered to meet CMS’ “reasonable and necessary” standard.  For developers to optimize TCET’s streamlined approach they should be sure to: - Pursue FDA Breakthrough designation when criteria are met. This opens the TCET pathway.   - Engage CMS early on study designs and evidence needs. Incorporate draft guidance on endpoints and real-world data....
Post a Comment
Read more

Bridging the Gap: The Long Road from FDA Approval to Medicare Coverage

A new study published in JAMA Health Forum reveals that the road to Medicare coverage for novel medical technologies is a long and winding one. Researchers found that only 44% of innovative devices and diagnostics approved by the FDA from 2016-2019 had even “nominal” Medicare coverage by 2022. This data highlights major hurdles in the system that delay patient access to beneficial emerging technologies. About the Research The study examined 281 novel products cleared through the FDA from 2016-2019 via the high-risk premarket approval, de novo, and breakthrough 510(k) pathways. These included things like groundbreaking diagnostic tests, implantable devices, and other innovative treatment technologies. The goal was to measure how long it took to establish national or regional Medicare coverage policies for these newly approved products. This is important because Medicare coverage is required before hospitals, physicians and patients can reliably access new technologies. Key Findings The ...
Post a Comment
Read more