Will Immunity Passports Lead to Future Genetic Discrimination?

There is no need to rehash the harsh societal effects that COVID-19 has had not only on our psychological and financial wellbeing, but also on the vulnerable population’s immune system. Those having to deal with underlying health conditions such as diabetes, obesity, hypertension have been especially at risk, including some young and healthy individuals. As we race to understand the rationale behind why such an erratic disease impacts some but not others, the question that frequently comes up is whether a person’s genes has something to do with becoming infected?

While it seems like we have been discussing gene therapy for some time, understanding how to harness the potential of the human genome is still in the “early innings.” According to the National Human Genome Research it was found that there are about 20,500 genes in human DNA. This information had taken 13 years to find and was completed in 2003. There are so many things to learn about our genes in order to be precise enough to fully realize how we can get to the ultimate improvement in patient outcomes. Unfortunately, it seems as though time is not on our side when needing to understand how our genes play a key role in fighting this terrible disease. It seems like the best thing to mitigate our circumstances until we get a vaccine is how to contain it. From social distancing to contact tracing, one idea that has been gaining steam on re-opening the economy is the possibility of immunity passports. 

So what are immunity passports? The World Health Organization (WHO) states “Some governments have suggested that the detection of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, could serve as the basis for an ‘immunity passport’ or ‘risk-free certificate’ that would enable individuals to travel or to return to work assuming that they are protected against re-infection. There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.”

Currently there is so much fear and mistrust regarding information on COVID-19 that in order for this to work in my opinion, we would have to have certainty in antibody testing, as well as a 100% understanding about how long immunity actually lasts. Aside from a vaccine, this would certainly move economies forward as a way to slowly start to recoup the financial losses we have witnessed worldwide. But could well intentioned things like immunity passports lead to something unintended such as genetic discrimination? 

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), genetic discrimination occurs when people are treated differently by their employer or insurance company because they have a genetic mutation that causes or increases the risk of an inherited disorder or they have a familial history of a specific health condition. Surprisingly, this issue could determine whether someone gets hired or fired and could mean the difference between receiving comprehensive coverage.

GINA does provide a solution to genetic discrimination. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) provides for protection against this type of discrimination. Title I of GINA prohibits genetic discrimination in health insurance, and Title II prohibits genetic discrimination in employment.

Under the first part of the act, it is illegal for health insurance providers to use or require genetic information to determine whether a person is eligible for coverage. The second part prohibits employers from using a person’s genetic information in making decisions about hiring, promotion, and various other terms of employment.

However, GINA and similar laws do not protect individuals from genetic discrimination under every circumstance, such as an instance in which an employer has fewer than 15 employees. The act also does not apply to those serving in the military or those insured under the Veterans Health Administration or Indian Health Service. Furthermore, the act does not protect against genetic discrimination in other forms of insurance, including life, disability, and long-term care, according to the NIH.

While GINA’s development was designed for genetic discrimination, I believe that we have not yet seen how this law could potentially evolve from its original intent, especially in this circumstance. Constantly looking through both a policy and legal lens, I see potential problems with an immunity passport. While I understand how this is designed to get the economy back on track, how will individuals be judged regarding obtaining an immunity passport. Is this something you will be required to have by an employer? Are there privacy issues that will evolve from having to declare whether you have an immunity passport? Will employees be looked at differently if they have a passport versus those that don’t? Will an employee’s cost of insurance increase because they happened to get COVID-19?

COVID-19 has changed our lives in ways that we cannot yet imagine. As we start transitioning back towards living with this complex disease until there is a cure, our minds are currently undergoing small yet lasting changes that will unconsciously shape the way we make decisions going forward. It is very foreseeable that society will try and mitigate risks to businesses, meaning that it is not unforeseeable that companies may try and understand any genetic risks that may exist to employees. Whether this is the new normal, a threat to privacy or something else remains to be seen. 

*Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog post is an opinion and is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Access to this information does not create an attorney client relationship between Lanton Law and the viewer. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem.

PBM U.S. Supreme Court Case Rescheduled for this Fall

We at Lanton Law along with many other pharmacy stakeholders have been closely monitoring the events surrounding the pending U.S. Supreme Court case of Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association.

We released our first blog about this case in December 2019 and are proud to be quoted in the January 2020 Pharmacy Times article regarding Rutledge.

To refresh the U.S. Supreme Court has provided a brief summary of the facts: 

Thirty-six States have enacted legislation to curb abusive prescription drug reimbursement practices by claims-processing middlemen-known as pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)-who make money on the spread between the rates at which they reimburse pharmacies and the drug prices they charge health plans. In response, Respondent Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA), a PBM trade association, has launched a barrage of litigation across the country arguing that state regulations of PBMs generally, and state drug-reimbursement regulations specifically, are categorically preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Disregarding this Court's ERISA precedent (and contrary to the First Circuit's conclusion that PBM regulations are categorically not preempted by ERISA), the Eighth Circuit embraced that argument.

The question presented is “Whether the Eighth Circuit erred in holding that Arkansas's statute regulating PBMs' drug-reimbursement rates, which is similar to laws enacted by a substantial majority of States, is preempted by ERISA, in contravention of this Court's precedent that ERISA does not preempt rate regulation.”

Due to COVID-19 the U.S. Supreme Court has rescheduled arguments for this case to its October 2020 term. 

Lanton Law will continue to monitor the developments around Rutledge v. PCMA and will advise our clients accordingly. If you have an issue that we can assist you with please feel free to contact us.    

The New Concerns of a Digital Workplace

We are honored to have worked with STACK for Pharmacy on a great and timely webinar titled “The New Concerns of a Digital Workplace. COVID-19 has changed the way that we work, communicate and transfer information and finances. We discuss the early trends of what we are seeing from a transitioning marketplace.

Click here to access the webinar

Lanton Law; Your Digital Lawyer & Lobbying Team

As organizational needs evolve right now, businesses are looking for innovative ways to become efficient and manage risks. 

For years our team at Lanton Law have been helping businesses around the country remotely with a variety of transactional needs. 

Legal services include but not limited to:

• Contract drafting, review and negotiation

• Due diligence in transactional matters

• Change of ownership

• Corporate governance matters

• Employment matters

• Privacy and data security 

• Leases

• Business strategy and growth objectives

• Day to day operational matters

• Litigation readiness and response

• Pre-litigation dispute resolutions such as arbitration and mediation

• Regulatory compliance 

• Acquisition due diligence/transfer of ownership

• Payor network access   

Additionally, our government affairs services include:

• Federal and state lobbying

• Strategic consulting

• Bill composition/bill check service

• Submitting regulatory comments

• Regulatory monitoring

New Rule: Transition to BLA Pathway Is Complete

We have a new article with the Center for Biosimilars titled “New Rule: Transition to BLA Pathway is Complete.”

Click here for the article

For those having difficulty accessing the article, we have provided the text from the article below.

As of today, March 23, 2020, the life sciences industry completes “the transition.” New categories of biologics will now be licensed via the biologics approval pathway under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). 

This transition occurs 10 years after the 2009 enactment of the BPCIA. During that interim, manufacturers of certain biologics approved and under review for approval were in limbo as to how their products and rights of exclusivity would be treated under the new policy.

Now, biologics previously approved under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDC) will automatically be “deemed” biologics licensed under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS). Ultimately, these drugs will be categorized as biologics, subject to biosimilar and not generic competition.

Unfortunately, the original BPCIA statute did not provide instructions to the FDA on how to implement this change. Therefore, the FDA has taken certain steps to enact the transition via several proposed rules and the implementation of its Biosimilars Action Plan (BAP). 

The BAP was released in July 2018. The plan is in 2 sections. The first defines key areas in which the FDA wants to focus its regulatory efforts: improving clarity and efficiency of the biosimilar approval process, enhancing understanding through better public communications, and addressing anticompetitive practices.  

The second section is made up of key actions. These are steps that the FDA is either taking or planning to take to improve review processes, create information resources, upgrade guidance, and encourage public feedback. Many of these actions have already been initiated.

On February 21, 2020, the FDA released a final rule that goes into effect today. It amends the FDA’s regulatory definition of a biological product so that it is aligned with the BPCIA. “Under the final rule, the term protein means any alpha amino acid polymer with a specific defined sequence that is greater than 40 amino acids in size.” This is one of the final steps in the 10-year transition process. It opens the door for insulins to be approved via the biologics license application (BLA) pathway.  

Over 100 products that had been approved via new drug applications under the FDC now must be reviewed as BLAs under section 351 of the PHS. Drugs that will be transitioned include naturally occurring proteins such as hyaluronidase, human growth hormones, and menotropins.

The FDA is focusing on insulins and has made waves with the release of draft guidance on insulin biosimilars. The FDA indicated that switching studies may not be needed for a designation of interchangeable insulins if analytical assessments suggest high similarity between biosimilars and reference products. This could speed the arrival to market of the first interchangeable biosimilars in the United States for insulin.

The FDA has also released 2 question-and-answer documents that discuss the transition for patients and healthcare providers. With the BAP and guidance, the FDA has signaled that they are moving forward with the transition as a means of introducing more affordable medicines into the healthcare system—specifically, by expanding the use of biosimilars.
 

Election May Determine Pace of Biosimilar Legislation

We have a new article out with the Center for Biosimilars titled “Election May Determine Pace of Biosimilar Legislation.” The article can be viewed here.

If you are having difficulty accessing the article, we have provided it below:

By the end of 2019, 26 biosimilar products had been launched in the United States. As 2020 gets underway, there are several pending legislative proposals designed to encourage more commercialization of these cost-saving drugs.

House Legislation

HR 3: Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act
Many parts of this legislation could indirectly affect biosimilars. Two proposals of note would directly change drug costs for biosimilars if the law is passed.

The first proposal would require the HHS secretary to add a new set of measures to the 5-star rating system under Medicare in order to encourage increased access to biosimilar biological products. Specifically, the proposed legislation calls for determining whether a biosimilar is on formulary and whether and how utilization management tools are applied with respect to a biosimilar. The bill also calls for determination of the percentage of enrollees prescribed the biosimilar product when the reference biologic is also available.

The second proposal would temporarily increase the amount Medicare Part B pays for biosimilars for 5 years. This means that Medicare would pay the average sales price (ASP) plus 8% rather than plus 6%. The product would have to meet certain pricing criteria in order to qualify.

Both proposals may increase the utilization of biosimilars. The star rating system currently used does not make a distinction for biosimilars and allows payers to use the same policies for biosimilars and brands as they do for generics and brands. This can mean that a specialty pharmacy that dispenses under Part B does not get the same credit as a pharmacy that dispenses for Part D. Establishing new guidelines for the star rating system can help specialty pharmacy use more biosimilars and get credit toward its ratings with the payer.

An ASP increase of 2 percentage points could help cover additional costs for specialty pharmacy for educating consumers about biosimilar utilization.

This bill has passed the full House and has yet to be taken up by the Senate.

HR 4597: Acting to Cancel Copays and Ensure Substantial Savings for Biosimilars (ACCESS) Act
This bill would eliminate a patient’s copay for a biosimilar under Medicare Part B. The bill would drive down medical costs by increasing access to lower-cost biosimilar drugs and give Americans more treatment options. This bill has been referred to the Subcommittee on Health in the House.

HR 2375: Preserve Access to Affordable Generics and Biosimilars Act
This would prohibit prescription drug companies from compensating other prescription drug companies to delay the market entry of a generic drug, biosimilar biological product, or interchangeable biological product. This would basically make “pay for delay” in patent settlements illegal. This legislation has cleared the Judiciary Committee and is pending in the House.

Senate Legislation

S 1416: Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act of 2019
Originally, this legislation was aimed at allowing the Federal Trade Commission antitrust enforcement powers to sue manufacturers who use patent thickets to block generic and biosimilar products from launching. Since its introduction, the bill’s main sponsor, Sen John Cornyn, R-Texas, has stated that he is redesigning the bill to shift the enforcement power to the FDA instead of the FTC. As currently modified, the bill addresses anticompetitive practices involving manipulation of the availability of reference drugs. There is other patent thicket legislation proposed, which would be stricter than S 1416, but it is unknown when this would come to a vote in the Senate.

With the election season well underway, it remains to be seen whether any of these bills will advance before the year’s end.

Legislation to Play Significant Role in Drug Pricing Across Specialty Pharmacy

Jennifer Nessel of Pharmacy Times has featured Lanton Law in an article titled “Legislation to Play Significant Role in Drug Pricing Across Specialty Pharmacy.” The article can be read here. In case you have difficulty reading the article, we have featured it below. This article appeared in Pharmacy Times on 2/17/20.

As utilization and drug spending continue to rise, health care providers are looking to resolve key questions that address drug pricing and biosimilar implementation in specialty pharmacy.

Hospital and health systems saw nearly 20% growth in the specialty drug market in 2018, according to Becker’s Hospital Review.2 The diversity of specialty pharmacies has resulted in variability across all operational areas, including tracking adherence, educating patients, dispensing medications, and ensuring drug safety.3

However, although the specialty industry has had a positive impact on health systems’ quality and continuity of care initiatives, the administration of specialty drugs is challenging and highly complex given the number of new therapies and payer requirements.

According to Ron Lanton, III, Esq, principal of Lanton Law and biologics committee chair of the New York State Bar Association, policymakers on the federal level understand that the issue of drug pricing needs to be resolved but they are having a hard time coming to an agreement on how this reform should be done.

The Drug Price Conundrum
Due to the fact that the legislative session has recently begun in many states and in Congress and that it is an election year, it is difficult to determine whether there will be a unifying drug-legislative solution for drug prices.

However, California’s Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) has recently proposed that California become the first US state to manufacture its own generic prescription label, with a goal of making affordable medications available to the state’s almost 40 million residents. However, the governor’s proposal has yet to pass the California legislature.

According to Lanton, a manufacturer could leverage its influence over smaller states to stop legislation such as Governor Newsom’s from advancing. However, due to its size and the fact that its policies may influence other state legislatures, California may be a harder market for a manufacturer to confront.

“I [have to] question as to whether California’s efforts would further drive down an already deflated generic drug market and whether California would be able to determine how much it will charge for generics once manufacturing costs, such as raw materials, are concerned. Not to mention how much this is going to cost since that remains unknown at this point in time,” Lanton explained to Directions in Specialty PharmacyTM.  

Although the proposal marks the first state-wide attempt to lower prescription drug prices, there have been attempts within federal legislation to corral drug prices. The Trump administration recently attempted to lower drug costs through its Blueprint to Lower Drug Costs, and the FDA has recently been an advocate for greater generic and biosimilar utilization.

“To date, there has been no silver bullet to deal with rising prescription drug costs. Notwithstanding whether I agree with this plan, I applaud California in trying to solve a problem that refuses to go away quietly,” Lanton said.

Biosimilar Implementation
Specialty drugs, with nearly 700 therapies currently under development for treatment areas such as cancer, hepatitis C virus, HIV, autoimmune disorders, and multiple sclerosis, are expected to claim 9 of the top 10 spots among bestselling drugs in 2020.3 Although specialty drugs have been hallmarked as important treatment options for patients with cancer or other complex diseases, there can be issues surrounding access and affordability.

The cost of specialty medications and the increased adoption of high-deductible health plans have placed a higher financial burden on patients. As out-of-pocket costs increase, including insurance denials, patients are more likely to abandon their treatment plans.4

Biosimilars are potentially more affordable specialty medications for patients with complex disease states. According to Managed Health Executive, biosimilars could bring approximately $250 billion in savings by 2024.3

Pending legislation may have a large impact on biosimilar implementation across the specialty pharmacy landscape. There are several bills that Lanton singled out for the 2020 year1:
 

• HR 4597 Acting to Cancel Co-pays and Ensure Substantial Savings for Biosimilars (ACCESS) Act would eliminate a patient’s co-pay for a biosimilar if they normally would pay full cost of a biologic drug under Medicare Part B. The bill seeks to drive down medical costs by increasing access to lower-cost biosimilar drugs and give Americans more treatment options.

• HR 4629 Star Rating for Biosimilar Act would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to add a new set of measures to the 5-star rating system under the Medicare Advantage program in order to encourage increased access to biosimilar biological products.

• HR 4913 would require Medicare prescription drug plan (PDP) formularies to include covered generic drugs and biosimilars for which the wholesale acquisition cost is less than that of the reference (ie, brand-name) product. PDP sponsors must also establish specific cost-sharing tiers that apply lower cost-sharing requirements for such covered generic drugs and biosimilars as compared to those for brand-name products. The bill also prohibits PDP sponsors from instituting certain requirements relating to access to such covered generic drugs and biosimilars that are more restrictive than those for brand-name products (eg, prior authorization requirements).

• HR 2375 would prohibit prescription drug companies from compensating other prescription drug companies to delay the entry of a generic drug, biosimilar biological product, or interchangeable biological product into the market.

• S 1681 proposes to educate health care providers and the public on biosimilar biological products. Under this bill, the Secretary shall establish, maintain, and operate a website consisting of educational materials regarding the meaning and use of biosimilar biological products and interchangeable biological products.

Affordable Care Act (ACA) Transition 
On March 23, 2020, the life sciences industry will undergo “the transition,” according to Lanton. Currently, the FDA has and will continue to regulate biologics, but historically the agency regulated biologics as drugs under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act instead of as products licensed under the Public Health Service (PHS) Act.

“In order to bring all biologics under the same legal and regulatory system, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 found in the ACA included the ‘Deemed to be a License’ provision,” Lanton said.

This meant that 10 years after enactment, on March 23, 2020, applicable biologics will automatically be deemed biologics licensed under the PHS Act. Unfortunately, the statute did not provide instructions to the FDA on how to do this, meaning the agency will decide on which products transition and how, according to Lanton.

“This basically means no more new drug applications or abbreviated new drug applications for select biologics, only biologic license applications of the 351(a) and 351(k) varieties. Also, not only will they be categorized as biologic[s], but they will be subject to the biosimilar, not generic competition. Specifically, drugs [to] be transitioned are insulins and other naturally occurring proteins, such as hyaluronidase, human growth hormones, and menotropins,” Lanton said.

Reference

1. Lanton, Ron, III, Esq. Interview with Pharmacy Times [email]. Accessed February 11, 2020.

2. 5 Trends Health System Pharmacies Can Expect in 2020. Becker’s Hospital Review. Published December 9, 2020. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/5-trends-health-system-pharmacies-can-expect-in-2020.html. Accessed February 12, 2020.

3. Biologics Build Oncology Drug Pipeline. Managed Healthcare Executive. Published November 1, 2019. https://www.managedhealthcareexecutive.com/news/biologics-build-oncology-drug-pipeline. Accessed February 12, 2020.

4. Galante, Dominic. Accreditation Explosion Among Top Specialty Pharmacy Trends. J Clin Pathways. 2018;4(7):35-38. doi:10.25270/JCP.2018.09.00037. Accessed February 12, 2020.

Surprise Medical Billing: What is it and what’s being done to stop it?

Surprise medical billing is an issue that has been widespread for a while, but due to social media and more intense scrutiny, we are now seeing the effects of how common this problem is among patients accessing our healthcare system. According to a study by Kaiser “roughly 1 of every 6 emergency room visits and inpatient hospital stays in 2017, patients came home with at least one out-of-network medical bill.” The question is what is surprise medical billing?

Surprise medical bills generally have two components. The first component is the higher amount the patient owes under her health plan, reflecting the difference in cost-sharing levels between in-network and out-of-network services. 

The second component of surprise medical bills is an additional amount the physician or other provider may bill the patient directly, a practice known as “balance billing.” Typically, health plans negotiate discounted charges with network providers and require them to accept the negotiated fee as payment-in-full. Network providers are prohibited from billing plan enrollees the difference (or balance) between the allowed charge and the full charge. Out-of-network providers, however, have no such contractual obligation. As a result, patients can be liable for the balance bill in addition to any applicable out-of-network cost sharing.

To illustrate a patient can find his or herself in a situation where the patient needs emergency care but cannot select the emergency room or the ambulance provider in a certain situation. Another instance is where a patient knowingly goes to an in-network hospital to receive surgery but does not know that an anesthesiologist is an out of network provider.   

So what’s being done about this? 

The Administration:

Last May, the Administration released a fact sheet on medical billing that advocated for the following: 

• In emergency situations, balance billing for amounts above the in-network allowed amount should be prohibited.

• Before scheduling their care, patients should be given information about whether the care providers are out of their network and what related costs that may bring.

Congress:

In Congress there have been bills this session to combat surprise medical billing, but these solutions have differing philosophical approaches. For example one method calls on the use of arbitration, where an insurer and a provider would advance a proposed payment rate for the service provided to the patient and then an independent arbiter would adjudicate a fair price. On the other hand insurers have been advocating for benchmark payment rates as a solution to surprise medical billing where benchmark payment rates would ensure that providers are paid a standard rate for out-of-network services provided.

H.R. 3630: This bill sponsored by Rep. Pallone (D-NJ) expands restrictions on charging health care plan holders out-of-network rates for certain services. First, the bill requires insurers offering plans that cover emergency services to bill plan holders no more than the median in-network rate for a particular emergency service, even if the service provider is out of network. The bill further prohibits insurers from billing plan holders more than the median in-network rate for nonemergency services provided by out-of-network providers at in-network facilities. Out-of-network providers may not bill plan holders for the difference between the in-network and out-of-network rates for emergency services. The bill further prohibits out-of-network providers from billing plan holders for the difference in rates for nonemergency services provided at an in-network facility unless the provider complies with specified notice and consent requirements. 

S. 1895: This bill sponsored by Senator Alexander (R-TN) applies in-network cost-sharing requirements to certain emergency and related nonemergency services that are provided out-of-network, and prohibits health care facilities and practitioners from billing above the applicable in-network cost-sharing rate for such services. Additionally, it requires health care facilities and practitioners to give patients a list of provided services upon discharge and to bill for such services within 45 days.

Most recently, two U.S. House Committees have moved forward with additional possible solutions to this issue. The U.S. House Ways and Means Committee released a surprise billing plan, that calls for a dispute resolution process between the insurer and the provider. This bill does not address patients who are billed for air ambulance rides but does require providers to share cost data and insurers to share claims data to the Department of Health and Human Services. If enacted this language would be effective in 2022. 

The U.S. House Education and Labor Committee has released its proposal that is similar with what the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) proposed in December 2019, where insurers would pay out-of-network providers the median in-network rate for that geographic area for amounts up to $750. For larger amounts, either side could request an arbitration process. When a patient receives a surprise bill from an air ambulance provider, the threshold would be $25,000. Both House committees plan to discuss their respective bills this week. 

State Legislative Protections:

States have created their own but varied approaches to surprise medical billing. According to an analysis by The Commonwealth Fund, 28 states have enacted laws to protect enrollees against this issue. Last year Colorado, Nevada, Texas and Washington State passed enhanced or new surprise medical billing laws.   

Conclusion

In conclusion, this issue will continue to be debated in the states until there is a federal solution. With this being an election year, it is uncertain as to whether this issue will pass Congress. While this issue can be a bi-partisan victory for patients nationwide, it is also questionable as to whether either the Democrats or Republicans are willing to give the other side a share in a political victory during the crucial 2020 election season.

Will California’s Bold Proposal to Manufacture its Own Generic Drugs Be the Answer to Lower Prescription Drug Costs?

California’s Governor Newsom (D-CA) has made a bold budgetary proposal to become the first state in the Union to manufacture its own generic prescription drug label. The purpose behind this is to make affordable medications accessible to the state’s 40 million residents.

His plan to essentially create a single market for prescription drug pricing where companies would likely have to bid in order to sell their particular medications at a low price. 

According to the Governor’s Proposed 2020-21 State Budget “The Administration has announced a new CalRx generic drug program making California the first state to create its own generic drug label and making the state’s generic prescription drugs available for sale to all Californians. The Budget transforms Medi-Cal to a more consistent and seamless system by reducing complexity and increasing flexibility and establishes a single market for drug pricing within the state.” (Governor Newsom Proposes 2020-21 State Budget; January 10, 2020 click here for reference

The Governor’s bold approach has been foreshadowed by his plans announced last year via his Executive Order of N-01-19. This Executive Order established a few major policy objectives: 

• The Department of Health Care Services shall take all necessary steps to transition all pharmacy services tor Medi-Cal managed care to a fee-for-service benefit by January 2021

• The Department of Health Care Services, in consultation with the Health and Human Services Agency and California Pharmaceutical Collaborative, shall review all State purchasing initiatives and consider additional options to maximize the State's bargaining power, including the Medi-Cal program.

• The Department of General Services, in consultation with the California Pharmaceutical Collaborative, shall develop a list of prescription drugs that could appropriately be prioritized tor future bulk purchasing initiatives or reexamined tor potential renegotiation with the manufacturer.

• Based on the prioritized list, the Department of General Services, in consultation with the California Pharmaceutical Collaborative, shall develop and implement bulk purchasing arrangements tor high-priority drugs. (Governor Newsom Proposes 2020-21 State Budget; January 10, 2020 click here for reference

The Governor's plan has echoes of a plan that Senator Warren (D-MA) introduced in the 115th Congress via the proposed Affordable Drug Manufacturing Act of 2018. This bill’s purpose was to establish an Office of Drug Manufacturing within the Department of Health and Human Services for the purposes of lowering prices, increasing access, and addressing shortages of prescription drugs, including insulin. According to the Senator’s announcement, “Public manufacturing of pharmaceuticals will lower drug prices for millions while improving competition. The Affordable Drug Manufacturing Act tasks the Department of Health and Human Services with the public manufacturing of generic drugs in cases where the market has failed and strengthens the generic market for the long term by jump-starting competition.” (AFFORDABLE DRUG MANUFACTURING ACT; Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Jan Schakowsky. Click here for reference. While this bill did not get much traction in Congress, it served as a model of things to come. 

The question is whether the Governor’s proposal will pass the California legislature? At this point I think it is too early to tell. We have already seen multiple attempts to control prescription drug prices without having the government become a market player. We have seen the Administration via various policies such as the Administration’s Blueprint to Lower Drug Costs as well as an active FDA who has been advocating for greater generic and biosimilar utilization as ways to lower costs. 

We have also seen various Congressional attempts to lower prescription costs via legislation aimed at Medicare Part D negotiation to bills attempting to benchmark foreign countries prescription drug costs against our own. 

To date, there has been no silver bullet to deal with rising prescription drug costs. The difference here is that a manufacturer could leverage its influence over smaller states to stop legislation like Governor Newsom’s from advancing. California may be a harder market for a manufacturer to confront due to its size and the fact that its policies are very much likely to influence other state legislatures. I also have a question as to whether California’s efforts would further drive down an already deflated generic drug market and whether California would be able to determine how much it will charge for generics once manufacturing costs such as raw materials are concerned. Not to mention how much this is going to costs since that remains unknown at this point in time. 

Notwithstanding whether I agree with this plan, I applaud California in trying to solve a problem that refuses to go away quietly. Whether this idea works without solving other ancillary issues such as pharmacy benefit manager transparency, drug rebates and patient adherence is another.

Lanton Law Quoted in Pharmacy Times Article on Rutledge v. PCMA

We were quoted in the recent Pharmacy Times article titled “Supreme Court to Rule on States’ Right to Regulate Pharmacy Benefit Managers.” The article authored by Jennifer Nessel can be accessed at https://www.pharmacytimes.com/news/supreme-court-to-rule-on-states-right-to-regulate-pharmacy-benefit-managers

We have provided the article below in case you are having trouble accessing the link.

The US Supreme Court has announced it will hear a case in the coming months that could determine whether states have the right to regulate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs).

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, covering Arkansas and 6 other states, previously ruled on Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association. The Eighth Circuit decision favored the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA), ruling that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), a federal law that sets minimum standards for voluntarily established retirement and health plans in private industry, superseded an Arkansas law that sought to regulate PBMs.1

Passed in 2015, Arkansas Act 900 required PBMs to raise reimbursement rates for drugs if they fell below the pharmacy’s wholesale costs and created an appeal process for pharmacies to challenge PBM reimbursement rates. This effectively prohibited PBMs from reimbursing pharmacies below the pharmacies’ cost of acquisition.2

In his brief to the US Supreme Court, Solicitor General Noel Francisco disagreed with the Eighth Circuit decision, stating that the ruling was contrary to higher court’s precedent and should be reviewed and corrected. He urged the court to take up the case, siding with attorney generals from 31 states and the District of Columbia that want the US Supreme Court to reverse the Eighth Circuit’s ruling.3

The National Community Pharmacists Association’s (NCPA) vice president, Mustafa Hersi, told Pharmacy Times that the organization is optimistic about the potential for the US Supreme Court to rule in favor of Arkansas, which is represented in the case by the state’s Attorney General Leslie Rutledge. The NCPA, together with the Arkansas Pharmacists Association, previously filed a brief supporting the state before the Eighth Circuit court, and plans to file a similar brief before the Supreme Court.5

“We feel that this matter has national implications. PBMs have been relying on ERISA preemption to avoid meaningful oversight by states, and states like Arkansas have taken it upon themselves to draft well-tailored legislation—that does not implicate or involve ERISA—to regulate PBMs that operate within their state. The implications are that, if the court were to not only grant the request but rule in the favor of Arkansas, that states would be empowered to make more decisions to regulate PBMs and the role that they have in our health care system so that their citizens can make informed decisions with the respect to the choices that they have in health care,” Hersi said.

PBMs are intermediaries between health plans and pharmacies, and provide services such as claims processing, managing data, mail-order drug sales, calculating benefit levels, and making disbursements. Pharmacies acquire their drug inventories from wholesalers. When a patient buys a drug from a pharmacy, they often do so at a lower price through a health plan that covers part of the price. The PBMs then create a maximum affordable cost list that sets reimbursement rates to pharmacies dispensing generic drugs.2

Contracts between PBMs and pharmacies create pharmacy networks. Based upon these contracts, and in order to participate in a preferred network, some pharmacies choose to accept lower reimbursements for dispensed prescriptions. Thus, a pharmacy may lose money on a given prescription transaction.2

Although the Arkansas law set to change this practice, PCMA, the trade association that represents all major PBMs, has pointed to ERISA, saying that it preempts state laws that may relate to ERISA-governed employee benefit plans.4

“The (ERISA) has long enabled employers to provide consistent, nationwide health care benefits due to its preemption of state laws.  We are committed to federal preemption, which is a vitally important issue to ensuring high quality health care for patients,” said PCMA President and CEO JC Scott in a press release. “Unique state laws governing the administration of pharmacy benefits are proliferating across the country, establishing vastly different standards. These inconsistent and often conflicting state policies eliminate flexibility for plan sponsors and create significant administrative inefficiencies. These inefficiencies divert funds from where they should be spent: providing access to the health care services on which employees of plans across the country rely.”

However, Hersi said that ERISA has been used previously by PBM groups to avoid regulation and litigation.

“Previously in the Eighth Circuit, there was litigation in North Dakota that related to the use of ERISA as a means to potentially shield meaningful oversight by states with respect to PBMs that operate in their state. We feel as though, states that have taken steps, like the state of Arkansas, to draft well-tailored legislation to ensure that ERISA is not implicated should be able to do that for their citizens,” Hersai told Pharmacy Times.

Ron Lanton, III, Esq, principal of Lanton Law, a national health care law and government affairs firm in Washington DC, agrees.

“Like many, I was disappointed in the Eighth Circuit's decision. I have advocated for retail pharmacy issues in state legislatures and ERISA and higher insurance costs were the ‘go to’ arguments from opponents like PBMs, who did not want any transparency on their business practices. Without laws like Arkansas, whose intent was to ensure transparency and patient access, pharmacies will have a harder time operating in an already challenging marketplace. I believe there is precedent that shows that the ERISA statute should not be interpreted as broad as opponents of the Arkansas law are calling for.”

The Solicitor General argued that there is no distinction between regulating PBM administration, which is not preempted by ERISA, and regulating plan administration, which could lead to preemption under ERISA. To the extent it affects health plans, the solicitor general adds, the law is not specifically focused on ERISA plans, and a Supreme Court decision would help address conflicting decisions by a federal appeals court on ERISA state law preemption.3

The Solicitor General’s brief increased the likelihood that the Supreme Court to review Rutledge and to address the scope of the States’ authority to regulate PBMs, even when those PBMS are working for ERISA plans.1

The Supreme Court will now set the case for briefing and oral argument for Rutledge, the latter of which would likely occur in March or April 2020.1

“This is an important moment for community pharmacies. There’s strong bipartisan agreement in the states that PBM behavior is out of control. The US is the only country in the world that has turned over the management of prescription drugs to PBMs and the U.S. has the highest drug costs in the world. We don’t think that is coincidence,” said B. Douglas Hoey, pharmacist, MBA, CEO of the NCPA in a prepared statement.5

In addition to Arkansas, the Eighth Circuit covers Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

REFERENCES

1. Analysis: SCOTUS Could Open the Door for States to Regulate PBMS. NCPA website. http://www.ncpa.co/pdf/analysis-scotus-states-pbms.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2020.

2. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association v. Rutledge Case Report. FindLaw.com Published June 8, 2019. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1898787.html. Accessed January 10, 2020.

3. Karlin-Smith, Sarah; Owermohle, Sarah. 2020 Drug Price Increases Unlikely to Change Policy. Politco.com. Published January 7, 2020. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/prescription-pulse/2020/01/07/2020-drug-price-increases-unlikely-to-change-policy-488001. Accessed January 10, 2020.

4. ERISA Broadly Preempts State Regulation of PBM-Pharmacy and PBM-Plan Agreements. McDermott Will & Emery website. Published July 26, 2018. https://www.mwe.com/insights/erisa-preempt-pbm-pharmacy-pricing-agreement-2/. Accessed January 10, 2020.

5. Community Pharmacy Cheers SCOTUS Decision to Rule on States’ Authority to Regulate PBMs [press release]. NCPA website. Published January 10, 2020. https://www.ncpanet.org/newsroom/news-releases/2020/01/10/community-pharmacy-cheers-scotus-decision-to-rule-on-states-authority-to-regulate-pbms. Accessed January 13, 2020.

Pharmacy Times Recaps Lanton Law's NASP Presentation on the FDA Biosimilars Action Plan

Pharmacy Times did a recap of our National Association of Specialty Pharmacy presentation on the FDA Biosimilars Action Plan, during NASP’s Annual Meeting this fall. The original story from Pharmacy Times can be found here. We have provided the article below in case you have trouble accessing the story. 

During the 2019 National Association of Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting and Expo, Ron Lanton III, Esq, reviewed the FDA Biosimilars Action Plan, its implications for the biosimilar marketplace, recent legislation set to influence the biosimilar pathway and drug accessibility, and the future of the biosimilar market.

Lanton began his presentation referencing the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, which was enacted with the intent to balance innovation and consumer interest via an abbreviated approval pathway for biologic drugs that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with FDA-approved medications.

The FDA has since made substantial progress toward the scientific and regulatory policies needed to facilitate the abbreviated pathway. It established the Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars Staff under the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, which supports consistent review of policy development for all biosimilars and interchangeable products, Lanton said. The agency also created the Biosimilar Product Development Program to facilitate the rapid development of biosimilar and interchangeable products. Finally, it has prioritized efforts to share regulatory information of stakeholders by publishing policies and documents on exclusivity.

Lanton noted the FDA Biosimilars Action Plan was released to allow the federal agency to manage the review and licensure pathway to facilitate biosimilar legislation; modernize policies that govern the development of biosimilars to make the process more efficient; educate clinicians, payers, and patients regarding biosimilar products and the rigorous evaluations that they go through; and modernize regulatory policies to accommodate new scientific tools that enable comparison between biosimilars and reference products, which may reduce the need for clinical studies.

The Biosimilars Action Plan also calls for the development of an application review templated for 351(k) biological licensing indications, improving coordination and supporting activities in the biosimilar/interchangeable process, accelerating the response time to determine the appropriate stakeholders, and increasing stakeholder communication, Lanton said.

The FDA said these actions and the revised guidelines are meant to prevent companies from blocking new biosimilars from entering the market and to stop manufacturers of reference products from manipulating the exclusivity provision to fend off biosimilar entry to the marketplace.

According to Lanton, the FDA is also going to issue a notice of how, if requested, it would go about trial protocols of applicants to determine whether its new protocols give enough safety protections for biosimilars in term of strategy. In May 2019, the FDA released a document seeking to promote competition in the biologic development market by providing final guidelines for interchangeable biologics.

“The FDA is updating guidelines now to provide additional clarity to biosimilar applicants who seek approval for all conditions for use for which the reference product is licensed,” Lanton said during the presentation. “The agency is also developing a proposed rule on the interpretation of the definition of [biological product], which will provide additional clarity and predictability.” Lanton referenced the following Congressional bills in his presentation:

• The Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples Act, still under consideration, seeks to speed the entry of lower-priced drugs into the market.

• The Biologic Patent Transparency Act codifies the FDA’s Purple Book as a single searchable list and requires additional information to be published in it.

• The Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Through Improvements to Patent Litigation Act of 2019 limits to 20 patents that can be claimed for a reference product sponsor and tries to stop the “patent thicket.”

• The Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act of 2019 has the sole purpose of lowering drug prices. It wants to require that prescription biosimilar and biologic manufacturers that don’t have a Medicaid drug rebate agreement to report average sale price information to the Health and Human Services Secretary, who will use that informmation to establish the payment rates.

“Given the relative newness of biosimilars, the FDA is taking a proactive role toward giving clinicians, patients, and payers information about biosimilars and interchangeable products,” Lanton said. “They are doing this by developing educational materials and videos, explaining the concepts that the agency can use. The FDA will continue to evaluate if these firms are using statutory or regulatory requirements to appropriately delay the approval of a biosimilar or interchangeable companion.”

In referencing the future of biosimilars, Lanton stated that by 2020, there will be 56 new products in clinical development and as much as $110 billion in savings to health systems in Europe and the United States. Furthermore, there will be a 30% reduction in price per treatment day compared with originator biologics.
 

Federal Privacy Laws Are Currently in the Making

In November 2019, we published a blog post titled More Data Oversight on the Horizon that discussed increasing Congressional oversight over data privacy, while highlighting the importance of the Online Privacy Act of 2019. 

In preparation for 2020, Lanton Law is forecasting that it is more likely than not that some form of federal privacy legislation will become law in 2020. One proposed legislative candidate for privacy in 2020 is the Consumer Online Privacy Rights Act (COPRA). This bill is sponsored by Senator Cantwell (D-WA).

According to Senator Cantwell’s press release, the Act otherwise known as S.2968 “establishes privacy rights, outlaws harmful and deceptive practices, and improves data security safeguards for consumers shopping or conducting business online.” The release discusses specifics stating that (COPRA) “gives Americans control over their personal data; prohibits companies from using consumers’ data to harm or deceive them; establishes strict standards for the collection, use, sharing, and protection of consumer data; protects civil rights; and penalizes companies that fail to meet data protection standards. The legislation also codifies the rights of individuals to pursue claims against entities that violate their data privacy rights.” 

The question is whether this legislation will be able to pass in a hotly contested election year. At this point it is unknown. This bill thus far has no Republican co-sponsors so it has yet to gain bi-partisan traction. However; with the new and increasing scrutiny surrounding tech companies and their treatment of consumer data, we anticipate that the political winds may shift against technology companies. It’s better to be aware of trends instead of being caught off guard by them. 

Lanton Law helps tech and fintech stakeholders navigate both the regulatory and legislative landscape on a state and federal level. If you have questions about compliance, new potential business strategies or what the policy landscape will look like for your business, contact us to learn about your options.  

Conflicting CBD Activity Calls for Increased Compliance and Business Planning

Lanton Law gave a December 2019 webinar with the American College of Apothecaries ACA on CBD. Since then we have seen two significant developments. 

The first was with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) itself. In November 2019, the industry saw the agency’s announcement of 15 warning letters it sent to companies for illegally selling products containing CBD in “ways that violate the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).

The FDA shortly afterwards issued a revised Consumer Update detailing safety concerns about CBD products more broadly. In the document titled “What You Need to Know (And What We’re Working to Find Out) About Products Containing Cannabis or Cannabis-derived Compounds, Including CBD,” FDA indicated that “Based on the lack of scientific information..., it cannot conclude that CBD is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) among qualified experts for its use in human or animal food.” 

With the industry already facing several compliance questions, this new information from FDA has definitely made this issue even more confusing. 

States on the other hand have been pressing forward with making their own policies. In New York, Governor Cuomo signed (S.6184/A.7680) which establishes a regulatory framework for the production and sale of hemp and hemp extract in New York State. 

According to the Governor’s press release “The measure also requires the hemp industry to test and label their products, protecting consumers from potential harm. The legislation was signed pursuant to a chapter agreement, which provided for a more streamlined regulatory pathway for hemp products, granted the Department of Agriculture and Markets supervision over hemp growers and the Department of Health supervision over hemp extract; created a registration requirement for sellers of hemp extract products; made conforming regulatory changes to the 2018 Farm Bill; and defers decision making on hemp extracts, including CBD, as additives for food and beverages.” 

The state will host a hemp summit in January to continue policy discussions on this issue.

With the collective market for CBD sales expected to exceed $20 billion in the United States by 2024, according to BDS Analytics and Arcview Market Research, there are many stakeholders who would benefit from clarity in this area. If you are either thinking about or are currently selling CBD and are unsure how your business model fares, contact Lanton Law so that we can go over your business model, assess potential risks and help you plan for both pending legislative and regulatory actions.  

Texas v. United States (An ACA Ruling)

Lanton Law has been both monitoring and advising clients on a controversial case winding through the federal courts called Texas v. United States, which focused on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). 

On December 18, 2019 the industry witnessed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issue its ruling, which found that while the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the federal district court must decide on whether the remaining portion of the ACA could remain intact. The previous federal district court ruled that the ACA’s individual mandate is no longer considered a tax, meaning that Congress does not have a constitutional authority to enforce the individual mandate. Ultimately the district court stated that since the mandate was not a severable provision from the rest of the ACA, the remainder of the ACA was thus unconstitutional.      

In contrast, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reasoned:     

“First, there is a live case or controversy because the intervenor-defendant states have standing to appeal and, even if they did not, there remains a live case or controversy between the plaintiffs and the federal defendants. Second, the plaintiffs have Article III standing to bring this challenge to the ACA; the individual mandate injures both the individual plaintiffs, by requiring them to buy insurance that they do not want, and the state plaintiffs, by increasing their costs of complying with the reporting requirements that accompany the individual mandate. Third, the individual mandate is unconstitutional because it can no longer be read as a tax, and there is no other constitutional provision that justifies this exercise of congressional power. Fourth, on the severability question, we remand to the district court to provide additional analysis of the provisions of the ACA as they currently exist.”

 So what happens next?

First the status quo remains for now as the individual mandate has been repealed by Congress. And while it is anticipated that the U.S. Supreme Court will have a say again on this issue in 2020, the defendants in this case comprised of a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general are considering asking the Supreme Court to examine the ACA for a third time since 2012. The question is whether the U.S. Supreme Court would issue any decision before the lower federal courts have completed their review of the case. Whether the Court grants an expedited review is currently unknown. 

If you have additional questions about this issue or you are trying to comprehend how this case will impact you as a stakeholder, contact us by clicking here. 

New Draft Importation Rule Released

A new pilot program that allows states to import from Canada and allow manufacturers to voluntarily import has been announced via a draft rule through HHS and the FDA. 

The program would give states and nonfederal government entities the ability to import from Canada by applying to the FDA. Higher priced drugs such as biologics are not included in the draft rule. Here are some of the main points: 

• The drugs must be approved in Canada. 

• It does not include, controls, biologics or intravenously injected drugs. 

• States can work with wholesalers and pharmacies to create an application.

Canadian officials have already stated that the plan is unlikely to work as Canada is only 2% of the global market versus 44% from the U.S. This means that Canada will not be able to meet demand. 

A separate program that would allow for drug company importation of its own products does not take into account rebates or the best-price rule. The program requires that the drugs go through a separate re-labeling and testing that will have an additional cost. Additional costs may either cancel out any savings or make the drugs more expensive. 

This rule is in response to several states such as Florida who have created legislation in 2019 to allow for the importation of drugs from Canada. 

For more information regarding importation in general click here. 

Here is a link to the proposed rule. 

At Lanton Law we help our clients with business strategy, legal, compliance, as well as regulatory and government affairs issues. We help various entities within the supply chain be prepared for tomorrow by knowing the landscape of today. If you have questions or are looking for innovative ways to realize your organization’s priorities, click here to contact us. 

U.S. Solicitor General Advocates for writ of certiorari to be granted in Rutledge v. PCMA

One case that pharmacy stakeholders have been closely monitoring is  Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association. 

According to the U.S. Supreme Court blog (SCOTUSblog), the issue in this case is “whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit erred in holding that Arkansas’ statute regulating pharmacy benefit managers’ drug-reimbursement rates, which is similar to laws enacted by a substantial majority of states, is pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, in contravention of the Supreme Court’s precedent that ERISA does not pre-empt rate regulation.”   

As part of his response to the Court’s “CVSG” or “Call for the Views of the Solicitor General” to provide a position on an issue such as this, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco on December 4, 2019 submitted his brief recommending that the Court review the Eighth Circuit’s holding that ERISA preempts state laws that regulate PBM-pharmacy reimbursements. The Solicitor General’s position advocates for the overturning of the appeals court decision. The brief can be read here.  Having this letter from Solicitor General can help push the Court into granting cert to hear the merits of this case. 

Lanton Law uses law and government affairs to advocate on behalf of supply chain clients, which includes retail, specialty, LTC pharmacies as well as home infusion providers. All of these providers have ties to PBM business practices via reimbursement. Lanton Law will continue to monitor the developments of Rutledge v. PCMA and will advise our clients accordingly. If you have an issue that we can assist you with such as us being your in house counsel or lobbyist, contact us and we’ll be happy to walk through your options.   

Not knowing what’s in your contracts can stop your business expansion

No matter if you are a hospital, physician, pharmacist, manufacturer, SAAS or Health IT provider, the lifeblood of your business is in your contracts. As an attorney what amazes me time after time is how contracts are often overlooked by businesses.

When I speak with clients, many of them tell me that either they will just sign a contract to get access to something or on the back side, they will simply plan to get out of a contract if they aren’t happy with the party they contracted with. Situations like this are when things get interesting.

For clients contemplating entering into a contract, I usually ask the following: 

• Were you were able to negotiate your priorities into the contract? 

• Are you using standard terms and conditions from prior agreements?

• Are you thinking about how your business may evolve over time? 

On the flip side for clients that plan on exiting a contract I ask:

• Do you know what happens if you plan to get out of the contract? 

• Are there penalties for terminating?

• Are you prohibited from re-entering a certain market?

Many businesses don’t know the answers to these questions. Not knowing your rights before making a decision to either enter or exit a contract can cost your business thousands of dollars. 

Fortunately, there is something you can do about this. Clients have been using Lanton Law to help them understand not only what’s in their contracts, but Lanton Law gives you suggestions on how to negotiate a better deal, while also giving you a risk assessment for clients considering leaving a contractual relationship. Having a contract strategy will definitely save you from making a costly decision. 

Click here to contact Lanton Law now to schedule a contract risk assessment. Taking this small proactive step will not only help protect your interests, but it will allow you to more confidently plan for your future business expansion.

Lanton Law Quoted in New Medscape Article On Biosimilar Insulin

Lanton Law was quoted in a new Medscape article on biosimilar insulin. Click here to read the article

If you are having trouble accessing the link we have included the article for you below:

A new US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy may help get novel biosimilar insulins to market more quickly, but it will be no guarantee that the products will be significantly less expensive than branded insulins, say analysts.

The FDA recently issued new draft guidance for insulin biosimilar manufacturers.

The recommendations "may result in a more efficient development program that could ultimately bring biosimilar or interchangeable insulin products to the market more quickly," said Brett P. Giroir, MD, acting FDA commissioner, in a statement by the agency. 

"The availability of approved biosimilar and interchangeable insulin products is expected to increase access and reduce costs of insulin products," he added.

Meanwhile, the Republican leaders of the US House Energy and Commerce Committee have written to the nation's largest insurers to demand that they provide information on their involvement in the rising price of insulin.

The committee wrote to Anthem, Blue Cross Blue Shield, CVS Health, Cigna Corporation, Kaiser Permanente, and UnitedHealth Group seeking transparency on rebate programs with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs); detailed information on how they design their benefit plans and formularies; how much enrollees in high-deductible plans pay out of pocket for insulin; and whether the insurers offer patient assistance programs to help defray the cost of insulin.

"Unfortunately, even though the average net price that manufacturers are receiving for many insulin products is decreasing and PBMs are working with health plans to help reduce the cost of insulin for health plans, many Americans are facing increased out-of-pocket costs for their insulin at the pharmacy counter," the members of Congress wrote.

"Floodgates Opening": Clearer Path to Market for Biosimilar Insulins 

Analysts and one industry group applauded the FDA draft guidance, stating that it gives a much clearer picture of how products can be developed and approved.

The new guidance — which will be made final once the agency takes public comments into account — has been expected for some time. The FDA issued final guidance on interchangeability of biosimilars in May and held a public hearing specifically on interchangeability of insulin biosimilars not long after.

The Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM) said it was continuing to review the draft guidance but believes it reflects much of the concerns and feedback it gave the agency at the May hearing.

"We find FDA's flexibility on the implementation of statutory interchangeability requirements to be particularly positive," Christine Simmon, AAM senior vice president for policy and executive director of the Biosimilars Council told Medscape Medical News.

"This really was the floodgates opening," said Ron Lanton, III, a Washington, DC-based attorney who studies regulatory policy and has represented primarily small pharmacy chains.

"The United States is not an easy place for doing business when you're talking about biosimilars," he told Medscape Medical News.

The FDA has approved 26 biosimilars, including two insulins which, to date, have been labeled "follow-ons", Basaglar (insulin glargine, Lilly) and Admelog(insulin lispro, Sanofi), as they were brought to market under a different regulatory pathway, but are considered to be copycat or biosimilar versions of the respective branded insulin products.

The guidance "is one step forward for manufacturers" to say, "now that we know what the rules are, we can start to compete," said Lanton.

He believes the draft guidance, if ultimately adopted, will get biosimilars to market faster.

Dave Clissold, a food and drug lawyer with Washington, DC-based Hyman Phelps McNamara, which has represented biosimilar and branded insulin manufactures, also believes the policy will speed up new product development.

Also important, said Clissold, is the FDA's decision that manufacturers won't necessarily have to conduct studies that compare immunogenicity to the reference product.

That goes further than what had been expected but will be welcomed by biosimilar makers, Clissold told Medscape Medical News.

The FDA is communicating that "insulins are special biologics. They're small, they're not very complicated, we know a lot about them. There are all different types of insulins on the market right now, so we've got a ton of clinical experience with these things," he added.

Skipping those comparative studies won't be automatic, he said.

"But there is a path forward" that manufacturers can take to justify why they think they don't need to conduct what are usually costly and long studies, he explained.

Price Still a Question Mark

Clissold continued by noting that the FDA cannot dictate pricing, but ideally, "more competition will drive prices down."

"We've certainly seen that for the big blockbuster generic drugs," he said.

Lanton said that although the agency is attempting to harness competition to lower prices, that's not a given in the US market.

"We really don't know what the pharmacy benefit managers are going to do," he said.

Lanton pointed out the lack of transparency in the rebate scheme between PBMs and drug makers.

"What's going to prevent an innovator from coming in, talking to a PBM, and giving a steeper discount?" he said.

"Even if the price is lower, with the rebate still not being addressed, is that going to have an effect on anything?" Lanton wondered.

CMS Star Ratings: Will Biosimilars Benefit?

This article is in Biosimilar Development: Click here to read the article

In case you can’t access the article, here is the text below.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) star ratings system was created in 2007 for insurance plans operating under both the Medicare Advantage and Part D. This 1 to 5 system (with 5 being the highest rating) is a way for CMS to measure the value of a plan and determine whether to continue to allow it to be part of the program. However, it’s more than just the plan, since the plan’s providers play a key role in how CMS evaluates each plan.

Essentially, the system measures other items as well, such as clinical quality, beneficiary satisfaction, and regulatory compliance, in addition to included providers. Plans are incentivized with financial rewards for improving quality performance and achieving the highest rating. What has been interesting to watch over time is how the star ratings system has become the go to evaluator for anything healthcare. The question is whether this concept could be applied to reduce drug costs, specifically, where biosimilars are concerned. 

We received our answer with the introduction of the Star Ratings for Biosimilars Act, otherwise known as H.R. 4629. This bipartisan bill is sponsored by Congressmen Tonko (D-NY) and Gibbs (R-OH), but to date it hasn’t gotten much support. The bill has a U.S. Senate version sponsored by Senators Cassidy (R-LA) and Menendez (D-NJ). According to Senator Cassidy’s press release, “This bill would incentivize insurers to use lower cost versions of drugs by rating the plan based on usage of biosimilar medications. Using lower cost drugs will lead to positive health outcomes with lower out of pocket costs for patients.” We have also seen similar legislative language in S.2543, known as the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act of 2019.

For years now, we have witnessed several debates on how biosimilars could potentially lower drug costs, and this proposed legislation is another example of the potential promise that biosimilars have in helping policymakers lower drug costs. But will this bill help? Specifically, the proposed legislation calls for determining whether a biosimilar is on the formulary, assesses whether and how utilization management tools are applied with respect to a biosimilar, and assesses the percentage of enrollees prescribed the biosimilar biological product when the reference biological product is also available.

While I applaud any idea that attempts to lower costs and promote patient access, the devil is always in the details. For example, will these proposed metrics of incentivizing plans to use biosimilars work? Will there be competing metrics that plans have that may be better measurements than CMS?

Industry stakeholders like physicians and pharmacists may not like having plans with too much autonomy because unfairness and bias in measuring provider compliance may come into play, as plans and their partner pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) would likely favor their providers and pharmacies, which could result in different star ratings for some. Will hospitals be amenable to this system when they already have complaints against CMS’ star ratings programs due to hospitals not being able to predict quality improvement metrics for operational efficiency? Physician education on biosimilars will have to be increased as well, since their comfort level with biosimilars will help spawn more utilization by their patients. Lastly, what impact will star ratings on biosimilars have on insurer rebates? At this time, it is too early to tell, since without this clarity it is even hard to quantify if biosimilars are already experiencing formulary disadvantages due to innovators offering larger discounts. One thing is for certain, in order to force monumental change, it may be best to do it via mandate. Forced compliance, in my opinion, will bring out the potential bugs in a system fast.

Ultimately, the other big issue is whether there is enough time to get legislation like this through Congress, along with a presidential signature. It would also help if the bill had more support, through either Congressional members or a push from powerful interested stakeholders. To date, the bill doesn’t have a significant number of cosponsors. It could be that it is December or that lowering drug prices through biosimilars is an idea that is spread throughout too many current Congressional proposed bills.

Theoretically, this seems like a win-win for both parties, but, realistically, we are on the doorstep of campaign season. With the upcoming elections on the state and federal level expected to be explosive, will lawmakers find the will to agree on a bipartisan solution like this before the political rhetoric heats up? We can only hope.  

Lanton Law December 2019 Newsletter Now Available

We are out with our December 2019 newsletter. This edition covers data oversight, a Medicaid white paper and upcoming webinars. Click here to access the December 2019 newsletter.

Additionally, if you are interested in signing up for our newsletter that has trending information on healthcare, technology and fintech, click here to sign up.