The U.S. FDA’s Sept. 6 hearing of the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee (PEAC) tackled the question of health equity, a discussion that touched on several issues such as accessibility. One of the committee’s recommendations was that the FDA assist the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) with the latter’s task of developing codes for payment, not the kind of task to which the FDA is typically assigned.
The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is once again in the crosshairs thanks to issues related to pharmacy benefits managers and coverage of novel medical devices, with Congress mulling over two dozen pieces of Medicare-related legislation.
The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is once again in the crosshairs thanks to issues related to pharmacy benefits managers and coverage of novel medical devices, with Congress mulling over two dozen pieces of Medicare-related legislation.
Forget location. It’s timing, timing, timing when it comes to escaping the first round of U.S. Medicare price negotiations due to pending biosimilar competition. Under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), only single-source drugs that have been approved for a specific length of time are subject to the forced negotiations, which focus on drugs with the biggest Medicare spend, not necessarily the highest price tag. Since the IRA gives biologics a 12-year safe harbor from negotiations, which aligns with the biologic exclusivity provided by the Biologic Price Competition and Innovation Act, it creates a scenario in which the innovator could be facing negotiations just as its first biosimilar competition prepares to launch. That creates a lot of what-ifs.
The queue of lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) prescription drug price negotiations continues to grow. Novartis AG is the latest drug company, but probably not the last, to join the line. It filed its challenge in federal court in New Jersey Sept. 1, a few days after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services included the company’s heart failure drug, Entresto (sacubitril and valsartan), on its list of the 10 drugs subject to the first round of IRA negotiations.
In response to the Biden administration announcing on Aug. 29 the first 10 medications up for price negotiations with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as part of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, U.S. Senate and House Republicans are firing back, calling the imposed “price-controls set by Washington bureaucrats” part of a scheme that “will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures and destroy jobs,” ultimately driving up costs for seniors.
The list of 10 part D Medicare drugs listed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) as eligible for negotiation raised some eyebrows on Wall Street, but proved mostly in accord with what the industry expected. Under the Inflation Reduction Act, Medicare can for the first time bargain with drug companies. The back-and-forth begins this year, carrying into next year, and the agreed-upon prices will take effect in 2026.
With the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services soon expected to publish the list of 10 drugs selected for the first round of the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) price negotiations, Astrazeneca plc is the latest to file a challenge. It’s the first non-U.S.-headquartered company to do so and, unlike the other challenges, Astrazeneca’s complaint focuses on the impact to the Orphan Drug Act (ODA). In a statement, the Cambridge, U.K.-based firm said the “drug price negotiation provisions of the IRA run headlong into the goals” of the ODA.
The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has proposed to terminate the coverage with evidence development requirement for the use of positron-emission tomography (PET) imaging for patients suspected of suffering from beta amyloids, a marker of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, CMS is also considering a removal of the coverage policy that limits each patient to a single PET scan per lifetime, although the proposal to allow Medicare administrative contractors (MACs) to determine coverage is drawing fire from industry and physician groups alike.
RSS
