When U.S. CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure announced Nov. 26 that the agency is “reinterpreting” the law in proposing a rule allowing Medicare and Medicaid to cover obesity drugs beginning in 2026, she called it a “historic step.” The rule, if finalized, could make obesity drugs like Novo Nordisk A/S’ Wegovy (semaglutide) and Eli Lilly and Co.’s Zepbound (tirzepatide) available to millions more Americans and further invigorate development of other obesity drugs. But given the lateness of the day in the Biden administration, the proposal may be more symbolic than historic.
With the U.S. Congress sitting on its hands on reforms to the 340B drug discount program, states are stepping into the gap. While most state efforts have been aimed at forcing biopharma companies to give the federally mandated drug discounts to an increasing number of contract pharmacies, California is looking in a different direction. According to unofficial election results, a slim majority of the state’s voters said yes to Proposition 34, which would require certain providers that benefit from the drug discounts to spend at least 98% of their 340B revenues on direct patient care.
While uncertainty often casts a shadow on the Street, U.S. investors welcomed the presidential and congressional election results with a late-night surge that carried into the morning Nov. 6. The Dow Jones peaked at 1,380.47 points early the day after, up 3.27% from Election Day itself and hitting its highest point of the year so far. The celebration extended to the biotech sector, with the BioWorld Index, which covers more than 500 companies, up 17.06% for the year, compared with a 12.28% increase for the year on Nov. 1.
Drug regulators around the world have a unique opportunity – and, in some cases, a legal mandate – to remove the taint of forced labor from the biopharma supply chain. But some of them, including the U.S. FDA and Japan’s PMDA, may be turning a blind eye to those responsibilities, according to a recent report from the nonprofit Centers for Advanced Defense Studies.
The drug and device industries have a lot hinging on the results of the Nov. 5 U.S. presidential and congressional elections. Tax policies. The reach of the FTC. Legislation aimed at drug prices, competition, pharmacy benefit managers and lab-developed tests. Cabinet and agency appointments that could reshape Medicare drug negotiations, the 340B program, FDA Orange Book device patent listings, regulatory flexibility and Bayh-Dole march-ins. And that’s just the top of the list.
The second time around wasn’t lovelier for Lexicon Pharmaceuticals Inc. as it once again made its case before the U.S. FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee for Zynquista (sotagliflozin) as an adjunct to insulin to improve glycemic control in people with type 1 diabetes and mild to moderate chronic kidney disease.
Lexicon Pharmaceuticals Inc. is counting on the Oct. 31 meeting of the U.S. FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee to help it break through the type 1 diabetes (T1D) door with Zynquista (sotagliflozin), proposed as an adjunct to insulin to improve glycemic control in people with T1D and mild to moderate chronic kidney disease.
Although more and more gene therapies are getting the FDA stamp of approval, concerns persist about their potential long-term risks. U.S. lawmakers have proposed several pieces of legislation over the past few years to address some of the uncertainties. Now the Congressional Research Service (CRS) is suggesting other requirements Congress may want to consider to improve the regulatory landscape for gene therapies, especially those intended to treat blood disorders.
If the maximum fair prices the U.S. CMS announced after the first round of drug price negotiations are any indication, advocates of the government price setting may be settling for short-term wins at the cost of long-term, more sustainable price reductions driven by competition.
Legislation that would give the U.S. government a cut of some big pharma profits has once again surfaced in Congress. First introduced in the 114th Congress and every Congress since, the Medical Innovation Act was reintroduced Oct. 18 as a way to tap into the profits of some large biopharma companies to augment research dollars at the FDA and NIH for future drugs and diagnostics, as well as for regulatory science and to support early career scientists.
