The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) is not happy with the Biden administration or the new 340B rule, finalized on April 18 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), concerning the dispute resolution process put in place in 2020.
Some gene therapies could be big winners under the changes the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is proposing to Medicare’s new technology add-on program (NTAP) for its fiscal 2025 inpatient prospective payment system.
Novo Nordisk A/S is the latest drug company to be challenged by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has made tilting at prescription drug prices one of the hallmarks of his tenure as chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
Although there’s bipartisan interest in the U.S. Congress to hold pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) accountable for their contribution to the costliest drug prices in the world, the Biden administration ignored PBMs when it again focused on drug companies as the bad guys of pricing in its proposed 2025 budget.
In what was more of a campaign speech accompanied by frequent chants of “four more years,” U.S. President Joe Biden loaded the annual State of the Union address March 7 with what sounded like campaign promises for a second term. Among those promises were calls to Congress to expand the prescription drug price provisions of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
Drug pricing is playing an outsized role in the dynamics of the November U.S. election, creating turbulence for drug companies and for patients that will extend years after the votes are counted. During a Feb. 27 morning session on drug pricing trends during an election year at the BIO CEO & Investor Conference in New York, key opinion leaders spoke about their concerns, including the need to explain drug-pricing rationale to voters and patients in plain terms.
The Feb. 8 U.S. drug pricing hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee started out as a spectacle in which Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) rehashed his usual talking points as he lectured the CEOs of Bristol Myers Squibb Co., Johnson & Johnson and Merck & Co. Inc. about how their companies charge so much more for their drugs in the U.S. than in other countries. But despite the show-trial aspects of the hearing, or what Ranking Member Bill Cassidy (R-La.) called Sanders’ ongoing “CEO-whack-a-mole” agenda, some facts came through that could lead to pricing reforms if Congress has the bipartisan will to do so.
No subpoena will be needed to force the CEOs of Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Merck & Co. Inc. to appear before the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, as apparently the threat was enough to get the CEOs to agree to testify at a committee hearing on U.S. drug prices.
With its approval Jan. 5 of Florida’s drug importation program, the U.S. FDA ended a 23-year wait for the government to implement a 2000 provision allowing certain prescription drug imports from Canada.
One of the latest state laws impacting prescription drug prices is a per se unconstitutional taking, a U.S. district judge said last week, but he refused to grant a preliminary injunction to shield manufacturers from the effects of Colorado’s new law while Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.’s constitutional challenge moves through the courts.