The following op-ed was authored by PhRMA president and CEO Stephen J. Ubl and published on Forbes here on June 2, 2017.
The way our health care system currently pays for prescription medicines is convoluted and confusing. We rely on a complicated system of list prices, net prices, rebates and an opaque supply chain that often results in uncertainty and frustration for patients. It is no wonder consumers and policymakers have questions and are looking for better answers. So are we.
In many respects, our current marketplace for medicines works for patients. Insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are powerful, sophisticated purchasers who use their leverage to negotiate steep discounts off the list prices of medicines. According to one recent report, after factoring in negotiated discounts and rebates, prices for brand medicines increased just 2.5 percent in 2016 and total spending on medicines increased just 3.4% last year.
Yet too often these negotiations focus solely on the size of the rebate and not on rewarding the best value for patients. A recent study funded by PhRMA and conducted by the Berkeley Research Group found, on average, more than a third of the initial list price of a medicine is rebated back to insurance companies, PBMs and the government, or retained by other parts of the biopharmaceutical supply chain. And the gap between list prices and net prices is growing every year as more of medicine costs are being retained by middlemen in the system.
To address this, our reimbursement system needs to evolve to better recognize and reward value. Not all patients are alike, and they do not all benefit equally from each medicine. We need to make sure our payment system for medicines reflects these differences.
Our current market is already starting to move in this direction. Biopharmaceutical companies are working with private health insurers to implement new payment arrangements for a variety of diseases. For example, cancer medicines may work better for patients with one type of cancer than those with another. Under these new arrangements, prices and rebates for the medicine could differ based on the type of cancer a patient has or how well an individual responds to treatment. Companies are also considering new ways to pay for treatment when a patient needs multiple high-priced innovative medicines and experimenting with money-back guarantees if a medicine does not work as intended.
However, public policy reforms are needed to speed adoption of new payment models. We need to remove policy barriers that restrict how much information biopharmaceutical companies can share with insurance companies about the potential benefits of a treatment. We also need to reform outdated, unclear regulations that discourage companies from offering discounts that are tied to outcomes, rather than volume. And we need to modify existing Medicaid best price requirements that inhibit companies from taking on more risk in new payment arrangements.
Advancing these types of commonsense policy solutions will help ensure we get the right medicine to the right patient at the right time – improving care and saving costs across the health care system.
In addition to focusing on what payers pay for medicines, we must also focus on what consumers pay. Any discussion about value must include recognition of the shared responsibility to make sure patients actually get the medicines they need.
Not only can value-based payments save health care system costs, but they can make medicines more accessible and affordable for patients. In exchange for taking on more risk for the outcomes achieved by the patient, biopharmaceutical companies may negotiate preferred formulary placement for those medicines, which come with lower copays and coinsurance for patients.
We also need to ensure patients receive more of the benefit of price negotiations between biopharmaceutical companies and payers. Unlike care received at an in-network hospital or physician’s office, health plans continue to require patients with high deductibles or coinsurance to pay cost sharing based on the undiscounted list price, rather than the discounted price. In fact, a new PhRMA-commissioned analysis by Amundsen Consulting found that more than half of patients’ out-of-pocket spending for brand medicines is based on the list price of the medicine, even though their health insurance company may be receiving a steep discount.
With the difference between list prices and net prices continuing to grow, patients’ cost sharing for medicines is increasingly based on prices that do not reflect the actual costs. For example, a patient in a high-deductible health plan who pays the list price each month for insulin may be paying hundreds—or even thousands—more annually than their insurer.
This needs to change. Insurance companies should be required to pass on more of the discounts they receive to patients in the form of lower out-of-pocket costs, just like they do for other types of health care services.
We believe these changes will go a long way toward rewarding value in our health care system and making health care more affordable for patients.
Holly Campbell
Holly Campbell is former deputy vice president of public affairs at PhRMA focusing on the cost and value of medicines.
Holly Campbell
You won’t fix what you don’t value: Two reasons why traditional cost-effective analyses can perpetuate health inequities
PhRMA presents research at ISPOR 2022
Study finds nearly half of payers believe innovative contracts can lead to lower patient out-of-pocket costs
Growth in innovative, value-based contracts holds promise for the health system and for patients
Innovative contracts drive access for patients and value for the system
ICYMI: Patients saved nearly $800,000 out of pocket through innovative contracting arrangements
Low-value health care costs $345B each year and provides little benefit
Addressing barriers that inhibit value-based contracts
Guest post: Value-based agreements can improve outcomes and even save patients money at the pharmacy counter
New data show how ICER’s value framework could prevent or delay access to treatments for Medicaid patients across the country
5 Ways to improve ICER’s value assessment framework
Assessing value top of mind at ISPOR 2019
New analysis shows 820,000 prescriptions would be in jeopardy if ICER’s value framework is used in Medicaid
Value assessments should include all the outcomes that matter to patients and families
Event tomorrow: Leaders convene to discuss solutions to advance value-driven health care
New whitepaper identifies reasons why ICER’s cost-effectiveness analyses are not useful for payers
Guest post: Developing new payment models to ensure patients have access to high-investment therapies
Number of value-based contracts continues to rise
ICER’s budget impact threshold: Sounding a false alarm on affordability and access
PhRMA submission to HHS on blueprint to lower drug prices and reduce out-of-pocket costs
How ICER’s assessment of a new class of migraine treatments fails patients
Aspen Spotlight Health: Discussing the forefront of innovation
New analysis shows negative impact of ICER’s value framework on patient access in Medicare Part B
ICYMI: Recent survey adds to growing body of research on barriers to innovative payment approaches
Reality check: Value-based contracts are good for patients
Video: Barriers to results-based contracts
Improving care quality by engaging patients in shared decision making
ICYMI: Research shows promise of innovative payment arrangements in reducing costs, improving access
Clarity around anti-kickback statute needed to promote innovative payment arrangements
Video: What is a results-based contract?
Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Walgreens and other CEOs discuss value in the future of health care
ICYMI: Innovative payment models helping provide patient access to new medicines
RA medicines often demonstrate far greater benefits to patients than initially understood
Stakeholders Agree: Modernize the legal framework to support move to value-driven health care
How do multiple sclerosis patients define value?
PhRMA CEO talks White House meeting, innovation & jobs with POLITICO’s Pulse Check
VIDEO: PhRMA CEO discusses #GOBOLDLY campaign and White House meeting with CNNMoney’s Maggie Lake
The Value Collaborative: Advancing private market solutions to achieve better health, lower costs
PhRMA CEO in Forbes - How to negotiate better deals for prescription medicines
The Value Collaborative
PhRMA CEO in Forbes - How to negotiate better deals for prescription medicines
PhRMA CEO in Forbes - How to negotiate better deals for prescription medicines