For more than a decade, Medicare Part D has successfully provided seniors and people with disabilities comprehensive prescription drug coverage, while its unique market-based structure has kept overall program costs far below initial projections. In fact, according to a new nationwide survey, nearly nine of ten seniors are satisfied with their Part D prescription drug coverage. Even so, increasingly beneficiaries are facing high out-of-pocket costs at the pharmacy counter.
The biopharmaceutical industry has long advocated for improving affordability and predictability of cost-sharing in Part D by strengthening this vital program with the right solutions, such as establishing an out-of-pocket cap, fixing the Part D out-of-pocket cliff and sharing the savings from rebates with patients directly at the pharmacy counter. Unfortunately, the Senate Finance Committee has pushed for changes that would upend Part D without any immediate and meaningful savings for most patients at the pharmacy counter.
Below are three reasons why the Senate Finance Committee’s approach is the wrong approach for patients:
- The Senate Finance package fundamentally alters how parts of Medicare and Medicaid covers beneficiaries and would siphon more than $120 billion from researching and developing new medicines. Instead of using those savings to directly benefit beneficiaries, much of this money would instead go to the government, insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). Unfortunately, the Senate Finance package would not meaningfully lower costs for beneficiaries at the pharmacy counter. For example, while the bill establishes a cap on what beneficiaries pay out of pocket, only about 2% of Part D beneficiaries face out-of-pocket costs in the catastrophic today according to MedPAC. This will leave beneficiaries with drug spending below the out-of-pocket threshold without any direct reductions in their costs at the pharmacy counter. The Senate Finance package should do more to help these patients.
- The Senate Finance package fails to ensure the deep discounts negotiated in the Medicare prescription drug program are passed along to patients in the form of lower out-of-pocket costs. While insurance companies have said they use rebates and discounts to keep premiums low, that doesn’t address the number one problem seniors identify: out-of-pocket costs at the pharmacy counter. Research has shown that sharing negotiated rebates at the pharmacy counter could save seniors with diabetes, for example, more than $350 in out-of-pocket spending annually and reduce total health care spending by approximately $20 billion over the next 10 years. Regardless of whether PBMs pass through rebates or discounts to insurers, they are not making their way to patients at the point of sale.
- The Senate Finance package erodes the successful, market-based structure of Medicare Part D by opening the door to government-set prices that result in money going to the Federal Treasury instead of patients. The government-administered inflation rebate as part of the package would violate the spirit of the non-interference clause and undermine Part D’s market-based structure. Part D works because it gives beneficiaries plenty of options and choices to pick the plan that fits them best. The Senate Finance package proposes inserting price controls into Part D, which could significantly change how Part D serves beneficiaries. Economists have found that the introduction of government-set prices in Medicaid caused distortionary impacts that led to higher prices in the commercial market.
We remain committed to ensuring policy reforms result in immediate and meaningful savings for patients at the pharmacy counter. However, the current Senate Finance Committee approach is the wrong approach for patients.
Tom Wilbur
Tom Wilbur is Deputy Vice President of Public Affairs at PhRMA where he leads the state public affairs team and Voters for Cures, PhRMA’s grassroots advocacy initiative. Prior to joining PhRMA in 2019, Tom served as a senior aide on Capitol Hill for U.S. Rep. Fred Upton and the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Tom holds an M.A. in strategic communications from Michigan State University and a B.A. in social science and history from Central Michigan University. He enjoys spending time with family and friends, volunteering, reading and golfing.
Medicare Part D at 20: Building on a strong foundation
The IRA’s price setting doesn’t guarantee lower costs or better access
What seniors can expect this open enrollment
Part D premiums are going up, while choices are going down
Medicare Part D plans initially denied medicines for more than 70% of patients in four chronic disease areas
PBMs launch new ad campaign to block reforms
Patients are losing as government price setting continues
CMS needs to do better
Is CMS paying attention to the growing access barriers for Medicare patients under the IRA?
The Inflation Reduction Act could increase costs and reduce access for millions of seniors
New survey: Insurers confirm IRA will reduce patient treatment options
The unintended consequences of government price setting in Medicare Part D
What is the low-income subsidy program and how is it changing?
The IRA could lead to higher out-of-pocket costs for 3.5 million Medicare patients in 2026
IRA is already negatively impacting access to medicines in Part D
New study finds insurers and PBMs increasing access restrictions in Medicare Part D
ICYMI: 3 takeaways on the IRA’s unintended consequences from America’s Physician Groups’ 2023 annual fall conference
ICYMI: Government watchdog report finds patients in Medicare Part D paid billions more for medicines than insurers and PBMs
IRA threatens seniors’ access to robust treatment options
Medicare Prescription Payment Plan will benefit patients if implemented correctly
Correcting the record: IRA’s government price setting provisions are unconstitutional
IRA changes to Part D risk access to medicines
With the first list of medicines out, let’s not forget why government price setting is bad policy
One year later IRAs unintended consequences are becoming reality
Four things for CMS to keep in mind as they implement changes to Part D
CMS guidance on IRA price setting process doubles down on bad policy
Medicare Part D open enrollment and what recent changes mean for beneficiaries
Many seniors are paying more for Part D medicines than their insurer
A key fact the White House is reluctant to admit
A key fact the White House is reluctant to admit
The Senate’s latest price setting proposal will undermine: Patient access to medicines
Three charts show how the Medicare Part D program could be improved to work better for seniors and people with disabilities
Part D 101: Three charts show how the program provides comprehensive prescription drug coverage
It’s a new year, but sadly Congress is still pursuing flawed price setting policies
Post-approval research save lives. Why is Congress trying disincentivize it?
A price control by any other name would still put patients at risk and threaten innovation
New data show insurers and PBMs increase barriers to care
Making medicines more affordable: Modernizing Medicare
ICYMI: New study confirms policies like H.R. 3 could significantly reduce drug development
America’s biopharmaceutical companies to Congress: Government “negotiation” is the wrong approach
Recent polling misrepresents public support for Medicare “negotiation”
What they’re saying: Patient advocates want to protect Medicare from government interference
Myth vs. fact: Polling and Medicare “negotiation”
ICYMI: Event spotlights how we can make Medicare work better for patients
The future of the rebate rule: Will policymakers stand with patients?
Celebrating Medicare’s 56th anniversary
Government “negotiation” could have devastating consequences for Medicare enrollees
Protecting Medicare from government interference
Data shows voters strongly support protecting access to their medicines
Medicare “negotiation” proposals threaten Americans’ access to medicines
Out-of-pocket trends in Medicare Part D show rising costs for seniors
The ABCs (and Ds) of Medicare
ICYMI: Bipartisan lawmakers urge new administration to oppose changes to six protected classes policy
Key excerpts: PhRMA submits comments to keep the six protected classes protected
Action needed to preserve the six protected classes
Key facts: The final rebate rule will be a positive change for patients
End of year Part D reading List
Final rebate rule represents right way to change Medicare
Open Enrollment: How to find a Medicare plan that meets your needs
Three reasons why repealing the Part D non-interference clause is a bad idea
National Medicare Education Week: The history of Medicare Part D
How Medicare Part D supports patients
Supporting access to vaccines for Part D beneficiaries
Medicare’s 55th anniversary: Celebrating the success of Part D
Three reasons why MedPAC’s latest Part D proposal would be bad for patients
PhRMA submits comments on CMS’s Part D specialty tier proposal
Three reasons the Administration should abandon its International Pricing Index proposal
Four reasons why the radical Pelosi Plan is the wrong approach
New analysis: Government intervention in Part B threatens patient access to medicines
Three things to know about the Part D GAO report
No matter how you structure it, government arbitration is wrong for Medicare drug coverage
What you should know: Government arbitration is the wrong way to change Medicare
By the numbers: A look at the Part B International Pricing Index Model
How the rebate rule would help reduce patients’ out-of-pocket costs
Ask About Adherence: OIG proposed rule to reform the rebate system could improve adherence
4 Things to know about the IQVIA “Medicine Use and Spending” report
Event tomorrow: Improving access and affordability for America’s seniors
Fact Check: How the Part B International Pricing Index Model replaces market competition with government-set prices
Six policy solutions to help patients afford their insulin
PhRMA comments on OIG proposed rule to reform the rebate system
Fact Check: How the Part B International Pricing Index model threatens patient access
OIG proposed rule could help strengthen the Part D market
Rebate rule would help ensure seniors with diabetes don’t pay more for their medicine than their insurer
Bipartisan lawmakers urge Administration to rethink proposed changes to six protected classes policy
OptumRX: Sharing rebates with patients is “worth it”
Changes to the six protected class policy are the wrong prescription for Medicare and HIV patients
New “Prescription for Medicare” campaign focuses on impacts of wrong and right solutions for Medicare
Repealing Part D noninterference clause threatens access and choice for America’s seniors
New study shows why insurers should share rebates with Medicare Part D beneficiaries on a mandatory basis
PhRMA comments to administration on Medicare Part D proposed rule
New research shows changes to the six protected classes would harm most vulnerable patients and are unnecessary
Keep the Six Protected Classes, protected
Experts agree: the Bipartisan Budget Act changes to Medicare Part D jeopardize the program
What if a couple of small fixes could protect seniors in the donut hole and save them money on out-of-pocket costs?
PhRMA submission to HHS on blueprint to lower drug prices and reduce out-of-pocket costs
Pass-through rebates do not violate non-interference clause but they do increase savings for seniors
Medicare Part D cliff ahead
Part D cliff looms for seniors, as program stability could be in jeopardy
New “Let’s Talk About Medicare” campaign focuses on solutions to improve affordability and predictability for seniors in Part D
ICYMI: Two PBM reports show dramatic slowdown in medicine spending growth
PhRMA urges CMS to share the savings with seniors
Medicare Monday: Helping beneficiaries access vaccines
Medicare Monday: Same bad ideas continue to threaten Part D and beneficiary access to medicines
Medicare Monday: Open enrollment is here again
Medicare Monday: Medicare Part D by the numbers
Medicare Monday: What is the Extra Help program?
Medicare Monday: Strengthening access to vaccines for seniors
Medicare Monday: Part D premiums expected to drop in 2018
Medicare Monday: Medicare turns 52!
Medicare Monday: What you need to know about the latest Medicare Trustees report
Medicare Monday: Study finds mortality rates for elderly have decreased every year since creation of Part D
Medicare Monday: It is Medicare’s birthday month!
Medicare Monday: 3 reasons why repealing Part D’s noninterference clause is a bad idea
Medicare Monday: How government price setting in Part D could reduce innovation, shorten life expectancy for beneficiaries
Medicare Monday: Positive impact of Part D on America’s seniors
Medicare Monday: Why imposing Medicaid-style rebates in Part D is a bad idea
Medicare Monday: Another example of the competitive market at work in Part D
Medicare Monday: A discussion on affordability and access to medicines
Medicare Monday: New study further confirms increased use of generics after Part D
Medicare Monday: Did you know … ?
Medicare Monday: How Part D helps patients with heart disease live longer, healthier lives
Medicare Monday: How Medicare helps beneficiaries access needed medicines
Medicare Monday: A refresh on private negotiation in Part D
Medicare Monday: Kicking off 2017 with Medicare resources
Three reasons the Senate Finance package is the wrong approach for patients
Part D
Prescription for Medicare
Three reasons the Senate Finance package is the wrong approach for patients
Three reasons the Senate Finance package is the wrong approach for patients