logo 

  NLARx News 

February 9, 2011

In This Issue
From the Director
National WAC Database Announced
NLARx Meets with USTR
NLARx on Facebook
NewsNews From the States & Around the World

 

Your Rx or Your Privacy? The LA Times Editorializes in favor of the States in IMS v Sorrell

 

10 Celebrities on Pharma's Payroll

 

Despite Efforts, Drug Costs Continue to Rise in W. Virginia

 

Maryland Considers Banning Gifts to Doctors 

 

Oklahoma Plans Drop Boxes for Rx Drug Disposal

 

Florida Gov Wants to Repeal Drug Monitoring

 

 Crushed by Medicaid Costs, States expand Managed Care

 

Merck, Groundwater Pollution, and Sick Neighbors

 

EU Trade Deal Could Cost Canada $3 Billion 

 

How Medicare Could Save on Part B Drug Pricing

 

 Institutional Conflicts Go Unpoliced

 

Most Patient Advocacy Groups Hide PhRMA Dollars

 

Should Health Advocacy Groups Disclose Funding?

 

Dollars for Docs Database Adds HIV Payouts

 

Glaxo Said to Pay $250 M to Resolve Avandia Claims

 

Australian Medical Journal Bans Pharma Advertising

 

Which Product Websites Cause Consumers to Act?


ToolboxLEGISLATORS' TOOLBOX


 
  
purple shaded tool box
Join Our Mailing List
Quick Links

From the DirectorExecutive Director

 

States around the country are focused on Medicaid budgets, whether and how to comply with the Affordable Care Act, and new options for pricing prescription drugs and negotiating rebates.  This week the U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services sent a letter to the states outlining a series of options, including new methods of calculating pharmaceutical rebates, which we discuss below.  Also last week, NLARx counsel Sean Flynn met with staff at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to present the states' case on why federal free trade agreements should not include pharmaceutical provisions limiting states' options negotiating drug prices and rebates.  We report on this meeting below.

 

See our round-up of interesting pharmaceutical news from the states and around the world.  Be sure to check out the Legislators' Toolbox, which includes links to helpful background and model policies on trade issues and drug pricing.  We hope this information is useful!  If you want up-to-the-minute news postings, be sure to sign up on our facebook page - we post articles on a daily basis. 

Sincerely, Sharon Treat  Find us on Facebook 

 

winkelman 

Secretary Sebelius Outlines Medicaid Pharmacy Options Including National Drug Price Database 

 

At the January NLARx meeting, we heard from Mike Winkelman and Nell Geiser about several options for reducing Medicaid prescription drug prices, including moving to rebates based on aquisition costs rather than the widely used current standard AWP, or Average Wholesale Price.  Last week, Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote to the Nation's governors with a variety of Medicaid suggestions, including announcing the development of a national database of data on actual aquisition costs.  If done properly, this national database could be a significant help to the states. 

 

 

As we have pointed out before, an ongoing difficulty for states negotiating and enforcing drug pricing and rebates has been the lack of good information, which has allowed PBMs and drug manufacturers and wholesalers to skirt their "best price" obligations. For example, the Texas Attorney General has settled or won judgments for over $425 million in lawsuits against 13 drug companies for pricing fraud under the current system.

 

The National Association of Medicaid Directors has written a White Paper on drug pricing and the proposed shift from AWP to WAC.  The medicaid directors have also emphasized the critical importance of pricing data that does not depend on self-reported information from the industry, as well as the continued potential for gaming of the system.   They state:  

 

"Wholesale Acquisition Cost" prices are currently available for many, but not all drugs. WAC may be susceptible to the same concerns that rendered AWP ineffective: it is a manufacturer-reported value not readily amenable to audit, and there is no reason for confidence that it could not ultimately be inflated well beyond any actual market price. Particularly since it has been defined in federal law as an "undiscounted list price" WAC would require continuous adjustments (markups or markdowns) by states based on acquisition cost surveys." [p.3, Executive Summary] 

 

 

Secretary Sibelius notes that Alabama expects to save $30 million in one year by changing to a wholesale aquisition cost (WAC) baseline.  Other states are starting to follow suit.  Legislation, LD 346, was introduced in Maine this week to move to WAC pricing, and other states are expected to follow suit.  

 

Excerpt from Secretary Sebelius' letter to Governors: 

 

"Purchasing Drugs More Efficiently.  In 2009, States spent $7 billion to help Medicaid beneficiaries afford prescription drugs.  States have broad flexibility to set their pharmacy pricing.  We are committed to working with States to ensure they have accurate information about drug costs in order to make prudent purchasing decisions.  As recommended by States, the Department is undertaking a first-ever national survey to create a database of actual acquisition costs that States may use as a basis for determining State-specific rates, with results available later this year.  Alabama, the first State to adopt use of actual acquisition costs as the benchmark for drug reimbursement, expects to save six percent ($30 million) of its pharmacy costs in the first year of implementation.  We will also share additional approaches that States have used to drive down costs, such as relying more on generic drugs, mail order, management relating to over-prescribed high cost drugs, and use of health information technology to encourage appropriate prescribing and avoidance of expensive adverse events." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

tradeNLARx Counsel Meets with USTR to Discuss Potential Trade Restrictions on Prescription Drug Pricing  


On January 31, 2011, Sean Flynn, NLARx Counsel and Associate Director of the Program on Information Justice & Intellectual Property at the Washington College of Law, American University, met with staff from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.  Professor Flynn briefed the USTR staff on state government concerns with USTR pressing for new international restrictions on pharmaceutical reimbursement programs. He noted that in other areas USTR has announced publicly that it is pushing for certain topics to be within the agreement, and asked USTR to state on the record whether it is proposing a pharmaceutical chapter, for example a chapter similar to those included with Australia and Korea.

In response, USTR staff stated: "We are aware of the proposal from our pharmaceutical industry. We are still evaluating the pharma proposal. Before we take positions in the negotiation we go through a process of internal consultation. We are in that consultation mode. We have reviewed the [pharma] position in the past. We continue to work on these issues. We welcome submissions and input." They emphasized that this would be the first Free Trade Agreement (FTA) drafted entirely under the Obama Administration, so many policy decisions were yet to be decided. Staff stated: "In the past they [pharmaceutical chapters] have been part of our FTAs. We are in the internal process of developing a position of whether to propose a pharmaceutical chapter."

Prof. Flynn informed USTR staff that a pharmaceutical chapter would be particularly controversial in an agreement including developing countries, as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) does. One of the key flexibilities in the WTO TRIPS agreement is that it does not regulate other policy tools that can restrain excessive pricing and otherwise control IP monopoly power. The problem is acute in medicine markets in poorer countries where monopolies promote extreme pricing power. Limiting the use of reimbursement formularies to temper prices in such countries would be particularly harmful and would likely draw intense criticism from global health groups.

Moreover, as explained in the resolution adopted by NLARx on January 21, public health programs run by states, including the administration of Medicaid drug benefits for over 40 million Americans, use the same types of price restraining preferred reimbursement formularies (known as preferred drug lists, or PDLs) as foreign governments. Many federal programs, including drug programs for Medicare and veterans hospitals, achieve reductions on drug prices through similar preferred reimbursement programs.  We believe the position of the U.S. should be that it will not pursue policies abroad that it does not follow now at home, regardless of technical carve outs. The policy should be to protect and promote best practices, not undermine them.

For more on this issue, check out this week's the Legislators' Toolbox, the Forum on Democracy & Trade and PIJIP

Join NLARx on Facebook!
 
For up-to-the-minute posting of news of interest and events, become a fan of NLARx on Facebook here