Another IRA Surprise: Part B Coinsurance Inflation Adjustments Are Increasing Patient Costs (rerun)

This week, I’m rerunning some popular posts while we put the finishing touches on DCI’s new 2024-25 Economic Report on Pharmaceutical Wholesalers and Specialty Distributors.

The article below highlights an underappreciated consequence of the Inflation Reduction Act’s inflation rebates for Medicare Part B drugs. Last night, I posted an updated analysis showing that the volatility in seniors' coinsurance rates continues. For the fourther quarter of 2024, coinsurance rates for 51 drugs increased, while rates for only 19 drugs decreased. What's more, rates for 17 drugs returned to their original 20% level. Click here to see our original post from May 2024.

---

Contrary to what you may have heard, the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) inflation rebates for Medicare Part B drugs do not always save money for seniors.

As we document below, a growing share of Part B drugs have inflation-adjusted coinsurance rates that have been increasing, not declining. In many cases, the coinsurance rate declines only briefly before rebounding back to the standard 20% rate. What’s more, these fluctuations have triggered huge jumps in patients’ out-of-pocket obligations for some drugs—even when a drug’s costs were falling.

Chalk off these coinsurance surprises to yet another unintended consequence of the IRA. Seniors who are expecting to see costs drop may find they are instead being taken for a rollercoaster ride.

Hospitals Are Relying More on PBMs to Manage Manufacturers' 340B Contract Pharmacy Restrictions: DCI's 2024 Market Analysis (rerun)

This week, I’m rerunning some popular posts while we put the finishing touches on DCI’s new 2024-25 Economic Report on Pharmaceutical Wholesalers and Specialty Distributors.

Click here to see the original post from June 2024.

---

The 340B contract pharmacy market shows little sign of slowing down. Drug Channels Institute’s exclusive analysis of the 2024 market reveals that:

• About 33,000 pharmacy locations—more than half of the entire U.S. pharmacy industry—act as contract pharmacies for the hospitals and federal grantees that participate in the 340B program. 

• Five multi-billion-dollar, for-profit, publicly traded pharmacy chains and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)—Cigna (via Express Scripts), CVS Health, UnitedHealth Group (via OptumRx), and Walgreens, Walmart—continue to dominate the 340B contract pharmacy market.

• Federal grantees are aligned primarily with the vertically intergated organizations' retail pharmacies, while hospitals rely on mail and specialty pharmacies.

Over the past four years, manufacturers’ restrictions on 340B contract pharmacies have led hospitals to deepen their relationships with the largest PBMs—even as those PBMs have simultaneously limited hospitals’ direct participation in specialty pharmacy networks.

For an updated look at what’s next for the 340B contract pharmacy market, join Adam J. Fein, Ph.D., on June 21 for his latest live video webinar: The 340B Drug Pricing Program: Trends, Controversies, and Outlook.

Why PBMs and Payers Are Embracing Insulin Biosimilars with Higher Prices—And What That Means for Humira (rerun with an FTC update)

This week, I’m rerunning some popular posts while we put the finishing touches on DCI’s new 2024-25 Economic Report on Pharmaceutical Wholesalers and Specialty Distributors.

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released the redacted version of administrative complaint against the three largest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). The FTC rightly calls out how the gross-to-net bubble can raise patients’ out-of-pocket costs, while also acknowledging how rebates can reduce a plan's (but not the patient’s) costs. Apparently, the FTC believes that PBMs’ customers are pretty dumb, because PBMs are able to prevent plans from “appreciating” such healthcare financing dynamics.

Section V.E. of the complaint (starting on page 23) focuses on the PBMs’ alleged unlawful conduct related to preferring high-list/high-rebate insulin products over versions with lower list prices. I thought it would therefore be fun to take the Wayback Machine to November 2021, when I wrote about this specific topic.

Below, you can review my commentary about the warped incentives behind Viatris’ dual-pricing strategy for its interchangeable biosimilar of Lantus. Much of the FTC’s description of the drug channel aligns with my commentary. But before you fist pump too hard for Ms. Khan’s FTC, you should pause to reflect on the agency’s legal theories in light of plans’ revealed preferences.

---

The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the first interchangeable biosimilar insulin product: the insulin glargine-yfgn injection from Viatris. Read the FDA’s press release.

Alas, I’m sad to report that the warped incentives baked into the U.S. drug channel will limit the impact of this impressive breakthrough.

Viatris is being forced to launch both a high-priced and a low-priced version of the biosimilar. However, only the high-list/high-rebate, branded version will be available on Express Scripts’ largest commercial formulary. Express Scripts will block both the branded reference product and the lower-priced, unbranded—but also interchangeable—version. Meanwhile, Prime Therapeutics will place both versions on its formularies, leaving the choice up to its plan sponsor clients.

Consequently, many commercial payers will adopt the more expensive product instead of the identical—but cheaper—version. As usual, patients will be the ultimate victims of our current drug pricing system.

Below, I explain the weird economics behind this decision, highlight the negative impact on patients, and speculate on what this all could mean for biosimilars’ future. Until plan sponsors break their addiction to rebates, today’s U.S. drug channel problems will remain.