Drug manufacturer coupons have increasingly become a popular
method of reducing the price consumers pay for their medications. Insurers, Pharmacy Benefits Managers (PBMs),
and other payors, however, argue that these cost saving tools actually drive
prices upward and result in patients choosing expensive brand name drugs over
less expensive generic alternatives, essentially costing the payors more money,
in the long run. As a result, some
payors are taking the extraordinary step of no longer counting drug coupons
toward patients’ out-of-pocket costs and deductibles, meaning that once
patients use a coupon, they’ll be left to pay the remaining cost of the drug
out-of-pocket.
When
looking at how and when these coupons are used, however, Health Affairs = a leading journal in health policy thought and
research – found that just 21% of coupons used in the 200 highest expenditure
drugs of 2014 had a direct generic substitute, while another 28% had an
“imperfect substitute.” The remaining
51% of drug had either no generic substitute or only branded alternatives (Van
Nuys et al., 2018).
For
patients living with HIV (and, more recently, Hepatitis C), the past decade has
been revolutionary in terms of the medications that have been made available to
treat the disease. In 2007, most
patients began treatment using a two- or three-pill regimen with various
storage requirements. A year earlier,
the first single-pill regimen, Atripla (Gilead), was approved by the FDA for
the treatment of HIV. In 2017, virtually
patients begin HIV treatment with a
single-pill regimen. The sad reality,
however, is that there are no generic substitutes available in the United States for HIV
drugs, and manufacturer coupons that reduce co-pays for them play a vital role
in determining whether or not patients can afford the lifesaving medications
they need.
“Consumers with
life-threatening conditions are caught in the crossfire of an ongoing battle
between insurers and drug companies over drug pricing. No matter who wins the
battle, the casualties will be the patients, taxpayers, and the general
public,” says Eddie Hamilton of the Columbus, Ohio-based ADAP Educational Initiative.
He is correct. In the rush to lower expenditures in the post-Affordable Care Act (ACA) market, insurers have increasingly begun weaponizing their drug formularies – the list of drugs payors will cover and for how much – against manufacturers to force lower pricing agreements, all of which are confidential under existing Trade Secrets laws. Placing brand name drugs in higher-cost tiers has been a relatively ineffective weapon when it comes to lowering overall prices, but has been an effective barrier to treatment for many patients living with HIV and other chronic illnesses for which there are few, if any, generic and/or effective alternatives.
Photo Source: Consumer Reports |
He is correct. In the rush to lower expenditures in the post-Affordable Care Act (ACA) market, insurers have increasingly begun weaponizing their drug formularies – the list of drugs payors will cover and for how much – against manufacturers to force lower pricing agreements, all of which are confidential under existing Trade Secrets laws. Placing brand name drugs in higher-cost tiers has been a relatively ineffective weapon when it comes to lowering overall prices, but has been an effective barrier to treatment for many patients living with HIV and other chronic illnesses for which there are few, if any, generic and/or effective alternatives.
This latest salvo
against drug manufacturers will ultimately end up hurting consumers more than
it will lower expenditures for insurers.
Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.
No comments:
Post a Comment