Trump wants cheaper drugs = pharmacists will take pay cut?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

BMBiology

temporarily banned~!
Removed
20+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
8,860
Reaction score
3,420
The need to bring down high drug prices may be one of the few health care issues that draw bipartisan support in Washington and on Main Street. President Donald Trump is expected to outline new policies to deliver on his pledge to bring prices down in a speech that could come this week.

"We'll be building on the proposals in the president's budget, but he wants to go further," said Alex Azar, Health and Human Services secretary, in a speech last week. "The entire system is under review."

Azar's comments and the uncertainty over how the new policies will impact the drug supply chain weighed on the stocks of pharmacy benefit managers and drug distributors last week. Shares of pharmacy giant CVS Health and pharmacy benefit firm Express Scripts fell about 9 percent for the week, despite strong earnings reports; shares of distributors AmerisourceBergen and McKesson declined 7 percent.

One of the key issues the Trump administration outlined in its budget earlier this year was passing on discounts pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) negotiate with drug makers to seniors in Medicare Part D drug plans. Under current laws, Medicare recipients aren't eligible for direct drug-maker rebates or coupons because of anti-kickback laws.

Those discounts, or rebates, have come under fire for pushing pharmaceutical firms to inflate their list prices, which has contributed to higher out-of-pocket costs for consumers, from critics including the Trump administration's FDA commissioner.

"One of the dynamics I've talked about before that's driving higher and higher list prices is the system of rebates between payers and manufacturers," FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said in a speech last Thursday, suggesting the administration is looking at changing the law.

"Such a step could restore some semblance of reality to the relationship between list and negotiated prices, and thereby boost affordability and competition," Gottlieb said.

The administration is looking at requiring that at least 33 percent of that rebate be passed on to seniors, according to a source familiar with the discussions. Some published reports say there is a push for 100 percent pass through of rebates to seniors.

Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers argue that passing on all of the discounts to seniors who buy expensive drugs, will result in higher premiums for all Part D enrollees.

"Keep in mind ... as you've heard us and quite frankly others talk about the dynamic here (is) that 100 percent of that rebate value in Part D is passed through the plan's design in the form of a lower premiums," said CVS Health CEO Larry Merlo on his company's earnings call. "So, as it relates to the PBM, that would have no impact on profitability if that ended up moving forward."

"I think the concern that exists ... (is) what's the dynamic as it relates to beneficiary premiums going up?" Merlo said.

While specialty drug prices have risen, Medicare Part D plan premiums have remained relatively stable in recent years, another senior plan provider noted.

"It's going to put pressure somewhere. If it doesn't put it on the Part D premiums, it's going to likely place it on folks that are likely outside of Medicare age ... people under 65," said Richard Cantu, co-founder of a Medicare supplement plan that was acquired by eHealth in January.

In 2016, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that passing on a 23 percent discount for low-income seniors in Part D plans would result in more than $140 billion in Medicare savings over 10 years, but would also likely result in higher costs and spending in other parts of the nation's health system.

"Drug manufacturers would be expected to set higher 'launch' prices for new drugs as a way to limit the effect of the new rebate, particularly for new drugs that do not have close substitutes," reducing the Medicare savings over time, CBO analysts wrote in their report.

"Employment-based health insurance plans would probably negotiate larger rebates to offset a portion of the higher prices, but state Medicaid programs would pay more for new drugs, which in turn would increase federal spending," the CBO concluded.

"Price transparency is not going to be enough to slow costs. There also needs to be a mechanism to either remediate the problem and/or deter future bad behavior," by drug makers who set high prices, said Les Funtleyder, health care portfolio manager at E Squared Capital Management.

Azar said the administration's new proposal will take aim at high list prices on drugs, as well as expanding the Medicare program's ability to negotiate prices on more drugs under Medicare Part D drug plans, and the problem of "foreign governments free-riding off of American investment in innovation."

Here's what to expect when Trump outlines his policy to bring down drug prices

Members don't see this ad.
 
You lost me at drugs.
 
I hope you understand lower drug prices will improve the bottom line for pharmacy. We are distributors not producers of drugs. Lower drug prices is good for pharmacy business bad for pharmaceutical industry. Manufacturers will continue to need pharmacy to distribute and sell medications whether prices are high or low.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I hope you understand lower drug prices will improve the bottom line for pharmacy. We are distributors not producers of drugs. Lower drug prices is good for pharmacy business bad for pharmaceutical industry. Manufacturers will continue to need pharmacy to distribute and sell medications whether prices are high or low.

Is that why CVS stock dropped 10%? What do they know that you don’t know?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Is that why CVS stock dropped 10%? What do they know that you don’t know?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

The general public? They don’t know a thing about pharmacy or the pharmaceutical industry... that’s probably why it moved 10% upon any drug related news.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The general public? They don’t know a thing about pharmacy or the pharmaceutical industry... that’s probably why it moved 10% upon any drug related news.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Lmao this... even people within the industry don't know what's going on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
They need to take a look at specialty drug spending. This is where the big spending is happening now. Cut specialty and it will free up money for community pharmacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
When they have to charge $40 for 2 tablets of acetaminophen in the hospital, you know there is something very wrong with Healthcare in the US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
When they have to charge $40 for 2 tablets of acetaminophen in the hospital, you know there is something very wrong with Healthcare in the US.

What's even more concerning is when the Director of Pharmacy has to tell the entire staff to stop changing certain medication regimens to save on cost.
 
Well, it's all accounting games, which has always been really annoying. There is a difference between cost (what it takes to actually provide the service), charge (what you attempt to bill for the service), and price (what you say to others what you costs are). CMS created this system in 1968 by them introducing the game of fee for service, but hilariously, even the most capitalistic of the health systems (Japan and Singapore) rely on similar gaming copied badly from the AMA and CMS pricing guidelines.

What eventually happens is that the CMS budget is capped or cut. No mathematical way around that. We'll see if the market holds, because even those who want complete capitalist systems don't realize the utility value of health insurance. Health insurance is not like car insurance, in the latter, it just replaces what you had at most. Health insurance allows you to be able to purchase therapies that you would not be able to under any other circumstance (I probably can count on one hand the number of people on the pharmacy boards who could afford a kidney transplant, but with insurance, most of you could afford it even with triple the premiums).

We Americans don't get what we paid for and don't want to pay for what we get, that problem solves itself through insolvency if nothing else. Just another day in our ochlocracy driven by venality. That said, we do stand to lose heavily in the end, this is not just victimizing the poor even more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
After reading the post I'm failing to see how OP came up with the title. CVS stock dropped because they own a PBM, it has nothing to do with the retail side. The government apparently wants PBMs to pass more savings down to the client rather than pocketing most of it. The same discussions are being had at the state level with medicaid programs.

The pharmacy buys an expensive drug and the PBM gets the kickback and pockets the money. The PBM added no value to the healthcare system and the pharmacy is the one who has to invest it's capital into inventory, take all the liability, and fill the prescription. The PBM does absolutely nothing. They negotiate a lower reimbursement, and pocket 90% of the savings, and pocket the rebate from the drug company. The PBM makes more money on the script than the pharmacy does, and the pharmacy is the one doing all the work and making the investment.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top