Congress Should Pressure Insurers To Help Tamp Down Drug Costs, Advisory Panel Recommends
The nonpartisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission says incentives are needed to encourage insurance providers to push for bigger pharmaceutical discounts and manage prescription use. Meanwhile, according to an AARP survey, older Americans also strongly favor a federal role in negotiating Medicare discounts.
The New York Times:
Panel Would Make Insurers Help Contain Rising Drug Costs
An influential federal advisory panel is calling for Congress to force private insurers to rein in rapid increases in prescription drug costs — by cutting some Medicare payments to insurance companies while shielding older Americans from higher out-of-pocket expenses. The recommendations by the nonpartisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission would squeeze private insurers and drug makers alike, creating strong new incentives for insurance companies to manage the use of prescription medicines by beneficiaries and negotiate larger price discounts with pharmaceutical manufacturers. The Obama administration agrees with the reasoning. (Pear, 4/18)
USA Today:
Feds Should Negotiate Medicare Prices With Drugmakers, Seniors Say
The federal government should negotiate drug prices for Medicare and force drugmakers to explain how they set drug prices, according to a survey out Tuesday of people 50 and older by AARP, the nation’s largest organization of people this age. The survey showed more than 93% of adults 50 and older said they favored the Medicare price negotiations, a policy advocated by presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. President Obama included such price negotiation authority for drugs known as biologics and "high-cost drugs" in his recent budget proposals. (O'Donnell, 4/19)
In other Medicare news —
STAT:
Unintended Twist In Obamacare May Cost Medicare Patients More For Biosimilars
An “unintended consequence” of the Affordable Care Act may mean that Medicare Part D beneficiaries will pay more for biosimilars than for costlier brand-name biologics, according to a new analysis released last week. (Silverman, 4/18)
