Connect with us

News

Biden administration unveils first 10 drugs subject to Medicare price negotiations

Published

on

Biden administration unveils first 10 drugs subject to Medicare price negotiations

Kubra Cavus | Istock | Getty Images

The Biden administration on Tuesday unveiled the first 10 prescription drugs that will be subject to price negotiations between manufacturers and Medicare, kicking off a controversial process that aims to make costly medications more affordable for older Americans. 

President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which passed in a party-line vote last year, gave Medicare the power to directly hash out drug prices with manufacturers for the first time in the federal program’s nearly 60-year history. The agreed-upon prices for the first round of drugs are scheduled to go into effect in 2026. 

Here are the 10 drugs subject to the initial talks this year: 

Advertisement
  • Eliquis, made by Bristol-Myers Squibb, is used to prevent blood clotting to reduce the risk of stroke.
  • Jardiance, made by Boehringer Ingelheim, is used to lower blood sugar for people type 2 diabetes. 
  • Xarelto, made by Johnson & Johnson, is used to prevent blood clotting to reduce the risk of stroke.
  • Januvia, made by Merck, is used to lower blood sugar for people with type 2 diabetes.
  • Farxiga, made by AstraZeneca, is used to treat type 2 diabetes.
  • Entresto, made by Novartis, is used to treat certain types of heart failure.
  • Enbrel, made by Amgen, is used to treat rheumatoid arthritis. 
  • Imbruvica, made by AbbVie, is used to treat different types of blood cancers. 
  • Stelara, made by Janssen, is used to treat Crohn’s disease.
  • Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill, insulins made by Novo Nordisk.

The Medicare negotiations are the centerpiece of the Biden administration’s efforts to rein in the rising cost of medications in the U.S. Some Democrats in Congress and consumer advocates have long pushed for the change, as many seniors around the country struggle to afford care.

But the pharmaceutical industry views the process as a threat to its revenue growth, profits and drug innovation. Drugmakers like Merck and Johnson & Johnson and their supporters aim to derail the negotiations, filing at least eight lawsuits in recent months seeking to declare it unconstitutional.

The drugs listed Tuesday are among the top 50 with the highest spending for Medicare Part D, which covers prescription medications that seniors fill at retail pharmacies.

The 10 medicines accounted for $50.5 billion, or about 20%, of total Part D prescription drug costs from June 1, 2022, to May 31, 2023, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS. 

The drugs have been on the market for at least seven years without generic competitors, or 11 years in the case of biological products such as vaccines. 

Medicare Part D spent the most among those drugs on Eliquis at $16.5 billion, according to a CMS fact sheet. More than 3.7 million enrollees used the blood thinner. 

Advertisement

The plan spent roughly $7 billion on Jardiance, $6 billion on Xarelto and $4 billion on Januvia.

Medicare covers roughly 66 million people in the U.S., and 50.5 million patients are currently enrolled in Part D plans, according to health policy research organization KFF.

What happens next

Drugmakers have to sign agreements to join the negotiations by Oct. 1. CMS will then make an initial price offer to manufacturers in February 2024, and those companies have a month to accept or make a counteroffer. 

The negotiations will end in August 2024, with agreed-upon prices published on Sept. 1, 2024. The reduced prices won’t go into effect until January 2026. 

If a drugmaker declines to negotiate, it must either pay an excise tax of up to 95% of its medication’s U.S. sales or pull all of its products from the Medicare and Medicaid markets. 

Advertisement

The pharmaceutical industry contends that the penalty can be as high as 1,900% of a drug’s daily revenues. 

After the initial round of talks, CMS can negotiate prices for another 15 drugs for 2027 and an additional 15 in 2028. The number rises to 20 negotiated medications a year starting in 2029 and beyond.

“I think it’s incredibly important to keep in mind that the negotiation process is cumulative,” said Leigh Purvis, a prescription drug policy principal with AARP Public Policy Institute. “We could have as many as 60 drugs negotiated by 2029.”

CMS will only select Medicare Part D drugs for the medicines covered by the first two years of negotiations. It will add more specialized drugs covered by Medicare Part B, which are typically administered by doctors, in 2028. 

The drug price talks are expected to save Medicare an estimated $98.5 billion over a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. 

Advertisement

Drugmakers’ legal challenges

Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Astellas Pharma are among the companies suing to halt the negotiation process. The industry’s biggest lobbying group, PhRMA, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have filed their own lawsuits. 

The suits make similar and overlapping claims that Medicare negotiations are unconstitutional. 

The companies argue that the talks would force drugmakers to sell their medicines at huge discounts, below market rates. They assert this violates the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to pay reasonable compensation for private property taken for public use. 

The suits also argue that the process violates drugmakers’ free speech rights under the First Amendment, essentially forcing companies to agree that Medicare is negotiating a fair price.

They also contend that the talks violate the Eighth Amendment by levying an excessive fine if drugmakers refuse to engage in the process.

Advertisement

The suits are scattered in federal courts around the U.S. Legal experts say the pharmaceutical industry hopes to obtain conflicting rulings from federal appellate courts, which could fast-track the issue to the Supreme Court. 

Some drugmakers have confirmed their intention to bring their legal battle to the nation’s highest court. 

“As we look forward, we’re going to take this to the fullest, which means we’ll take it through District Court and, if need be, into Circuit Court and ultimately to the Supreme Court,” Merck CEO Robert Davis said during an earnings call earlier this month. “So, really that’s the strategy.”

Meanwhile, the Biden administration has vowed to fight the legal challenges.

Biden and his top health officials have embraced the lawsuits as evidence that they’re making progress in the fight to cut drug prices.

Advertisement

“Big Pharma doesn’t want this to happen, so they’re suing us to block us from negotiating lower prices so they can pad their profits,” the president said in a speech at the White House last month. “But we’re going to see this through. We’re going to keep standing up to Big Pharma.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Google ‘wilfully’ monopolised online advertising market, US judge rules

Published

on

Google ‘wilfully’ monopolised online advertising market, US judge rules

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

A US federal judge has ruled Google illegally acquired and maintained a monopoly in digital advertising, the latest antitrust defeat for the technology giant that could result in it being forced to divest parts of its business.

Leonie Brinkema, the district judge presiding over the case in Virginia, on Thursday said Google had “wilfully” monopolised two parts of the digital advertising market: the technology online publishers use to sell ad space, and the biggest exchange on which businesses bid for ads.

However, Brinkema found the US Department of Justice, which brought the case, was not able to prove Google unfairly dominated the third component of the market, advertiser ad networks.

Advertisement

The ruling comes after a federal judge in a separate antitrust case last year found the company spent billions of dollars on exclusive deals to maintain an illegal monopoly on search.

The second phase of that trial, in which the court will determine remedies that could include forcing Google to sell parts of its business, begins next week.

The DoJ asked in the search case for Google to sell its Chrome browser, cease $20bn in payments to Apple each year to be its default search engine, and share more data with rivals.

Brinkema on Thursday wrote: “For over a decade, Google has tied its publisher ad server and ad exchange together through contractual policies and technological integration, which enabled the company to establish and protect its monopoly power in these two markets.”

“Google further entrenched its monopoly power by imposing anti-competitive policies on its customers and eliminating desirable product features,” she added.

Advertisement

But she rejected the way the DoJ had tried to define the third part of the market, saying the term “advertiser ad network” was uncommon in the industry and “unduly exclude[s]” publishers.

Google said: “We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half . . . We disagree with the court’s decision regarding our publisher tools. Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective.”

The ruling is the latest win for the former antitrust officials appointed by ex-president Joe Biden who brought and litigated the case before Donald Trump returned to the White House.

Jonathan Kanter, the former head of the DoJ’s antitrust unit, said in a post on X on Thursday: “Today is a huge victory for antitrust enforcement, the media industry, and the free and open internet . . . Google is now an illegal monopolist twice over.”

Antitrust officials appointed by Trump have strongly signalled they intend to adopt a tough stance on enforcement, especially against Big Tech. The US Federal Trade Commission this week began making its case against Meta in a monopoly trial in Washington federal court.

Advertisement

“This is a landmark victory in the ongoing fight to stop Google from monopolising the digital public square,” US attorney-general Pam Bondi said in a statement. “This Department of Justice will continue taking bold legal action to protect the American people from encroachments on free speech and free markets by tech companies.”

The EU’s competition chief Teresa Ribera said earlier on Thursday: “We take note of the decision and we will study it with interest. The case being analysed by the European Commission continues.”

The commission is also investigating Google for favouring its own advertising services.

Additional reporting by Barbara Moens in Brussels

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Student shelters in classroom during lockdown as FSU warning plays in background | CNN

Published

on

Student shelters in classroom during lockdown as FSU warning plays in background | CNN

Video shows a student during lock down at Florida State University while an FSU warning message plays an “FSU alert” stating there is a “dangerous and life-threatening situation” on campus. Later, FSU posted an alert that law enforcement had “neutralized the threat,” and a law enforcement source told CNN the shooter was shot.

Continue Reading

News

BHP says China boosting domestic consumption is key to global economy

Published

on

BHP says China boosting domestic consumption is key to global economy

Stay informed with free updates

The head of the world’s largest mining company has said the outlook for the global economy depends on China’s ability to invigorate domestic consumption, as Donald Trump’s tariffs threaten to disrupt global trade.

Mike Henry, chief executive of Australia’s BHP, said the direct tariff impact on the miner had been “limited”, but the potential for slower economic growth and a fragmented trading environment was a bigger issue for it.

“China’s ability to shift towards a consumption-led economy and for trade flows to adapt to the new environment will be key to sustaining the global outlook,” said Henry.

Advertisement

The comment from the Melbourne-based miner echoed rival Rio Tinto’s a day earlier, when it pointed to “an uncertain future impact from tariffs on the commodity markets going forward”.

China’s booming property and industrial sectors have helped drive demand for commodities including iron ore and copper over the past two decades, boosting global mining companies.

Weakness in the Chinese property market has stifled the sector’s outlook over the past year, but miners including BHP have expressed confidence that China’s plan to revitalise domestic consumption and restore confidence in its economy will bolster demand.

BHP on Thursday said copper production had increased 10 per cent in the three months to the end of March, while iron ore was flat and nickel and coal volumes declined.

The miner has focused on expanding its copper production to meet future demand for a commodity considered key to the energy transition.

Advertisement

It produced 1.5mn tonnes of copper in the nine months to the end of March, a record owing largely to the performance of its Chilean mines and a stabilisation of its assets in South Australia, which were hit by bad weather earlier in the year.

BHP shares, which have fallen 8 per cent over the past month in the market turmoil from the looming trade war between China and the US, gained more than 1 per cent on Thursday.

Analysts said the “robust” production performance affirmed that the company would deliver volumes at the upper end of its forecasts in most of its key commodities.

The miner continued its push to exit coal assets, revealing this week it had received government permission to close its Mount Arthur mine in northern New South Wales by 2030 — reversing a previous plan to run the giant site until 2045 — and would instead explore whether it can convert the site into a hydropower facility.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending