Federal Trade Commission inquiry could eventually lead to overhaul of prescription drug rebate system

In June, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted unanimously (5-0) to examine rising list prices of insulin, but also to probe possible anti-competitive practices by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with respect to the use of rebate arrangements. Rebates are payments from drug manufacturers to PBMs in exchange for moving market share towards so-called preferred products on the formulary.

The FTC has specifically cited instances in which cheaper generics and biosimilars are excluded from PBM formularies, as this may violate competition and consumer protection laws.

The FTC inquiry into pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) practices could lead to legal action prohibiting certain rebate practices. In turn, this could induce major changes in the U.S. rebate system. Formulary management could become increasingly value- or outcomes-based, rather than simply a function of a financial power play between drug makers and PBMs. Or, rebates could fall by the wayside altogether, to be replaced by a combination of upfront discounts in lieu of rebates and value-based pricing arrangements. Partnering with Lyfegen may be the solution for manufacturers and payers alike, as its platform can put users on the right track towards successful implementation of value-based pricing arrangements.

The FTC has warned of legal action against PBMs if its inquiries find proof of anti-competitive practices. Here, the agency raised the stakes when it included terms like “commercial bribery” in its statements to describe what it perceives as anti-competitive rebates in the insulin market.

The latest FTC inquiries follow a recent investigation by Senators Grassley (R-Iowa) and Wyden (D-Oregon), which blamed rebate schemes for much of what ails the prescription drug market. Furthermore, nearly two years ago, Senator Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) and colleagues commissioned the General Accounting Office (GAO) to examine rebates. The GAO report is due out this fall.

PBMs receive rebates from drug manufacturers in exchange for preferred positioning on the formulary, which in turn drives market share. Experts have criticized rebates for the fact that payers often don’t base their decisions to include a drug on comparative clinical- and cost-effectiveness. Rather, decisions are strictly based on financial terms, namely which manufacturer offers a higher rebate payment to the PBM; a financial power play in which PBMs may threaten not to cover certain drugs if they don’t get the rebate they want. This applies to insulin as well as numerous other therapeutic categories.

What’s worse is when rebate traps or walls are involved. Branded manufacturers leverage their position as market leaders by offering financial incentives to PBMs and health insurers in the form of “all or nothing” conditional volume-based rebates, in exchange for (virtually) exclusive positioning on the formulary. This can mean keeping competitors off the formulary entirely, or severely limiting formulary access to a competing drug with drug utilization management tools like step edits. Here, a patient must use a preferred drug and fail on it (a so-called “fail-first” policy) before “stepping up” to a non-preferred drug.

Because the portion of the rebate retained by PBMs is often calculated as a percentage of a drug’s list price, PBMs can have incentives to establish formularies that favor branded drugs with higher list prices and larger rebates over lower priced biosimilars, specialty generics, or even branded competitors. Rival drugs entering the market lack sufficient sales volume to be able to offer the same level of rebates to PBMs that originator firms can provide.

Proof of the establishment of anti-competitive practices could lead to legal action being taken against PBMs. The question then becomes what would replace rebates? Payers may establish an entirely different formulary management system that is more value-based. Surely, it would be a system that’s less contingent on the role of the financial power play between drug makers and PBMs.

In areas such as immunotherapy targeting certain cancers, cell and gene therapy, and rheumatology, there are already a growing number of value-based agreements.

Girisha Fernando, CEO and Founder of Lyfegen, which offers a platform to track value-based agreements with real-world data, said that many outcomes-based deals are kept secret and therefore under the radar, so to speak. Commercial payers generally don’t share publicly what types of value-based deals they have with drug companies to maintain their competitive advantage. Yet, in an interview with Endpoints News Fernando stated that he’s observed at least a 300% increase in value-based agreements over the last five years. The Lyfegen Platform enables more efficient and transparent management of value-based drug pricing contracts by using intelligent algorithms to capture and analyze patient-level drug cost data.

Fallout from the FTC inquiry – should rebates be identified as anti-competitive - may entail further increases in value-based dealmaking.

‍

About the author

Cohen is a health economist with more than 25 years of experience analyzing, publishing, and presenting on drug and diagnostic pricing and reimbursement, as well as healthcare policy reform initiatives. For 21 years, Cohen was an academic at Tufts University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Amsterdam. Currently, and for the past five years, Cohen is an independent healthcare analyst n a variety of research, teaching, speaking, editing, and writing projects.

Related blogs

Study: Out-of-pocket drug costs increasing 5.8% per year

A new study investigated how drug rebates affect out-of-pocket costs for health plan beneficiaries. Rebates lower costs for payers, but depending on the health plan, they can raise costs for the patient.

There is a lot of secrecy surrounding the final price paid for a drug at the pharmacy, as official data on drug prices does not factor in rebates or the end price for the patient. The rebates paid by manufacturers to pharmacy benefit managers is not publicly available. The study therefore sought out to understand the relationship between rebates and the prices paid by insurers and beneficiaries.

Results: The negotiated price, defined as the price paid by the beneficiary at the pharmacy and by the payer after rebates are taken into account, rose 4.3% from 2007 to 2020. However, the out-of-pocket price, or that paid by the patient at the pharmacy, rose 5.8% annually. Retail pharmacy prices increased 9.1% annually.

Implications: Low-income families may be especially impacted by plans with higher deductibles and lower premiums, as they are not prepared for surprise costs associated with cost-sharing. As the authors stated: “consumers with a low deductible or capped copays appear to be shielded from steep pharmacy price increases.” The main contributor to increases in out-of-pocket expenses were increasing deductibles and co-insurance payments.

The authors emphasize that drug price transparency is important for health policy recommendations and more work needs to be done to understand drug price inflation.

‍

Ongoing debate around GLP-1 drug coverage

Payers are seeing increased costs due to the demand of GLP-1 drugs. It’s estimated that 57.4 million adults under the age of 65 could be eligible for this class of drugs, based on currently approved FDA indications. There are 36.2 million people with an obesity diagnosis alone in the US.

If 10% of eligible adults take GLP-1 medications for weight loss, a $15 increase could be seen in the per-member-per month costs. This number rises to $50 if one-third of eligible adults start taking these drugs. Zepbound, manufactured by Eli Lilly, has a list price of $1059 per month, whereas Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy costs $1349 for a one month supply. However, last month, Eli Lilly announced a major price cut for their weight loss drug. Now, a 4-week supply of their drug at 2.5 mg will cost $399, whereas 5 mg vials will cost $549.

The measure is aimed at improving patient access, while reducing the risk of counterfeit medications. This price reduction was made without changes to insurance policies, and the drugs are available through LillyDirect, the company’s online pharmacy.

Not all insurers want to cover weight loss drugs like Zepbound, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Ozempic, and innovative strategies are being explored to manage costs while keeping them available. One strategy is a utilization cap, which sets stricter standards for who is eligible. Another strategy is mentioned in Evernorth’s EncircleRX plan, which provides a 15% cost cap or a 3:1 savings guarantee when the medication is covered for weight loss.

The value of these drugs is still being investigated. If these medications can provide additional health benefits, there could be additional savings for payers down the road. Of note, studies have found reductions in cardiovascular death and sleep apnea when the drugs were used for weight loss.

‍