In an interview with the Washington Post, Donald Trump vowed to force drug companies to negotiate directly with the government on prices in Medicare and Medicaid. It’s unclear what, if anything, Trump intends for Medicaid; drug makers are already required to sell drugs to Medicaid at the lowest price they negotiate with any other buyer. For Medicare, Trump didn’t offer any more details about the intended negotiations, but he’s referring to his campaign proposals to allow the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate directly with manufacturers the prices of drugs covered under Medicare Part D.
Such proposals have been around for quite a while. As soon as the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 was enacted, creating the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, many lawmakers began advocating for government negotiation of drug prices. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders favored this approach during their campaigns, and the Obama administration’s proposed budget for fiscal 2016 and 2017 included a provision that would have allowed HHS to negotiate prices for a subset of drugs: biologics and certain high-cost prescription drugs.
However, federal law would have to change if there is to be any government negotiation of drug prices under Medicare Part D. Congress explicitly included a “noninterference” clause in the MMA that stipulates that HHS “may not interfere with the negotiations between drug manufacturers and pharmacies and PDP sponsors, and may not require a particular formulary or institute a price structure for the reimbursement of covered part D drugs.”
Most people don’t understand what it means for the government to “negotiate” drug prices and the implications of the various options. Some proposals would simply eliminate the MMA’s noninterference clause and allow HHS to negotiate prices for a broad set of drugs on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries. However, the Congressional Budget Office has already concluded that such a plan would have “a negligible effect on federal spending” because it is unlikely that HHS could achieve deeper discounts than the current private Part D plans (there are 746 such plans in 2017). The private plans are currently able to negotiate significant discounts from drug manufacturers by offering preferred formulary status for their drugs and channeling enrollees to the formulary drugs with lower cost-sharing incentives. In most drug classes, manufacturers compete intensely for formulary status and offer considerable discounts to be included.
The private Part D plans are required to provide only two drugs in each of several drug classes, giving the plans significant bargaining power over manufacturers by threatening to exclude their drugs. However, in six protected classes (immunosuppressant, anti-cancer, anti-retroviral, antidepressant, antipsychotic and anticonvulsant drugs), private Part D plans must include “all or substantially all” drugs, thereby eliminating their bargaining power and ability to achieve significant discounts. Although the purpose of the limitation is to prevent plans from cherry-picking customers by denying coverage of certain high-cost drugs, giving the private Part D plans more ability to exclude drugs in the protected classes should increase competition among manufacturers for formulary status and, in turn, lower prices. And it’s important to note that these price reductions would not involve any government negotiation or intervention in Medicare Part D. However, as discussed below, excluding more drugs in the protected classes would reduce the value of the Part D plans to many patients by limiting access to preferred drugs.
For government negotiation to make any real difference on Medicare drug prices, HHS must have the ability to not only negotiate prices, but also to put some pressure on drug makers to secure price concessions. This could be achieved by allowing HHS to also establish a formulary, set prices administratively, or take other regulatory actions against manufacturers that don’t offer price reductions. Setting prices administratively or penalizing manufacturers that don’t offer satisfactory reductions would be tantamount to a price control. As I’ve written previously, price controls — whether direct or indirect — are a bad idea for prescription drugs for several reasons. Evidence shows that price controls lead to higher initial launch prices for drugs, increased drug prices for consumers with private insurance coverage, drug shortages in certain markets, and reduced incentives for innovation.
Giving HHS the authority to establish a formulary for Medicare Part D coverage would provide leverage to obtain discounts from manufacturers, but it would produce other negative consequences. Currently, private Medicare Part D plans cover an average of 85 percent of the 200 most popular drugs, with some plans covering as much as 93 percent. In contrast, the drug benefit offered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, one government program that is able to set its own formulary to achieve leverage over drug companies, covers only 59 percent of the 200 most popular drugs. The VA’s ability to exclude drugs from the formulary has generated significant price reductions. Indeed, estimates suggest that if the Medicare Part D formulary was restricted to the VA offerings and obtained similar price reductions, it would save Medicare Part D $510 per beneficiary. However, the loss of access to so many popular drugs would reduce the value of the Part D plans by $405 per enrollee, greatly narrowing the net gains.
History has shown that consumers don’t like their access to drugs reduced. In 2014, Medicare proposed taking antidepressants, antipsychotic and immunosuppressant drugs off the protected list, thereby allowing the private Part D plans to reduce offerings of these drugs on the formulary and, in turn, reduce prices. However, patients and their advocates were outraged at the possibility of losing access to their preferred drugs, and the proposal was quickly withdrawn.
Thus, allowing the government to negotiate prices under Medicare Part D could carry important negative consequences. Policy-makers must fully understand what it means for government to negotiate directly with drug makers, and what the potential consequences are for price reductions, access to popular drugs, drug innovation, and drug prices for other consumers.
Joanna Shepherd is a professor of law at Emory University.
Morning Consult welcomes op-ed submissions on policy, politics and business strategy in our coverage areas. Submission guidelines can be found here.