Latest news with #pharmaceuticalcompanies
Medscape
19 hours ago
- Business
- Medscape
Part D Cancer Drug Launch Prices Soar Past Inflation
Launch prices for Medicare Part D anticancer drugs have risen sharply since 2012, with a mean increase of $1694 per year. In 2025, the observed prices were 15%-200% higher than expected if the increases were due to inflation alone, but the gap between observed and inflation-adjusted prices narrowed over the study period. METHODOLOGY: The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 introduced price negotiation for Medicare-covered drugs and required manufacturers to pay rebates to Medicare for price increases above inflation. But it did not address the launch prices of new drugs. Anticancer drugs, a protected drug class with mandatory Medicare Part D coverage, may now be especially prone to higher launch prices, in part because the Inflation Reduction Act limits out-of-pocket spending and price increases after market entry. Researchers identified 86 branded, self-administered, molecularly targeted anticancer therapies approved by the FDA between January 2010 and December 2024. Data on drug prices were obtained from the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Formulary and adjusted for inflation. The researchers looked at launch prices by year and compared drug prices in 2025 with those expected if launch prices had increased due to inflation alone since the drug's market entry. TAKEAWAY: The mean monthly launch price increased from $10,954 for drugs first observed in the Medicare formulary in 2012-2014 to $27,891 for drugs first observed in 2023-2025. After adjusting for inflation, the mean launch price increased by $1694 per year ( P < .001). < .001). In 2025, actual drug prices were 14.8%-200.9% higher than expected if they had only kept pace with inflation. Although the gap between observed and inflation-adjusted prices narrowed over time, price increases continued to outpace inflation in 2023 and 2024, despite the Inflation Reduction Act rebate requirement, which will result in rebates to Medicare starting in fall 2025. IN PRACTICE: 'Launch prices for self-administered targeted anticancer therapies have grown precipitously, although no evidence was found of disproportionate increases in recent years. Instead, continued launch price growth for anticancer therapies was observed, consistent with prior research,' the study authors wrote. 'This suggests that companies were already engaging in price maximization for anticancer therapies and continued to do so after the implementation of the [Inflation Reduction Act].' SOURCE: This study, led by Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, was published online in JAMA . LIMITATIONS: This study used example indications to determine monthly doses and pricing. Additionally, variations in available price measures were noted over the study period. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees and having other ties with various sources.
Associated Press
03-06-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
Opioid settlement plan allows millions to be spent on purposes other than the public health crisis
In the fallout of over 9,000 Mississippians dying of overdoses since 2000, lawyers and lawmakers have set up a plan to distribute the hundreds of millions of dollars from corporations that catalyzed the crisis. But public health advocates and Mississippians closest to the public health catastrophe worry the setup could enable these dollars to be spent on purposes other than ending the overdose epidemic. Mississippi is expected to receive $370 million from pharmaceutical companies that profited while people struggled with addiction. That payout is set to be split between the state and local governments, with 85%, or about $315 million, being controlled by the Legislature. For years after the state attorney general's office helped finalize the first settlements in 2021, it was unclear how the state would distribute its share and how much would be used to prevent the crisis from persisting. State senators and representatives took a major step toward answering these questions earlier this year. They nearly unanimously passed Senate Bill 2767, a law that outlines a general framework for how about $259 million of the funds will be distributed. A 15-person advisory council — made up of representatives for state government agencies, elected officials and law enforcement officials — will develop a grant application process for organizations focused on addressing the opioid addiction crisis. After evaluating the applications and making a list of which grants should be funded, the Legislature will decide whether to approve or deny each of the council's recommendations. The state lawmakers can spend the remaining $56 million they control for any purpose — related or unrelated to addressing addiction. House Speaker Jason White and Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann, who wield massive power over lawmakers and how state funds are spent, did not respond to questions from Mississippi Today about their priorities for the funds. Sen. Nicole Boyd, a Republican from Oxford and the bill's lead sponsor, said she and other senators borrowed some ideas from surrounding states to determine how these funds could best prevent more fallout from the opioid crisis. 'It involves everything, from child welfare services to the judicial system to medical care to mental health services,' she said. 'It is a crisis that has affected every aspect of society, and we needed a comprehensive group of people making those recommendations.' However, the bill leaves some questions unanswered, like how the application process will work, when it will open to the public and how grants will be evaluated. Public health advocates and Mississippians impacted by addiction expressed concern about the advisory council's makeup, the $56 million carveout for expenses unrelated to the opioid crisis and the Legislature's final decision-making power. They said those provisions could cause some of the corporate defendants' dollars to be spent on issues other than addressing and preventing overdoses. Jane Clair Tyner, a Hattiesburg resident, lost her 23-year-old son Asa Henderson in 2019 after he struggled for years with substance use disorder. Until last month, through her former job with the Mississippi overdose prevention nonprofit End It For Good, she worked to ensure that fewer parents have to go through the pain her family experienced. She said the only ways these state settlement dollars should be spent are on improving Mississippi public health and keeping people who are at risk of overdosing safe. 'That's what it should go towards, but not to the Legislature,' she said. 'This is not a rainy day slush fund.' An evolving plan It wasn't always the plan for the Legislature to control so much of the settlement dollars. In 2021, when Mississippi and other states were in the midst of negotiating settlements, State Attorney General Lynn Fitch published an agreement between the state and local governments that would send only 15% to the Legislature's general fund. The agreement said that the bulk of the money – 70% – would be sent to the University of Mississippi Medical Center to build a new addiction medicine institute. But Mississippi law says the Legislature is the ultimate decision maker for how this type of state settlement money gets spent, according to Fitch's Chief of Staff Michelle Williams. So lawmakers passed their bill to change the plan. The Legislature changed the arrangement to make sure the money goes to where the state's most pressing addiction needs are, said Boyd. The advisory council, which will be supplemented by at least 22 additional nonvoting members, is a good way to have those needs captured, she said. As for the Legislature having final approval power, Boyd said that and other provisions were put into the bill to keep some power with lawmakers if the council becomes ineffective or political. It's the highest percentage of any state's opioid settlement share that will be controlled by a Legislature, according to the Vital Strategies Overdose Prevention Program and state guides. Dr. Caleb Alexander, an epidemiology professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, served as one of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses for some of the opioid lawsuits. Alexander has also helped U.S. cities and counties develop blueprints for how to use the settlements to quell their opioid crises. He said using the money on a variety of prevention, treatment and recovery strategies, rather than one big project, is likely a better way to save lives and prevent more addiction. But having the Legislature, rather than an apolitical body of addiction experts, play such a large role is not the setup he would suggest. 'I would have some concerns that it may gum things up,' he said. Additionally, Alexander said creating ways for funds to not be used to address the opioid epidemic, as the 2025 bill does, is 'a shame.' While the settlement agreements say that 70% of the funds must be spent on addressing addiction, there is nothing that prevents all the money from being used for the crisis, and most statesare doing that. He said the settlements define a wide variety of uses as addressing the epidemic — from first responder training to medication research and development — and he doesn't see a scenario where it makes sense to spend the money on other uses. 'The costs of abatement far outweigh the available funds for every city or county that I've examined,' he said. Boyd said she believes her colleagues in the House and Senate are all motivated to use this money to address addiction as a mental health condition. She said the new bill categorizes some funds as 'nonabatement' to free them up for ways to address addiction that may not fit neatly into the settlements' list of uses. The attorney general's original plan was the first to categorize a percentage of the funds as not needing to be used to stop the opioid crisis. Williams said it was written that way to match the terms of the national settlement agreements, although the settlement for the largest payout says spending on purposes other than addressing the opioid crisis is 'disfavored by the parties.' She said Fitch would love to see all the funds be spent on addiction response and prevention, like the One Pill Can Kill campaign the office runs. 'But it's the Legislature's prerogative,' she said. 'Where are the people in recovery?' Jason McCarty, the Mississippi Harm Reduction Initiative's former executive director, said he's glad the plan is no longer to send such a large portion of the settlement funds to UMMC. Organizations like the Initiative, he said, also could use additional support to keep Mississippians from dying. And he's concerned that while a peer recovery specialist will serve as a nonvoting member, none of the committee's 15 voting members must be people who've experienced addiction. 'Where are the people in recovery?' he asked. 'We're the subject matter experts.' Boyd said many of the voting committee roles are representatives of state agencies that she expects will help administer the settlement grants, like the Department of Mental Health. And there were only so many people who the Legislature can assign spots. 'It was no slight to anybody,' she said. 'It's just, this is a completely complex issue.' The Mississippi governor, lieutenant governor and speaker of the house will each assign two people to the committee, and Boyd said it's possible they will choose people in recovery. The bill says council members need to be appointed by early June. However the process plays out, McCarty hopes all the state's funds go to reputable organizations focused on preventing more opioid-related harm. In Mississippi, he sees a lack of housing and treatment options, especially for new parents, as areas that this money can help address. And as hundreds of Mississippians continue to die from overdoses each year, he said the state government has to move quickly and responsibly to make these funds available. 'We don't have a year to wait. It needs to go out quicker.' ___ This story was originally published by Mississippi Today and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Bloomberg
20-05-2025
- Health
- Bloomberg
US Health Agency Demands Drugmakers' US Prices Match What Similar Nations Pay
The US Department of Health and Human Services is demanding that pharmaceutical companies cut drug prices to the lowest price offered to nations with economies that are similar to the US's, the agency announced Tuesday. Earlier this month, President Donald Trump threatened drugmakers with regulatory action if they do not lower their prices to be more in line with what other developed countries pay. As part of that announcement, the White House directed HHS to release details on what prices the administration is hoping to achieve.
Fox News
17-05-2025
- Business
- Fox News
HHS SEC ROBERT F KENNEDY JR: American patients pay more so others can pay less — that stops now
President Donald Trump's bold executive order on drug pricing isn't just policy—it's a revolution in healthcare affordability. The plan is simple yet transformative: ensure Americans pay no more for medications than citizens of other wealthy nations. Consider this stark reality: a GLP-1 drug costing $88 in London commands $1,000 in the United States. Even after manufacturer discounts to insurers, Americans still pay over $400—for the identical medication, from the same company, produced in the same facility. This disparity is especially galling when pharmaceutical companies extract 70% of their profits from America—a nation representing just 4% of the world's population. This global free-riding on American patients ends now. Industry leaders recognize this imbalance. I've already engaged with CEOs from four major American pharmaceutical companies and a foreign manufacturer eager to relocate to the U.S. Their response has been encouraging, but we're prepared to act decisively if necessary. U.S. Health and Human Services and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) possess the statutory authority to deliver on President Trump's commitment: other developed nations must pay more, so Americans can pay less, thus preserving the innovation pipeline. Americans deserve both groundbreaking therapies and affordable access to them. Yet according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, nearly one-third of patients skip prescribed medications due to cost—an unacceptable reality in the world's wealthiest nation. While prevention through healthier lifestyles remains our best strategy for reducing medication dependence, certain treatments will always be essential. The pharmaceutical industry has delivered remarkable advancements in cancer and autoimmune therapies that benefit patients worldwide. We value continued innovation as a core American principle, but we cannot indefinitely subsidize global medical progress while other wealthy nations contribute disproportionately little. President Trump's negotiation approach has already proven effective with NATO, where European countries responded to accountability by making historic reinvestments that strengthened the alliance. The same principle applies here. The President and I stand united: global free riding on American patients must end. CMS, with Dr. Mehmet Oz at the helm, extends beyond payment reform to fundamentally realigning care delivery incentives. This initiative will protect safety nets for vulnerable populations while addressing the financial pressures facing state partners and federal programs—particularly Medicaid, which has seen dramatic growth in both enrollment and costs. The coming months will be decisive in achieving President Trump's prescription for a healthier America—one where innovation thrives, and patients no longer shoulder an unfair share of the global healthcare burden.
CNA
16-05-2025
- Business
- CNA
Singapore and US to discuss preferential or 'zero' tariffs on pharmaceutical exports, says DPM Gan
SINGAPORE: Singapore may be able to escape tariffs on pharmaceutical exports to the United States even if Washington goes ahead with plans to introduce this sectoral tariff, Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong said on Friday (May 16). The US has offered to discuss concessions for Singapore on these goods, he told reporters as part of an update on a task force he leads to address the impact of US tariffs. Mr Gan said the US wants to use the sectoral tariff to secure the supply chain for its pharmaceutical supplies. "They have offered Singapore to say that, why not, both Singapore and US can sit down and discuss some form of a concession for Singapore to have a beneficial or preferential tariff, even to the extent of zero tariff for pharmaceutical exports to the US," he said. That would require some effort from Singapore to ensure that the supply chain is secure. "These are the details that we are discussing," he added. Mr Gan, who is also Minister of Trade and Industry, said this is a significant opportunity and agreement for Singapore because pharmaceutical goods are an important part of the country's exports to the US. Pharmaceuticals make up over 10 per cent of the country's exports to the US. The broad concept is "more or less there", Mr Gan said, but the government will need to consult private pharmaceutical companies to find out what is possible or not in the agreement. Regarding tariffs on semiconductors, the US said it is happy to discuss how to ensure continued supply for Singapore, but the focus is on pharmaceuticals for now. "I just want to qualify that it's going to take time ... we won't be able to give you a daily or weekly update on the progress of the negotiation, because it will take time, and we can't share the details until we are able to arrive at some agreement," Mr Gan said. UNCERTAINTY IS STILL THE "BIGGEST FACTOR" Despite the "good news" that the trade war seems to be de-escalating, Mr Gan repeatedly pointed to uncertainty in the global economy. He acknowledged that tariffs between the US and China have come down, and described them as "encouraging developments". The US and China recently agreed to slash sweeping tariffs for 90 days after meeting for talks in Geneva. "I should sound a word of caution, because the outlook remains very uncertain," Mr Gan said. "What will happen at the end of 90 days is still a big question mark, is yet to be known, and whether the negotiation with the other countries will progress smoothly, whether they will eventually settle at a level that are mutually agreeable and workable, is something that is still yet to be seen." He added that the discussion between the world's two largest economies is a "starting point" for what's likely to be quite a long journey. "The fact that the US and China had a discussion at the negotiating table (is) encouraging, but it's too early to tell what the outcome will be, and the uncertainty remains," he told reporters, adding that many businesses cannot make decisions because they do not know what the endpoint is. "If it's a firm tariff, it is easier for them to calculate whether it's viable, not viable, whether they should export or not export ... It will be painful, but it is at least certain. "If tariffs are introduced and then removed at will and without rules, and I think it's very difficult for the businessman to make a decision," he said. RESHUFFLE IN THE TASK FORCE? Mr Gan also addressed a question about whether there could be changes in the task force members since a major Cabinet reshuffle is expected soon following the General Election. The task force currently includes five ministers, including Mr Gan, who is the chairman. The other four ministers are: There may be some adjustments because the task force appointments were based on the ministers' portfolios, said Mr Gan. If there are any changes in portfolios, the composition of the task force may change. "I think you just have to be patient, because the prime minister will announce the new Cabinet lineup," he said.
