Revisions to Brazil's drug price framework are coming - what's included and what's missing? Our analysts provide th… https://t.co/8s17gnKCXf
The Other vote today – Will the future of US drug pricing be decided? Will we see interstate parallel imports and interstate reference pricing?
For the global pharmaceutical industry, today marks a watershed moment that will have profound implications for its future. Clearly, pricing of pharmaceuticals has figured prominently in the US election - controversies surrounding the pricing strategies at companies such as Turing, Valeant and Mylan have reached the highest political levels…and indeed Secretary Clinton has outlined a comprehensive healthcare reform program that includes components of comparative effectiveness and price transparency that have a significant chance of being passed if she is elected.
However, there is another major vote today that could have just as much an influence on the future of the US pharmaceutical industry: in California, there is a ballot on Proposition 61, which would require state agencies to pay no more for pharmaceuticals than that paid by the US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), which typically has the lowest prices available in the US.
By some estimates, it is the most costly ballot in US history, which gives some indication of what is at stake here - and indeed the industry has spent far more on this ballot than the entire amount donated by the healthcare industry to the US Presidential candidate campaigns. While early polls showed a significant lead for supporters of the Proposition, it now appears to be neck to neck, so the industry continues to hold its breath.
And while California by itself, as one of the largest economies globally, represents a major market for the pharmaceutical industry, the greater fears come from the potential ripple effects of the measure across US states - it could trigger a sort of domestic interstate reference pricing system, or interstate parallel importing. Certainly, more state agencies in other states will be keen to find similar prices to what California could achieve if the ballot is passed. At the same time, it may trigger an incentive to revise pricing with the VA in order to maintain a higher reference point. Indeed, veterans feature prominently on "No on Prop 61" billboards across California, urging voters not to increase their prescription drug costs - a message supported by over 30 different veterans organizations.
If Clinton wins, there could be a double-whammy where drug price reform is being driven both at the federal and state level…and if the ballot does not pass but Clinton still wins, there is still a strong likelihood that the topic of drug pricing will stay high on the political agenda and reform driven through from a different angle. Certainly, the industry is nervous - and it should be.
Gustav Ando is the Director of the Life Science practice at IHS Markit
Posted 8 November 2016
- Brazil finally edges towards first drug pricing reform after two years – is it a missed opportunity?
- Will IRP upend Czech orphan drug reforms?
- Variations on an IRP theme: How payers are repurposing pricing policies for new categories of medicines
- Pharmaceutical and healthcare sectors jointly top global PMI ranking for first time
- Will physicians become more difficult to find in America?
- California's Medicaid pharmacy "carve-out" set to boost state's negotiating power, introduce IRP for drugs
- Trend towards HTA collaboration boosts need for data
- Barriers to market access for innovative medicines increase in the COVID era
Major changes to Czech P&R regulations for orphan and high-cost drugs set to expand access. What role will IRP play… https://t.co/bQcVCG5jut