Marching right past. Senator Bernie Sanders held up the head of the NIH hearings because he wanted to make sure march-in rights were part of the policy conversations on drug pricing. I can’t decide if march-in rights are like your 1st grade teacher asking for part of your salary because she was part of your success or more like military service after attending a military academy. I guess it depends on the drug in question. To be clear, Mrs. Anderson was terrific, but the check is not in the mail.
The concept behind march-in rights, at least in today’s political talk, is that the government pays billions of dollars towards research and shouldn’t pay the rack rate when drugs are approved using that research. Before all this, the concept was that march-in rights were for shortages of drugs. The government could, in an emergency, ask another company to step in. VERY different.
The Department of Commerce along with National Institute of Standards and Technology put out a request for information on a framework for considering march-in rights. It’s all a little meh. There is no straight line between most research paid for by the government and approved drugs. A lot of that $115B that is thrown around is basic research and, while it is foundational, it isn’t a shot in the arm. It could have a time and a place but it is a case by case thing and certainly not a game changer.
That’s a bunch of horseradish. Turns out that wasabi improves short and long-term memory. Now only if sushi was covered by my health insurance…
If it were easy, we’d all be doing it. Colorado issued its annual report on its prescription drug importation plan. Turns out it is really hard to set up an importation program. Technically the state needs to do direct negotiation with manufacturers and they don’t want to participate. Which makes sense because 1) why should they and 2) why take the risk and go around the current drug supply chain to allow for importation to one state.
Color me skeptical. CVS made big news this week when it said it would change the way that pharmacies are paid. They plan on compensating pharmacies based on acquisition costs plus a set markup and a fee for pharmacy services. Will it change cost-sharing for patients? Probably not. From a transparency perspective, it isn’t a bad thing. We’re moving towards changes in how players in the supply chain generate revenue (wholesalers, PBMs, specialty pharmacies, etc.) and this is one piece of that.
PBM Reform. It might move along in the House. Maybe. It might join up with the Senate work. Maybe.