June 2023 Newsletter

July 20, 2023

REGISTER NOW: July 26th ASBM/GaBI Webinar on IRA Medicare Price Negotiation 
On July 26th, ASBM and the Generics and Biosimilars Initiative (GaBI) will host the first of two webinars examining the implications for patients and healthcare providers of the recently-passed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The webinars will focus on unintended consequences for patient access that may result from the implementation of IRA provisions. The webinar, entitled MEDICARE DRUG PRICE NEGOTIATIONS: Impact on Healthcare Development and Patient Access to Medicines will be held on July 26th. REGISTER HERE.
 
View the agenda Speakers will include:Thomas R Barker, Esq; Former Acting General Counsel of the US Department of Health and Human Services; Former Commissioner of the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC), USACharles Clapton,Vice President, Federal Government Affairs, Gilead Sciences, USAMatias Olsen; Public Affairs & Policy Manager, EUCOPE, Belgium Steven Potts, PhD, MBA; CEO, Anticipate BioscienceMichael S Reilly, Esq; Executive Director, Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, USAPhilip Schneider, FASHP, FFIP Past Vice President, International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) Andrew Spiegel, Esq;  Executive Director, Global Colon Cancer Association, USAThe webinar will focus on the IRA’s price negotiation provisions, which allow the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate prices of certain costly drugs, including many biologic medicines. Webinar presenters will discuss cost containment efforts in different countries and examine the impact these policies have had on patient care and on the practice of healthcare professionals including physicians and pharmacists. REGISTER for the webinar here.

View the agenda.
  
ASBM Chair Presents Poster Abstract at DIA Global Annual Meeting 2023 On June 26th, ASBM Chairman Ralph McKibbin presented a poster at the DIA Global Annual Meeting in Boston, MA. The poster was based on the findings from ASBM’s Canadian ophthalmologist survey and compared the findings with those of other physicians surveyed in recent years. The surveys examined physician attitudes toward biosimilar substitution practices, pharmacovigilance and nomenclature standards, and different biosimilar access scenarios. 
View the poster For example, 81% of ophthalmologists were uncomfortable with a third-party payer (such as a government or private insurer) switching their patient’s biologic medicine for non-medical reasons (e.g. cost or coverage), as occurs under the government health plans of several provinces. 90% believe treatment decisions should rest with the physician and patient, and 91% believe they should be able to prevent a forced switch. Ophthalmologists are the latest group of physicians to raise concerns with the practice of forced switching- which has become increasingly common among Canadian provinces. 
View Dr. McKibbin’s video walkthrough of the poster Prior ASBM surveys across many specialties revealed that 83% of Canadian, 82% of European, and 69% of U.S. physicians consider it very important or critical that the physician and patient control treatment decisions, including the decision to switch to a biosimilar. 79% of Canadian, 84% of European, and 67% of U.S. physicians considered the ability to prevent a substitution similarly important. View the poster here. 

View Dr. McKibbin’s video walkthrough of the poster here. 
 OSU College of Pharmacy Promotes ASBM CE Course on Biosimilars
 The Ohio State University College of Pharmacy is promoting a 7-part, 7 hour Continuing Education course for pharmacists about biosimilars.  From the College’s email: Pharmacy is a rapidly changing profession where new breakthrough medications offer relief to patients in novel ways. Biosimilars are a relatively new class of drugs for which the old rules of pharmacy don’t necessarily apply. 

The Biosimilars Continuing Education Series is a self-paced, seven-course sequence that offers new insights into biosimilars. These courses are individually accredited and count as continuing education credits. The series was developed by ASBM in conjunction with the College of Pharmacy’s Office for Continuing Professional Development and features several ASBM speakers including:Immediate Past Chair Madelaine Feldman, MD FACRChairman Ralph McKibbin MD FACP FACG AGAFAdvisory Board Chair Philip Schneider MS FASHP FFIPSteering Committee Member Andrew Spiegel, Esq.The course is available to pharmacists nationwide for 7 hours of CE credit.
 ASBM members who are interested in learning more about how biosimilars affect healthcare practice may view the course for free.  ASBM Members may request a free access code here.  Read more about or register for the course here. 
 Watch a video overview of the course here.  
Eli Lilly Cancels Three Drugs Due to IRA Price “Negotiation” Provisions Drug manufacturer Eli Lilly and Company has reportedly stopped development of three new drugs due to last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, which for the first time permits Medicare to “negotiate,” or set prices, for certain drugs. Lilly CEO David Ricks discussed the law’s chilling effect on innovation at a June 14th event hosted by J.P. Morgan to discuss the IRA’s impact on drug development. As reported in the Pink Sheet“: “Already investors are making those decisions. We are making those decisions, which is deemphasizing programs that would have been pursued as productive that are no longer productive,” Ricks said. A forecast from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that predicted the IRA would result in around 15 fewer drugs after 10 years under-appreciated the impact, he said. “I can tell you, after nine months, there are three fewer Lilly drugs,” he said. “We are 5% of the US market, so their estimate is off by orders of magnitude in terms of how much effort will gointo small molecules.” The IRA has been widely criticized for imposing a “small molecule penalty”- offering small-molecule drugs only 9 years’ time to recoup development costs, while large-molecule biologic drugs have a 13-year period to do so. This shorter window makes development of small-molecule drugs- including many cancer treatments- less profitable for manufacturers to develop.  Read the full article here (subscription required).  Read ASBM Steering Committee Member Andrew Spiegel’s article about the small-molecule penalty here.  
Missed last month’s ASBM Newsletter?Read it here.  
UPCOMING EVENTS ASBM/ GaBI Webinar: Medicare Drug Price NegotiationVirtual- Register Here – July 26, 2023 WHO 77th INN Consultation
Geneva, Switzerland – October 17, 2023

 World Drug Safety Congress AmericasBoston, MA – October 18-19, 2023ACR Convergence 2023
San Diego, CA – November 10-14

ASBM & GaBI Host Webinar on IRA Medicare Price Negotiations Impact on Innovation, Patient Access

July 13, 2023


On July 26th, ASBM and the Generics and Biosimilars Initiative (GaBI) hosted a webinar entitled MEDICARE DRUG PRICE NEGOTIATIONS: Impact on Healthcare Development and Patient Access to Medicines which focused on unintended consequences for patient access that may result from the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

The webinar focused on the IRA’s price negotiation provisions, which allow the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to negotiate prices of certain costly drugs, including many biologic medicines. Webinar presenters discussed cost containment efforts in different countries and examine the impact these policies have had on patient care and on the practice of healthcare professionals including physicians and pharmacists. 

View the full webinar below:

View the entire webinar

Speakers included:
Michael S Reilly, Esq; Executive Director, Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, USA
Thomas R Barker, Esq; Former Acting General Counsel of the US Department of Health and Human Services; Former Commissioner of the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC), USA
Charles Clapton, Vice President, Federal Government Affairs, Gilead Sciences, USA

These three former government officials worked on the development and implementation of Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit which is being modified by the IRA’s new price-setting provisions. Hear them discuss the likely effects of the new policy:

Steven Potts, PhD, MBA; a drug developer and CEO of Anticipate Bioscience discusses how the Medicare price-setting will discourage drug research and development:

Steven Potts’ presentation


Andrew Spiegel, Esq;  Executive Director, Global Colon Cancer Association, discusses how price setting results in reduced access to the latest treatments for cancer patients:

Andrew Spiegel’s presentation


Other experts in the discussion included:
Philip Schneider, FASHP, FFIP Past Vice President, International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) 
Matias Olsen; Public Affairs & Policy Manager, EUCOPE, Belgium 

View the Panel Discussion:

Panel discussion




Op-ed: IRA Drug Price Controls Will Hurt Cancer Drug Development

June 12, 2023

Op-ed: IRA Drug Price Controls Will Hurt Cancer Drug Development

On May 18th, an op-ed by ASBM Steering Committee Member Andrew Spiegel ran in the Reading Eagle. Mr. Spiegel is a founding member of ASBM and Executive Director of the Global Colon Cancer Association. In the op-ed, Spiegel highlights the importance of small-molecule drugs in cancer therapy, and notes how the IRA disincentivizes their development:

The rate of colorectal cancer in Americans under 55 has nearly doubled since the 1990s, and scientists don’t really know why. By 2030, colorectal cancer is predicted to become the leading cause of cancer deaths for people under 50, and is already the second leading cause of all cancer deaths, behind only lung cancer.

We need more and better treatments, and we need them now.

Unfortunately, the new drug-pricing rules enacted in the Inflation Reduction Act will stymie efforts to develop new cancer treatments.

Under the IRA, Medicare will be able to negotiate with drug makers for lower prices on an expanding list of brand-name medications. Drugs are divided into two categories: small- molecule drugs, which are chemical compounds typically available in pill form that patients pick up at the pharmacy and take at home; and biologics, which are extracted from living organisms and usually need to be administered by infusion or injection in a health care facility.

Both types of drugs are crucial to oncology treatment. Unfortunately, the IRA all but ensures that investment will pivot away from small molecule drugs towards biologics in the coming years. The IRA makes small molecule drugs eligible for price controls nine years after FDA approval — four years sooner than biologics.

Read the full op-ed here. 


May 2023 Newsletter

June 12, 2023

Coming Soon: ASBM/GaBI Webinar on IRA’s Medicare Price Negotiation Provisions
ASBM and the Generics and Biosimilars Initiative (GaBI) are in the final planning stages for the first of two webinars examining the implications for patients and healthcare providers of the recently-passed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The webinars will focus on unintended consequences for patient access that may result from the implementation of IRA provisions. 

The first webinar, entitled MEDICARE DRUG PRICE NEGOTIATIONS: Impact on Healthcare Development and Patient Access to Medicines will be held in late June or early July (final date TBD).

 

Speakers will include:

  • Thomas R Barker, Esq; Former Acting General Counsel of the US Department of Health and Human Services; Former Commissioner of the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC), USA
  • Michael S Reilly, Esq; Executive Director, Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, USA
  • Steve Potts, PhD, MBA; CEO, Anticipate Bioscience
  • Matias Olsen; Public Affairs & Policy Manager, EUCOPE, Belgium (to be confirmed)
  • Dr. Catherine Duggan; CEO, International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) (invited)
  • Andrew Spiegel, Esq;  Executive Director, Global Colon Cancer Association, USA

The webinar will focus on the IRA’s price negotiation provisions, which allow the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate prices of certain costly drugs, including many biologic medicines. Webinar presenters will discuss cost containment efforts in different countries and examine the impact these policies have had on patient care and on the practice of healthcare professionals including physicians and pharmacists.

 

More information will be available soon.

 

 

Op-ed: IRA Drug Price Controls Will Hurt Cancer Drug Development

On May 18th, an op-ed by ASBM Steering Committee Member Andrew Spiegel ran in the Reading Eagle. Mr. Spiegel is a founding member of ASBM and Executive Director of the Global Colon Cancer Association. In the op-ed, Spiegel highlights the importance of small-molecule drugs in cancer therapy, and notes how the IRA disincentivizes their development:
The rate of colorectal cancer in Americans under 55 has nearly doubled since the 1990s, and scientists don’t really know why. By 2030, colorectal cancer is predicted to become the leading cause of cancer deaths for people under 50, and is already the second leading cause of all cancer deaths, behind only lung cancer.

 

We need more and better treatments, and we need them now.

 

Unfortunately, the new drug-pricing rules enacted in the Inflation Reduction Act will stymie efforts to develop new cancer treatments.

Under the IRA, Medicare will be able to negotiate with drug makers for lower prices on an expanding list of brand-name medications. Drugs are divided into two categories: small- molecule drugs, which are chemical compounds typically available in pill form that patients pick up at the pharmacy and take at home; and biologics, which are extracted from living organisms and usually need to be administered by infusion or injection in a health care facility.

 

Both types of drugs are crucial to oncology treatment. Unfortunately, the IRA all but ensures that investment will pivot away from small molecule drugs towards biologics in the coming years. The IRA makes small molecule drugs eligible for price controls nine years after FDA approval — four years sooner than biologics.

 

Read the full op-ed here. 

 

 

ASBM’s Michael Reilly Participates in IFA’s Vision Health Month Webinar
On May 15th, ASBM Executive Director Michael Reilly participated in a webinar entitled Impact of Emerging Policies on the Vision of Older Canadians hosted by the International Federation on Ageing (IFA). 

 

As part of the celebration of the Vision Health Month, this webinar was executed to raise awareness on the importance of eye health, prevention of vision loss, and work to inform policies and practices underpinned with the principles of safe, effective and appropriate treatment, determined by the treating physicians in consultation with their patients.

 

A key policy issue discussed during the webinar was how Canadian provinces have been forcibly switching patients to biosimilars, and how this practice might affect patients on ophthalmic biologics. Mr. Reilly shared survey results from ASBM and IFA’s recent survey of 41 Canadian ophthalmologists regarding biosimilar substitution.

 

The survey revealed that 81% were not comfortable with a third party such as a government switching a patient’s medicine for non-medical reasons such as cost, as would occur under a recently-announced Ontario plan. 91% considered the ability to prevent a forced switch by a public or private payer very important or critical.

 

Seventy-eight percent of respondents said their patients would be best served by a European-style scenario where multiple products including innovator and biosimilars are reimbursed, with biosimilars encouraged for new patients but no automatic substitution.

 

Only 15% preferred a system similar to that of Canadian provinces like British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario where only government-chosen biosimilars are reimbursed, new patients must be prescribed these products, and current patients are forced to switch.

 

View the webinar here.

GaBI Journal publishes Whitepaper on Canadian Ophthalmologist Survey

 

On May 9th, GaBI Journal published a whitepaper titled “Canadian prescribers’ attitudes and perceptions about ophthalmic biosimilars”, based on the recent survey of 41 Canadian ophthalmologists by ASBM and the International Federation on Ageing (IFA). The paper is authored by IFA Secretary-General Jane Barratt and ASBM Executive Director Michael Reilly.

 

The survey revealed that 81% were not comfortable with a third party such as a government switching a patient’s medicine for non-medical reasons such as cost, as would occur under a recently-announced Ontario plan. Ninety percent of respondents said that having sole authority, with the patient, to decide which biologic medicine to use is very important or critical. And 91% considered the ability to prevent a forced switch by a public or private payer very important or critical.

 

Read the whitepaper here.

 

 

ASBM Chair to Present Poster Session at DIA Global Annual Meeting

 

On June 26th, ASBM Chairman Ralph McKibbin will present a poster session on ASBM’s Canadian ophthalmologist survey at the DIA Global Annual Meeting in Boston, MA. The survey’s findings were recently the subject of a whitepaper in GaBI Journal and were discussed at a webinar hosted by the International Federation on Ageing (IFA) which cosponsored the survey.

 

The DIA poster will compare the ophthalmologist survey findings with those of other physicians surveyed in recent years.

 

Ophthalmologists are just the latest group of physicians to raise concerns with the practice of forced switching. Prior ASBM surveys across many specialties revealed that 83% of Canadian, 82% of European, and 69% of U.S. physicians consider it very important or critical that the physician and patient control treatment decisions, including the decision to switch to a biosimilar. 79% of Canadian, 84% of European, and 67% of U.S. physicians considered the ability to prevent a substitution similarly important.

 

As we have done with previous posters presented at DIA Global Annual Meetings, ASBM will publish a video walkthrough of the poster for the general public following the poster session.

 

 


ASBM’s Michael Reilly Participates in IFA’s Vision Health Month Webinar  

May 15, 2023

On May 15th, ASBM Executive Director Michael Reilly participated in a webinar entitled Impact of Emerging Policies on the Vision of Older Canadians hosted by the International Federation on Ageing (IFA). 

As part of the celebration of the Vision Health Month, this webinar was executed to raise awareness on the importance of eye health, prevention of vision loss, and work to inform policies and practices underpinned with the principles of safe, effective and appropriate treatment, determined by the treating physicians in consultation with their patients.

A key policy issue discussed during the webinar was how Canadian provinces have been forcibly switching patients to biosimilars, and how this practice might affect patients on ophthalmic biologics. Mr. Reilly shared survey results from ASBM and IFA’s recent survey of 41 Canadian ophthalmologists regarding biosimilar substitution.

The survey revealed that 81% were not comfortable with a third party such as a government switching a patient’s medicine for non-medical reasons such as cost, as would occur under a recently-announced Ontario plan. 91% considered the ability to prevent a forced switch by a public or private payer very important or critical.

Seventy-eight percent of respondents said their patients would be best served by a European-style scenario where multiple products including innovator and biosimilars are reimbursed, with biosimilars encouraged for new patients but no automatic substitution.

Only 15% preferred a system similar to that of Canadian provinces like British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario where only government-chosen biosimilars are reimbursed, new patients must be prescribed these products, and current patients are forced to switch.

View the webinar here.


GaBI Journal Publishes ASBM/IFA Canadian Ophthalmologist Survey Findings

May 10, 2023

On May 9th, GaBI Journal published a whitepaper titled “Canadian prescribers’ attitudes and perceptions about ophthalmic biosimilars”, based on the recent survey of 41 Canadian ophthalmologists by ASBM and the International Federation on Ageing (IFA). The paper is authored by IFA Secretary-General Jane Barratt and ASBM Executive Director Michael Reilly.

The survey revealed that 81% were not comfortable with a third party such as a government switching a patient’s medicine for non-medical reasons such as cost, as would occur under a recently-announced Ontario plan. Ninety percent of respondents said that having sole authority, with the patient, to decide which biologic medicine to use is very important or critical. And 91% considered the ability to prevent a forced switch by a public or private payer very important or critical.

Seventy-eight percent of respondents said their patients would be best served by a European-style scenario where multiple products including innovator and biosimilars are reimbursed, with biosimilars encouraged for new patients but no automatic substitution.

Only 15% preferred a system similar to that of Ontario where only government-chosen biosimilars are reimbursed, new patients must be prescribed these products, and current patients are forced to switch.

The survey’s findings are aligned with statements from the Canadian Retina Society (CRS), the Canadian Ophthalmology Society (COS) and American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) that call for more data, ‘given the unique immunological environment and limited tolerance for inflammation which exists with direct administration of the medication into the eye.” The CRS asks government to consider that “retinal diseases are sight threatening, and the retina has limited regenerative potential with vision loss often irreversible.

Ophthalmologists are the latest group of physicians to raise concerns with the practice of forced switching. The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology released a statement opposing the practice in 2019. Prior ASBM surveys across many specialties revealed that 83% of Canadian, 82% of European, and 69% of U.S. physicians consider it very important or critical that the physician and patient control treatment decisions, including the decision to switch to a biosimilar. 79% of Canadian, 84% of European, and 67% of U.S. physicians considered the ability to prevent a substitution similarly important.

Read the full whitepaper here. 


GaBI Journal publishes Whitepaper on Canadian Ophthalmologist Survey

May 9, 2023

On May 9th, GaBI Journal published a whitepaper titled “Canadian prescribers’ attitudes and perceptions about ophthalmic biosimilars”, based on the recent survey of 41 Canadian ophthalmologists by ASBM and the International Federation on Ageing (IFA). The paper is authored by IFA Secretary-General Jane Barratt and ASBM Executive Director Michael Reilly.

The survey revealed that 81% were not comfortable with a third party such as a government switching a patient’s medicine for non-medical reasons such as cost, as would occur under a recently-announced Ontario plan. Ninety percent of respondents said that having sole authority, with the patient, to decide which biologic medicine to use is very important or critical. And 91% considered the ability to prevent a forced switch by a public or private payer very important or critical.

Read the whitepaper here.


GaBI Journal publishes Meeting Report on ASBM Non-Medical Switching Webinar

May 5, 2023

On April 30th, the Generics and Biosimilar Initiative (GaBI) published a meeting report on a 2-hour webinar entitled “Non-Medical Switching of Biologicals and Biosimilars: Canada, Europe, and the US”, hosted July 20th, 2022 by ASBM and GaBI.

During the webinar, academic clinicians, patient advocates, policymakers and regulatory experts from Canada and the US shared their experience and knowledge. Topics discussed included an overview of non-medical switching policies in different countries; physician and patient concerns with non-medical switching; interchangeability of biolosimilars in the US and Canada, the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach protecting the physician–patient relationship when making substitution decisions.

Participants included:

  • Michael S Reilly, Esq, Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, USA
  • Gail Attara, Gastrointestinal Society, Canada
  • Ralph McKibbin, MD, FACP, FACG, AGAF, Pennsylvania Society of Gastroenterology
  • Leah Christl, PhD, Amgen, USA
  • Durhane Wong-Rieger, Canadian Organization for Rare Diseases
  • Philip Schneider, MS FASHP FFIP; Ohio State University College of Pharmacy

Read the Meeting Report here.

Watch video of the webinar here.


ASBM’s Comments on the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Plan: Protecting Patients and Ensuring Access to Medicines

April 25, 2023

Springer-Nature-Luncheon-The Source-Washington-DC

By Michael Reilly, Executive Director, Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines (ASBM)

ASBM recently submitted comments to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on the proposed Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Plan. Under this plan – authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) signed in to law last year – Medicare will “negotiate” (set) maximum fair prices (MFPs) for many expensive medications. Having served in the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Secretary from 2002-2008, including two years as Associate Deputy HHS Secretary, I participated in the development and implementation of Medicare Part D, the program’s prescription drug benefit. During its development, the idea of drug price negotiation was considered- and rejected- for many of the reasons we outline in our comments. Simply put, while it can generate short-term savings, it also creates problems in the long-term that need to be addressed.

ASBM’s comments highlight several concerns about the proposed plan and the process through which it is being implemented. These fall broadly into two categories: substantive concerns about the policy itself, and process issues surrounding the implementation of such a major undertaking with minimal stakeholder input.

First, the policy itself has built-in-problems. Historical evidence has shown that government-negotiated drug pricing has often undermined innovation, and ironically limited rather than expanded patient access to treatments. For example:

  • In the 1970s, European companies developed most new drugs; however, since the implementation of price controls in Europe, 60% of new drugs are currently developed in the US, compared to 13% in Switzerland, 8% in the United Kingdom (UK), and 6% in Germany and France.[1]
  • Of cancer medicines launched globally between 2011 and 2019, more than 96% are available to US patients while only 65% are available in other developed nations such as Australia, Japan and the UK.2 Furthermore, cancer death rates per 100,000 are 1.6 to 1.8 times higher in Europe than those in the US.3
  • Of new cancer medications, 90% are available to US patients within the first year of launch, whereas less than half of these are available to cancer patients in Germany, the UK, France, and Canada.4

Medicare Part D’s high satisfaction rate (90%)5 demonstrates the program’s success in providing affordable and accessible medications to seniors. Price controls, as proposed in the negotiation plan, may jeopardize this success. The proposed plan may also negatively impact the development and adoption of lower-cost biosimilars, which are currently providing more affordable treatment options for patients, generating $21 billion in savings over the last six years alone.

Finally, those who will ultimately be most affected by the policy- particularly patients and physicians- have largely been cut out of the implementation discussions. CMS is not following the typical notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act or the Medicare statute, offering instead this assessment: “CMS finds that notice and public procedure on this guidance would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest”. Instead, CMS allowed only a short 30-day comment period and permitted input only on certain provisions.

To undertake such a major change to the Medicare program outside of the notice-and-comment period is highly unusual and runs counter to long-established administrative procedures. Unfortunately, rushed policy made absent stakeholder input rarely results in good policy.

Throughout 2023, ASBM will continue to educate patients, healthcare providers, and other stakeholders about these issues with the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Plan and several other IRA healthcare provisions which will affect the patient community. In the meantime, I encourage you to read our comments here.

[1] “Europe negotiates a poor vaccine rollout”; Forbes, April 2021

2 IQVIA Analytics, FDA, EMA, PMDA, and TGA data. New active substances approved by at least one of these regulatory agencies and first launched in any country from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2019; June 2020.

3Democrat plan on drug costs will stifle innovation”, San Antonio Express-News, May 12, 2021

4 IQVIA Analytics, FDA, EMA, PMDA, TGA, &w3 Health Canada data, April 2021.

5 * https://www.hlc.org/post/medicare-part-d-the-successes-and-the-challenges/

 


ASBM Chair Advocates for PBM Reform on Capitol Hill

April 11, 2023

On March 5th-6th, ASBM Chairman Ralph McKibbin, MD, FACP, FACG, AGAF participated in the 33rd annual Digestive Disease National Coalition public policy forum in Washington, DC March 5th and 6th.

The advocacy conference brought together patient advocates, health care providers, and industry representatives from the major national voluntary and professional societies concerned with digestive diseases. This year’s theme was “Improving Patient Care.”

Live panelists included Dr. Stephen James, Director, Division of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition at the National Institute for Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases and Brenda Rodriguez, Senior Engagement Officer at the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Both highlighted the need for focusing on patient outcomes in this age of rising inflation and medication costs.

ASBM Chairman Ralph McKibbin MD; DDNC President Carrol Koscheski; and Brad Conway, VP of Legislative Affairs and Advocacy for the American College of Gastroenterology were among the physicians who met with lawmakers on PBM reform and other issues.

ASBM Chairman Ralph McKibbin MD; DDNC President Carrol Koscheski; and Brad Conway, VP of Legislative Affairs and Advocacy for the American College of Gastroenterology were among the physicians who met with lawmakers on PBM reform and other issues.

Dr. McKibbin, along with DDNC leadership, met with Representative Buddy Carter of Georgia – a champion for pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reform – to discuss the need legislation in this area. Rep. Carter is a pharmacist who ran a chain of local pharmacies prior to becoming a congressional representative and is well informed on the issues. He has produced an educational booklet on the subject entitled “Pulling Back the Curtain on PBMs: A Path Towards Affordable Prescription Drugs”.


logo logo logo