Western Pennsylvania's trusted news source
Ron Klink: Right and wrong ways to address drug prices | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Ron Klink: Right and wrong ways to address drug prices

3482563_web1_gtr-cmns-Paulsen-120120
Metro Creative

In what may have been the last significant action of his presidency, President Trump issued two executive orders designed to lower prescription drug spending in Medicare.

The first order would eliminate the current system of “rebates” for prescription drugs covered by Medicare Part D. The second order, dubbed the “Most Favored Nation” model, ties Medicare payments for advanced medicines covered by Medicare Part B — think chemotherapy infusions and other physician-administered medicines — to the lowest prices paid by governments abroad.

The “rebate rule” will reduce out-of-pocket drug costs for American patients. The “Most Favored Nation” model will reduce access to advanced medicines today and deprive American scientists of research dollars tomorrow.

As lawmakers begin thinking through this year’s agenda, one of these rules offers a model worth emulating. The other should end with Trump’s presidency.

Rising costs at the pharmacy counter have long bothered many of us. Indeed, the average American now spends about $1,200 annually on prescription medicines. Surprisingly, though, just 14% of overall health care expenditures is dedicated to prescription medicines — and this number has been stable since the 1960s. Further, overall spending on prescription drugs has been remarkably stable in recent years, generally tracking with inflation.

It doesn’t feel that way at the pharmacy because middlemen in the drug supply chain — namely, insurers and pharmacy benefit managers — have increasingly shifted the costs of prescription drugs to patients.

The rebate rule endeavors to make sure these middlemen share the discounts and rebates they secure from drug companies directly with patients. Analysts expect this effort to trim nearly 30% off the average patient’s pharmacy bill.

Trump’s Most Favored Nation model ties Medicare reimbursements for advanced, physician-administered drugs to the lowest prices paid abroad. This is a mistake.

Foreign governments pay less for drugs because they undervalue American science — and routinely refuse to cover innovative treatments. So at a minimum, the rule would result in less investment for scientific research, stifling the development of tomorrow’s medicines. But the rule would undoubtedly reduce access to many critical drugs — indeed, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services admits that much of the savings from Trump’s Most Favored Nation model would come from “beneficiaries not accessing their drugs.”

Trump is far from the first to suggest Medicare should import foreign reference pricing. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered a measure — the Lower Drug Costs Now Act, or House Resolution 3 — which would have also pegged Medicare reimbursements to the lower prices paid abroad.

Whether through legislation or executive fiat, these efforts should concern all of us. It doesn’t make sense to import the mistakes of our trading partners.

Reducing drug spending is a noble goal. Rebate reform demonstrates that it’s eminently achievable.

Ron Klink is a former Democratic U.S. representative from Pennsylvania and is currently senior policy adviser at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP.

Categories: Featured Commentary | Opinion
TribLIVE commenting policy

Our commenting has been temporarily disabled.

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.