Adam Fein’s Post

View profile for Adam Fein, graphic

President, Drug Channels Institute, an HMP Global company

My latest: Surprise! Thanks to the #IRA, Part D Plans Will Prefer High-List, High-Rebate #Drugs Another wild unexpected and unintended consequence of the IRA's 2025 Medicare redesign. Long live the #GrossToNetBubble!

Surprise! Thanks to the IRA, Part D Plans Will Prefer High-List, High-Rebate Drugs

Surprise! Thanks to the IRA, Part D Plans Will Prefer High-List, High-Rebate Drugs

drugchannels.net

Adam Fein

President, Drug Channels Institute, an HMP Global company

2mo

Some more fun facts: For MFP products, the government picks up the manufacturer's 10% and 20% share of costs. In this example from my article: 1) If the MFP discount = 50%, then manufacturer's net revenues are $45,000 and gov't costs rise to $16,072. 2) If the MFP discount = 61%, then the manufacturer's net revenue would be equal to the low-list scenario. However, the government's costs would be about 21% higher. 3) If the MFP discount = 69%, then the manufacturer's net revenue would be equal to the high-list scenario, while the government's costs would be about 8% lower. Writing this article has convinced me that few people inside or outside the government truly appreciate what will happen when the IRA gets implemented.

Wait, when did PBMs not prefer the High-List/High-Rebate strategy? Quick quiz….If your business model is spread pricing, which drug do you select for formulary (oversimplifying the math)? A) $100,000/year list price, and 50% rebate B) $80,000/year list price, and 50% rebate C) $60,000/year list price, and 50% rebate Clearly, Option C is the lowest NET cost to the plan, but Option A not only makes the PBM more money (66% more profitable), but it also looks great on a consultant’s spreadsheet (bigger rebate per script). Sadly, this strategy has been winning RFP business on broker/consultant spreadsheets for 20+ years. I must have missed the Era of Low Net Cost Formularies, but hope springs eternal.

Brooks Conway

Part D Actuary advising health plans and providers taking Rx risk.

1mo

Really great article. Totally agree with the examples. If net cost is equal then the high cost high rebate drug is still more advantageous to plans just as you showed. But if net cost is sufficiently lower under the lower rebate option then it can be more advantageous to the plan. This was *not* the case under the pre-2025 benefit design - even if net was significantly lower under the low rebate option, the plan liability math didn’t work - the high cost high rebate version still made more sense in 2024 and prior despite the cost gap. Even crazier - plans could actually have negative liability after rebates in the catastrophic phase on a high cost high rebate drug. We’ve seen PBMs proposing a few changes in 2025 around the fringes adjusting formularies for lower net cost alternative but it’s not pervasive - supporting the idea that there are some cases where the differential is large enough between high cost high rebate vs low net cost that the plan liability math makes sense. My takeaway is the old incentives are still there most of the time unfortunately but there are at least some instances now where a low net cost could make sense - which was almost never the case pre-IRA. Thanks for the great content yall put out!

Bryce Platt, PharmD

Consultant Pharmacist | Healthcare Structural Reform | Implement Alternative Healthcare Models | Passionate about Aligning Incentives to Benefit Patients

2mo

What's the reasoning for the estimate that 85% will be allocated to plans beginning in 2025? What's the cause of the shift from 65% -> 85%?

Like
Reply
Deborah Williams

Health Policy Regulatory and Legislative Expertise; Market Innovator

1mo

One point you made is oft forgotten “For a product with a maximum fair price (MFP) equal to its current net price, the manufacturer’s net revenues will rise, while plan costs will go up! That happens because negotiated products with an MFP will not have discretionary rebates, nor will manufacturers owe their 10% and 20% shares of gross costs in the initial and catastrophic coverage phases. Instead, the government will be absorbing these rebates and discounts.” An exception would be the short monopoly cancer products

…will lead to better profits - curious if members will realize it may not lead to better outcomes - affordability vs effectiveness - and perhaps the real question, what are my premiums paying for? Access to drugs or profits?

Clifford Porter

Founder of Texas Direct Medical Care

2mo

In many states, physicians (particularly DPC practices) are direct dispensing common medications for far less than the copay, and even covering DPC membership. Sadly, Texas is not allowing prescription medication choices in order to prop up retail pharm.

Spencer Miller

Market Access Leader with a Proven Track Record of Driving Growth Through Access Strategies.

2mo

Is anyone truly surprised? Really? The “Cobra Effect” on full display.

Natalie Grant

Inspirational Leadership | Lifecycle Contracting Strategy | Systems Implementation and Integration | Business Development Consultation | Pharmaceutical Pricing, Contracting, Forecasting and Analytics

2mo

Appreciate the bridging of the math! If only the CBO had folks half as smart to run the numbers.

See more comments

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics