Policy & Politics

President Joe Biden’s health care agenda figured prominently in his State of the Union address on March 7. Regarding the Inflation Reduction Act, the president said he wants to increase the number of drugs subject to Medicare price negotiations to 50 per year, up from 20 under current law. Biden also said he wants to expand the IRA’s $2,000 annual out-of-pocket cost cap for prescription drugs and $35 monthly copay cap for insulin to commercial plans, as they currently only apply to Medicare Part D. Additionally, the president vowed to defend the Affordable Care Act from repeal attempts and make the expanded subsidies that are set to expire after 2025 permanent.

The White House on March 5 unveiled a “strike force” aimed at cracking down on unfair and illegal pricing, focusing on sectors including prescription drugs and health care, food and grocery, housing, and financial services. Set to be chaired by the Dept. of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, the strike force “will strengthen interagency efforts to root out and stop illegal corporate behavior that hikes prices on American families through anti-competitive, unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent business practices,” the Biden administration said. The White House simultaneously announced that its Competition Council will soon unveil new actions aimed at slashing credit card late fees, combating high internet costs and supporting small farmers; previously, the council helped drive HHS actions such as cracking down on problematic Medicare Advantage marketing practices.

While reinsurance programs have become popular among states hoping to stabilize their individual insurance markets, a new study makes a compelling case that the premium reductions attributed to such programs may not be as helpful as they seem.

States can apply for and implement reinsurance programs via Section 1332 waivers, which allow them to waive certain Affordable Care Act rules in order to test marketplace innovations — provided they adhere to strict guardrails. Reinsurance works by subsidizing insurers’ highest-cost claims, allowing them to charge lower premiums overall.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and HHS issued a request for information (RFI) on Feb. 14 regarding the role of health care group purchasing organizations (GPOs) and drug wholesalers in widespread generic drug shortages. The agencies are seeking public input about market concentration and contracting practices in those two industries and their involvement in the generic drug market. The agencies noted in a press release that they want information about “how both entities may influence the pricing and availability of pharmaceutical drugs.” Last year, the FTC announced an investigation into rebate-aggregating GPOs tied to major PBMs.

A federal judge on Feb. 12 dismissed a lawsuit brought by the trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) challenging the Medicare drug price negotiation program. PhRMA sought to overturn the section of the Inflation Reduction Act creating the program, which allows the federal government to negotiate the price of select high-cost medications. Individual drugmakers such as Merck & Co., Bristol Myers Squibb Co., Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca PLC all have similar suits underway. CMS on Feb. 1 sent initial price offers to the manufacturers of the first 10 medications that were selected for the Medicare drug price negotiation program, which goes into effect in 2026.

In a post published on the insurer trade group’s website, AHIP CEO and President Mike Tuffin advocated for a better-funded Medicare Advantage program. The post occurred about two weeks after CMS released the 2025 Notice of Medicare Advantage and Part D payment changes, which the agency estimated would result in a -0.16% revenue change without an increase in risk scores. Tuffin wrote that “it is essential that funding keep pace to ensure stability and prevent erosion in the benefits and affordability seniors count on in Medicare Advantage.” He cited an ATI Advisory report from March 2023 that found MA enrollees save an average of $2,400 annually compared with fee-for-service Medicare members, as well as a January AHIP report that found the MA population “is both more diverse and lower income than enrollees in fee-for-service Medicare.”

This week, a growing chorus of criticism from state officials effectively stopped two proposed health insurer combinations in their tracks.

One industry observer says SCAN Group and CareOregon’s now-scuttled deal, as well as Elevance Health, Inc.’s beleaguered bid to purchase Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana, offer valuable lessons for companies hoping to combine in the future.

“In both cases, the organizations proposing the merger spent over a year trying to convince stakeholders that the deal was a good thing, and after multiple efforts to generate support for the decision, gave up when that support did not materialize,” Michael Abrams, managing partner of the consulting firm Numerof & Associates, tells AIS Health, a division of MMIT.

Seniors who experienced fluctuations in eligibility for Medicare Part D’s low-income subsidy (LIS) spent more money on prescription drugs and filled fewer prescriptions overall, according to new research published in JAMA Health Forum. While researchers said questions remain about whether these temporary losses can impact medication adherence and health outcomes — particularly among non-white seniors — policymakers should consider streamlining LIS eligibility systems to reduce administrative barriers.

In 2023, 13.4 million Part D beneficiaries received full or partial LIS benefits. The program provides assistance with paying premiums and deductibles, and it reduces any post-deductible cost sharing for beneficiaries. The majority of LIS beneficiaries are “deemed,” meaning they are automatically enrolled in the program based on dual eligibility with Medicaid and/or enrollment in a Medicare Savings Program (MSP). (This also includes non-duals who receive Supplemental Security Income.) But 17% of LIS beneficiaries are “nondeemed,” meaning they are not enrolled in Medicaid or an MSP and must apply for LIS themselves. All LIS beneficiaries undergo annual redeterminations, but the process for deemed beneficiaries is automatic, leaving the nondeemed population to face potential administrative challenges and unnecessary coverage loss.

Most states have authority to review premium rates for comprehensive, Affordable Care Act-compliant health plans in the individual and small group markets, while only a few have such authority in the large group market, according to an analysis published by the Georgetown University Center on Health Insurance Reforms. Additionally, the analysis found that while a “healthy minority of states” have the authority to question the rates that insurers negotiate with providers and suppliers, many struggle to actually do so.

The ACA, enacted in 2010, established the health insurance rate review program that requires the review and disclosure of “unreasonable” rate increases. As of August 2023, 43 states have authority to review and require changes to or disapprove proposed rates in the individual market, whereas only 26 states had such authority in 2010. Eight states — Arizona, California, Idaho, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, Texas and Wisconsin — have authority to require insurers to review proposed rates in the individual market, but they cannot require changes or disapprove the rates. Thirty-eight states currently have prior authority over rates in the small group market.

Although a “healthy minority” of states have the authority to conduct enhanced reviews of proposed premium rates — in which they evaluate the rates that health insurers negotiate with providers — just a small handful are doing so, according to a new analysis.

A variety of barriers are preventing state regulators from fully flexing their rate-review muscles, including industry opposition, according to one of the researchers who produced the analysis. And although that opposition historically has included insurers, there’s an argument to be made that the sector should change its tune.

“I think the health plans should embrace this kind of regulation, because when you look at the hospital sector and how increasingly consolidated it is, and how so many hospitals and health systems are using their market power to demand ever-higher reimbursement rates in the commercial market…health plans are really powerless to push back, because these hospitals are must-have participating providers” in health plan networks, says Sabrina Corlette, co-director of Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms (CHIR).

In two recent proposals, CMS outlines numerous changes to technical aspects of the Medicare Part D program — many of which are related to provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that restructured the Part D benefit phases. Sources tell AIS Health, a division of MMIT, that the proposals could have both positive and negative effects on Part D plan sponsors and beneficiaries and will likely attract a bevy of industry feedback.

The documents in question are the 2025 Advance Notice of payment changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D plans and the Draft 2025 Part D Redesign Program Instructions. While the Advance Notice is unveiled around the same time every year, the draft Part D redesign instructions are being issued to help implement provisions of the IRA that make major changes to the structure of the Part D benefit.

As health care costs continue to rise, Congress may take up site-neutral payment reform or other cost control measures in coming years, if a Jan. 31 House of Representatives hearing is any indication. The House recently passed a bill, the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act (LCMTA), that includes limited site neutrality and PBM reforms, but some Congress members floated more aggressive cost-control interventions in the health care system — including tougher scrutiny on Medicare Advantage plans.

During the Jan. 31 hearing, the leaders of the House Energy & Commerce’s Health subcommittee — chairman Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) and ranking member Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) — both said that the LCMTA didn’t go far enough to control costs.