Provider

Radar On Market Access: Upheld Transparency Rule Is Slated to Reshape Payer-Provider Negotiations

July 9, 2020

In another blow to an industry already beleaguered by the COVID-19 pandemic, a federal judge recently upheld a federal rule that requires hospitals to engage in unprecedented price transparency measures, AIS Health reported.

The rule would require hospitals to disclose the rates they negotiate with payers for all items and services they offer. It is slated to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2021, but the American Hospital Association (AHA) and other trade groups and health systems sued to block it.

In another blow to an industry already beleaguered by the COVID-19 pandemic, a federal judge recently upheld a federal rule that requires hospitals to engage in unprecedented price transparency measures, AIS Health reported.

The rule would require hospitals to disclose the rates they negotiate with payers for all items and services they offer. It is slated to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2021, but the American Hospital Association (AHA) and other trade groups and health systems sued to block it.

The crux of the plaintiffs’ argument in American Hospital Association v. Azar is that CMS exceeded its authority by redefining the “standard charges” that hospitals must disclose under the Affordable Care Act to include negotiated rates. But in a decision issued June 23, U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols determined that CMS’s interpretation of the statute was reasonable.

The AHA has already appealed the decision, and depending on how the D.C. Circuit Court rules on that appeal, the case could make it to the Supreme Court, says David Kaufman, a partner at Laurus Law Group LLC.

“Insurers today actually do have a pretty good sense of how hospitals are charging, but this is going to be a quantum leap forward for them in understanding the strategy that hospitals take in negotiating across insurance markets,” Dan Mendelson, founder of Avalere Health says regarding what will happen if the rule does take effect.

However, “the insurer will have more information, but I question whether they will have more leverage,” Mendelson says. “I think over time what this [rule] is likely to do is to drive more consistency in pricing — not necessarily lower prices across the board.”

Kaufman observes that the disclosure of hospitals’ negotiated rates may not have a uniform impact across different types of insurers.

“In certain ways, it’s a procompetitive kind of rule by providing more transparency,” he says. “However, large established insurers that have the advantage of broad networks with lower prices based on their large membership benefit by keeping their prices confidential. It helps them with providing better prices to large employers, etc. So by making those prices more transparent, it might ease barriers to entry [for] other insurers.”

Perspectives on MedImpact’s New Program to Accelerate Pharmacogenomics

July 9, 2020

With precision medicine an increasingly hot topic in health care, MedImpact is betting that a newly launched program — which reviews every drug prescribed to patients against their genetic profile — will simultaneously give the PBM a competitive edge and improve care, AIS Health reported.

In a Feb. 26 press release, MedImpact describes its new program as the industry’s first “any drug, any time, any prescriber” approach to pharmacogenomics (PGx).

With precision medicine an increasingly hot topic in health care, MedImpact is betting that a newly launched program — which reviews every drug prescribed to patients against their genetic profile — will simultaneously give the PBM a competitive edge and improve care, AIS Health reported.

In a Feb. 26 press release, MedImpact describes its new program as the industry’s first “any drug, any time, any prescriber” approach to pharmacogenomics (PGx).

“Pharmacogenetics, in the most basic sense, is looking at someone’s genes to determine their drug-metabolizing enzymes,” explains Emily Cicali, a clinical assistant professor at the University of Florida’s College of Pharmacy. For people who have lower levels of drug-metabolizing enzymes, certain medications may be less effective or ineffective, and for those have too much of those enzymes, that could overactivate drugs and “put people at risk for toxicity,” Cicali adds.

The concept of a PBM having a PGx program isn’t new, MedImpact acknowledges in its release. But up until now, most PGx programs generally operated along the lines of “one gene being tested for one drug at one point in time” to determine if there’s a potential conflict, says Karen Geary, the company’s vice president of strategy and innovation. MedImpact’s program, however, screens for genetic interactions with more than 240 commonly prescribed medications and then reviews all future prescriptions for potential drug-gene issues.

Michael Schneider, a principal at Avalere Health, says that if a program like MedImpact’s is able to significantly avert problems like adverse drug events, “then I think this type of analysis could have a big impact on the PBM industry and potentially become the standard of care.”

However, if genetic testing becomes more commonplace across wider swaths of the population, there could be downsides, he suggests. For example, the expense of large-scale genetic testing might trickle down from plan sponsors to consumers in the form of higher premiums.

Radar On Market Access: Insurers Are Required to Cover Only ‘Medically Necessary’ COVID-19 Tests

July 2, 2020

As more employers turn to COVID-19 testing to see if employees are safe to return to the workplace, the Trump administration has clarified that insurers must cover only physician-ordered “medically necessary” diagnostic and antibody tests, AIS Health reported.

The guidance, released jointly on June 23 by HHS, the Dept. of Labor and the Dept. of the Treasury, also says self-funded employer plans must pay for COVID-19 testing that’s medically appropriate.

As more employers turn to COVID-19 testing to see if employees are safe to return to the workplace, the Trump administration has clarified that insurers must cover only physician-ordered “medically necessary” diagnostic and antibody tests, AIS Health reported.

The guidance, released jointly on June 23 by HHS, the Dept. of Labor and the Dept. of the Treasury, also says self-funded employer plans must pay for COVID-19 testing that’s medically appropriate.

“Testing conducted to screen for general workplace health and safety (such as employee ‘return to work’ programs), for public health surveillance for SARS-CoV-2, or for any other purpose not primarily intended for individualized diagnosis or treatment of COVID-19 or another health condition is beyond the scope” of the requirements embedded in the legislation approved by Congress earlier this year that requires insurers to pay for COVID-19 testing, the FAQ document said.

“I think now that [the insurers] have had this clarification, they’re going to use that as part of their determination of coverage,” Ashraf Shehata, KPMG national sector leader for health care and life sciences, tells AIS Health.

Richard Hughes IV, managing director at Avalere Health, says that it’s possible to argue that Congress intended insurers to cover all tests for their members, regardless of whether a physician ordered them, whether the person was symptomatic, or whether the test was needed to return to work.

However, Hughes says it’s also possible to argue that Congress gave CMS the authority to implement these testing requirements with some restrictions. “There could be tremendous variability across payers’ approaches to coverage policy and how they process claims,” he says.

In fact, many insurers already have moved to limit testing coverage in some ways, although their policies are fluid and have been updated frequently, says Danielle Showalter, principal at Avalere.

Individuals whose plans will not cover a test can turn to what Shehata calls the “retail model,” which is direct-to-consumer COVID-19 testing sites that don’t require a health care provider’s permission. Costs vary for this type of testing, which generally wouldn’t be covered by insurance unless the person is symptomatic.

Radar On Market Access: CMS Proposes New Medicaid Best Price Rules for Pricey Therapies

June 30, 2020

In an effort to boost adoption and lower costs for curative therapies, CMS proposed a new rule that the agency says would allow state Medicaid plans to enter into value-based, outcome-dependent purchasing agreements with drug manufacturers using a new interpretation of best price rules, AIS Health reported.

CMS proposed an updated interpretation of Medicaid “best price” rules by clarifying best price reporting requirements and enabling new structures including year-to-year scheduled prices that could change in relation to patient outcomes.

In an effort to boost adoption and lower costs for curative therapies, CMS proposed a new rule that the agency says would allow state Medicaid plans to enter into value-based, outcome-dependent purchasing agreements with drug manufacturers using a new interpretation of best price rules, AIS Health reported.

CMS proposed an updated interpretation of Medicaid “best price” rules by clarifying best price reporting requirements and enabling new structures including year-to-year scheduled prices that could change in relation to patient outcomes.

New curative therapies present a novel financial challenge for payers. Curative therapies eliminate the need for intensive treatment of chronic and terminal conditions, which create substantial savings for payers, patients and providers alike.

However, their high up-front cost is borne by payers and patients, and the initial payer may not see the entire financial benefit of the curative therapy. What’s more, under a traditional payment model, insurers are unable to recoup costs if a new, experimental therapy with curative potential has limited effect.

In order to spread risk and value across all stakeholders involved, some drug benefit industry leaders have called for broad adoption of the value-based pricing methods CMS’s proposed rule seeks to create, backed by a reinsurance mechanism.

Avalere Health principal Mike Schneider tells AIS Health that, although CMS’s proposal does not include a reinsurance mechanism, it should advance adoption of curative therapies. He says that, as they are currently implemented, Medicaid’s best price rules have made it difficult for commercial payers to negotiate with drug manufacturers to include outcomes and proof of concept in purchasing agreements.

Though the proposed rule applies directly to state Medicaid plans, Schneider says that the rule could have a substantial impact on the commercial market as plans bidding on Medicaid contracts gain experience with the new paradigm.

Still, barriers remain in adopting new curative therapies. Drug Channels Institute CEO Adam Fein points out that the rule does not address the challenge presented by copay accumulators to patients who might benefit from expensive, new specialty drugs — which suggests the rule might not speed up curative therapy adoption as quickly as patients might hope.

Perspectives on COVID-19 Vaccine Rollout

June 25, 2020

The rollout of a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is an unprecedented logistical challenge. So will be deciding who gets it: experts say that the initial vaccine supply will not be large enough to dose everyone who wants it — and payers and PBMs will have a large role to play in distributing the medicine to the right people quickly.

David Simchi-Levi, Ph.D., a systems engineer who studies manufacturing and supply chain at MIT, tells AIS Health that it’s inevitable that vaccine supply will not meet demand when it is available. “The question will be, who gets it?” he says.

The rollout of a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is an unprecedented logistical challenge. So will be deciding who gets it: experts say that the initial vaccine supply will not be large enough to dose everyone who wants it — and payers and PBMs will have a large role to play in distributing the medicine to the right people quickly.

David Simchi-Levi, Ph.D., a systems engineer who studies manufacturing and supply chain at MIT, tells AIS Health that it’s inevitable that vaccine supply will not meet demand when it is available. “The question will be, who gets it?” he says.

Mike Schneider, a principal at Avalere Health and a former executive at CVS Health Corp.’s Caremark PBM, says that given the likely scarcity of the vaccine, areas hardest hit by COVID-19 should be the focus of the initial supply.

“I think the payers will probably try to stay out of the way as much as possible, and let local laws determine who can get a vaccine and probably local health departments determine who can get the vaccine before others,” Schneider says. He adds that payers should also use prior authorization matched to FDA guidance to ensure the right people are dosed.

When a vaccine is available, Schneider expects retail pharmacies to play a large role in delivery. He cites retail pharmacy chains’ rollout of drive-through SARS-CoV-2 testing and the annual ritual of getting a flu shot from a pharmacist as examples of what delivering the coronavirus vaccine could look like. Along the same lines, he expects primary care practitioners to perform some inoculations.

Even a well-managed rollout will only be a first step. Manufacturing and supply chain concerns will dictate the supply of vaccines available in the U.S. going forward. So will trade, as most medicines are manufactured in China and India. Those countries will certainly want to care for their own citizens as soon as possible, which could delay the release of vaccine here.

Given all that uncertainty, Schneider expects that a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine could be a perennial component of formularies, along the lines of the flu vaccine. Schneider expects that receiving the coronavirus vaccine will be a routine preventive treatment that costs patients little to nothing.

Radar On Market Access: Telehealth Regulation and Reimbursement Issue Sparks Debates

June 25, 2020

Telehealth use has surged during the COVID-19 pandemic, and is likely to remain higher than it was before the crisis on a permanent basis. However, the difficult work of regulating and establishing rate structure for telehealth beyond the COVID-19 pandemic has only just started, AIS Health reported.

On June 17, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held a hearing about how to consolidate the gains in telehealth made necessary by the pandemic.

Telehealth use has surged during the COVID-19 pandemic, and is likely to remain higher than it was before the crisis on a permanent basis. However, the difficult work of regulating and establishing rate structure for telehealth beyond the COVID-19 pandemic has only just started, AIS Health reported.

On June 17, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held a hearing about how to consolidate the gains in telehealth made necessary by the pandemic.

The most important policy decision that Congress must make is on reimbursement. CMS has elected to compensate telehealth visits at the same rate as in-person visits for the duration of the pandemic, but whether that will continue is likely to be decided in the coming weeks. At present, commercial plans have a wide variation in telehealth reimbursement amounts.

Providers will likely oppose setting telehealth reimbursement at rates lower than in-person visits, and experts predict the balance of visits will shift more heavily toward remote consultations going forward.

Yet part of the allure of telehealth for payers and patients is that a remote visit generally costs less than an in-person consultation. The stakes are high for the payer industry: Provider services seem to be the main driver behind higher overall health care spending in the last decade. If telehealth visits account for a meaningful share of overall visits across the industry, a lower rate of reimbursement will make a big difference in lowering costs.

The other major regulatory challenge for telehealth is provider licensing. State medical boards exercise control over whether a clinician can practice in their state, and it is typically illegal for a practitioner licensed in one state to care for patients in another.

“We think the best way to handle [state licensure] is through a compact,” said Krista Drobac, the executive director of the Alliance for Connected Care, during a session at America’s Health Insurance Plans’ Institute & Expo. “We would like to see licensure reciprocity or mutual recognition, what we refer to as licensure portability.…Congress can’t step in and take over licensing — that’s just not a federal responsibility.”

Yet Avalere Health founder Dan Mendelson takes a different view. “The licensure issues are problematic. The Congress needs to act more aggressively to make it easier to deliver telemedicine in the United States,” he says.