Proposed Rule Brings Fair Reimbursement One Step Closer
Published Online: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012
Expected to save taxpayers billions over the next 5 years, the proposed rule would sync reimbursement with what pharmacies actually pay.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a proposed rule that could save the federal-state Medicaid program $17.7 billion over a 5-year period. The program will change how states reimburse pharmacies for drugs that they purchase for Medicaid patients. Rather than reimbursing states for the drugs based on pharmaceutical company list prices, states would reimburse pharmacies based on the price they paid for the medicines. This idea is based on an existing program that has been used successfully in Alabama.
The CMS proposed rule also includes language that would allow the federal government to help states determine the wholesale price for drugs by creating a national database of wholesale drug prices. Additionally, the rule would increase what drug companies currently pay states for purchased drugs, and drugs purchased through the Medicaid managed care program would be covered by the rebates. The proposed changes were called for in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
“There’s a rich history of individual pharmaceutical companies getting nailed in court for defrauding state governments in pricing,” says Matt Salo, director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. The lack of transparency makes it difficult for states that are trying to reduce their pharmaceutical bills.
States have taken a number of actions to reduce prescription drugs expense, including promoting generic medications for patients on Medicaid and limiting beneficiaries’ refills or prescriptions. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that almost every state took action last year to decrease spending on prescription drugs.
For pharmacists, this rule could mean fair reimbursement, but until the details are known, pharmacists should keep an eye on this bill. Specifically, pharmacists will want to watch the filing requirements and processes proposed to implement this program and keep in touch with their state representatives as this moves into regulatory review. In addition, starting February 2, 2012, this Proposed Rule can be viewed on the Federal Register Web site. The public comment period ends April 2, 2012, and CMS plans to issue a final rule in 2013.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a proposed rule that could save the federal-state Medicaid program $17.7 billion over a 5-year period. The program will change how states reimburse pharmacies for drugs that they purchase for Medicaid patients. Rather than reimbursing states for the drugs based on pharmaceutical company list prices, states would reimburse pharmacies based on the price they paid for the medicines. This idea is based on an existing program that has been used successfully in Alabama.
The CMS proposed rule also includes language that would allow the federal government to help states determine the wholesale price for drugs by creating a national database of wholesale drug prices. Additionally, the rule would increase what drug companies currently pay states for purchased drugs, and drugs purchased through the Medicaid managed care program would be covered by the rebates. The proposed changes were called for in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
“There’s a rich history of individual pharmaceutical companies getting nailed in court for defrauding state governments in pricing,” says Matt Salo, director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. The lack of transparency makes it difficult for states that are trying to reduce their pharmaceutical bills.
States have taken a number of actions to reduce prescription drugs expense, including promoting generic medications for patients on Medicaid and limiting beneficiaries’ refills or prescriptions. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that almost every state took action last year to decrease spending on prescription drugs.
For pharmacists, this rule could mean fair reimbursement, but until the details are known, pharmacists should keep an eye on this bill. Specifically, pharmacists will want to watch the filing requirements and processes proposed to implement this program and keep in touch with their state representatives as this moves into regulatory review. In addition, starting February 2, 2012, this Proposed Rule can be viewed on the Federal Register Web site. The public comment period ends April 2, 2012, and CMS plans to issue a final rule in 2013.
James (Jim) M Giddens February 7th, 2012 08:02:4608:46:17 PM
This could be the first bill I have seen to help level the playing field for the independents and small chains. I am concerened of the wording "wholesale price". That term has been use forever and is more like the MRSP for a car, nobody pays that, but the little guys (Pharmacies) may much closer to it that the big boys. At least this bill appears to be based on the true cost to the pharmacacy and not simply cut the retail price of ever pharmacy to the patient(customer). The independent already has only crums to be cut. I am a retired pharmacist who operated my own pharmacies for 25 years and worked for the big boys for about 15 years. I receive a few thousand dollars on a class action law suit agains manufacturers back around 1990, it did very little if anything to change the picture overall.
Katherine Chase February 8th, 2012 07:02:5207:52:48 AM
I agree with Mr. Giddens, this bill seems to at least begin addressing the issue. The large corporation pharmacies have always had better buying power and the ability to negotiate directly with drug manufacturers. Independent pharmacies are left to take whatever the wholesaler charges and the 3rd party pays. And, yes, crumbs is a very good analogy. As for a national database of prices, lets hope they realize that not all meds are available in all states, ie; what brand or NDC of a generic available at an excellent price in California may not be available in Kentucky. So unless it is available to all, reimbursement based on that cost is still unfair. And, what about the mail order pharmacies or large chain pharmacies getting special NDC package sizes or better fees. Not a fair playing field.
I have been a pharmacist for 28 years, and am the new owner of an independent pharmacy since 8-1-11, my 4th pharmacy; beginning to wonder about this choice.
I have been a pharmacist for 28 years, and am the new owner of an independent pharmacy since 8-1-11, my 4th pharmacy; beginning to wonder about this choice.
Sandy Grayson February 10th, 2012 06:02:4606:46:21 PM
The government needs to stop taking services from Medical Care recipients in the name of saving money. I think we forget who these things affect and find a better way. Like reducing retail pharmacy profits.
Steve Miller February 14th, 2012 10:02:5810:58:36 AM
Reducing retail pharmacy profits? Certainly not on professional fees in the range of $2 - $5 per prescription, something that has never approached inflation percentages, medical care or otherwise. Ask any retail pharmacy trying to survive on prescription dispensing.
Van G. Coble February 20th, 2012 10:02:4710:47:11 PM
As I have stated in other forums and possibly to about anyone who would listen, until pharmacy can get to a unified, realistic cost basis we will continue to be screwed. My current thought is to use wholesale invoice cost (WIC). It is easily auditable and I believe PBMs know within a narrow margin (+/-) what our cost is. WAC, AWP, average aquisition cost, or anything else is not real. Advantages to pharmacies; a. this would negate MAC lists b. it would make wholesalers more honest in their pricing to pharmacies c. rebates would become more valuable.
Many years ago our pharmacy fore fathers led us down the wrong path by demanding reimbursement based on AWP. It did not take too long for insurance/PBMs and government entities to see through the ruse. Now the path is leading us to "business hell".
Many years ago our pharmacy fore fathers led us down the wrong path by demanding reimbursement based on AWP. It did not take too long for insurance/PBMs and government entities to see through the ruse. Now the path is leading us to "business hell".
Your comments are valuable to us. Thank you.

American Journal of Managed Care
American Journal of Pharmacy Benefits
HCPLive
ONCLive
OTCGuide
PainLive
Pharmacy Times
Physician's Money Digest
American Journal of Pharmacy Benefits
HCPLive
ONCLive
OTCGuide
PainLive
Pharmacy Times
Physician's Money Digest
Intellisphere, LLC
666 Plainsboro Road
Building 300
Plainsboro, NJ 08536
P: 609-716-7777
F: 609-716-4747
Copyright HCPLive 2006-2011
Intellisphere, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
666 Plainsboro Road
Building 300
Plainsboro, NJ 08536
P: 609-716-7777
F: 609-716-4747
Copyright HCPLive 2006-2011
Intellisphere, LLC. All Rights Reserved.




Email
Print


