From the Capitol Hill front, STAT News provides more information on the Senate Democrats’ drug pricing proposal
The text released Wednesday is similar to a sweeping package that passed the House last year — it would allow Medicare to negotiate prices with drugmakers, it would protect seniors from especially exorbitant drug costs, and it would discourage drugmakers from raising their prices dramatically.
There are some notable changes that will affect when patients see savings, how the drug development pipeline works, how certain patients will pay for insulin, and how the new prices would affect safety-net programs and Medicaid.
The Washington Examiner emphasizes The proposal * * * lacks language included in the lower chamber’s bill that would cap insulin prices for people with diabetes at $35 a month.”
The STAT News article adds
Senate Democrats are taking a gamble and removing all of the provisions that would have lowered patients’ insulin prices out of the bill, to allow a separate, bipartisan effort led by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) to advance.
Now, the HHS secretary would still be allowed to negotiate insulin prices, but only within the parameters and limits of the regular process. Shaheen and Collins’ bill relies on drugmakers voluntarily lowering their prices in exchange for banning rebates for the products.
The brand drug lobby PhRMA blasted the out-of-pocket cost changes, claiming that “Democrats weakened protections for patient costs included in previous versions, while doubling down on sweeping government price-setting policies.”
From the Omicron and siblings’ front
STAT News reports
Six months after regulators issued an emergency use authorization for Paxlovid, physicians say they still have significant questions about prescribing guidelines for the leading treatment for high-risk Covid patients.
STAT spoke with providers who said they and their colleagues aren’t on the same page about when to prescribe Paxlovid or the criteria that separates those who need it from those who do not. They also said it is unclear whether they can give a second course when patients test positive again after taking Paxlovid, a phenomenon known as a rebound. And nearly all the experts who spoke with STAT said that they are clamoring for more data on rebounds, which is complicating and sometimes changing their calculus about when to give the drug.
“There is a real dearth of evidence right now out there, and obviously there’s a lot of confusion,” said Jonathan Li, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and virology researcher at Harvard Medical School who is also a member of the Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel. “And even amongst people who are immersed in the literature, and who are infectious disease experts, you’ll see actually a fairly wide range in opinions.” * * *
“Pretty much everybody meets the EUA criteria. They made it very, very, very broad,” said David Smith, a professor, physician, and virology researcher at the University of California, San Diego. In a single week in May, over 160,000 Paxlovid prescriptions were filled.
Physicians generally agree that certain high-risk patients — including people who are unvaccinated or those over 65 with multiple comorbidities — should always be prescribed the drug. But the broader eligibility makes it difficult for some physicians to decide who should or should not receive Paxlovid. A child is not likely to need it, but what about a healthy 50-year-old man? A 65-year-old woman? The experts STAT spoke with didn’t agree.
MedPage Today informs us
According to Lawrence Kleinman, MD, MPH, of the department of pediatrics at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Jersey, we need to take our time in defining long COVID, whether it’s with a checklist, an algorithm, or an entry for the medical dictionary.
“If we defined it a certain way and we missed something in that initial definition, then there will be silence on that until someone comes around and does a postmortem on our analysis,” Kleinman, who is also the lead researcher in the Rutgers pediatric hub of the NIH’s nationwide RECOVER study, told MedPage Today. “We want to avoid that to the extent that’s possible.”
He said more research and data collection are needed before the work of defining long COVID is possible in a clinically meaningful way. At the moment, he noted, there isn’t even clear criteria for where to start.
For example, should researchers focus on setting a specific number of days a person experiences fatigue after an acute COVID infection? If so, what should those ranges look like — fatigue after 30 days? As he pointed out, there are not enough data to develop the foundational elements needed for researchers to piece together a practical definition just yet.
Nothing is simple.
From the Medicare front, the American Hospital Association reports
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services today released its calendar year 2023 proposed rule for the physician fee schedule. The rule proposes to cut the conversion factor to $33.08 in CY 2023, as compared to $34.61 in CY 2022, which reflects the following: the expiration of the 3% statutory payment increase; a 0.00% conversion factor update; and a budget-neutrality adjustment. In addition, CMS proposes to delay for one year (until Jan. 1, 2024) the implementation of its policy to define the substantive portion of a split (or shared) visit based on the amount of time spent by the billing practitioner. Under this policy, if a non-physician practitioner performed at least half of an E/M visit and billed for it, Medicare would only pay 85% of the PFS rate.
CMS proposes numerous policy changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program. For example, it would modify the manner in which accountable care organizations’ benchmarks are calculated to help sustain long-term participation and reduce costs. It also would provide increased flexibility for certain smaller ACOs to share in savings. The rule also proposes updates to MSSP quality-measurement policies, including a new health equity adjustment that would award bonus points to ACOs serving higher proportions of underserved or dually-eligible beneficiaries.
For the Quality Payment Program, CMS proposes five new, optional Merit-based Incentive Payment System Value Pathways that would be available beginning in 2023. These MVPs align the reporting requirements of the four MIPS performance categories around specific clinical specialties, medical conditions or episodes of care. CMS also proposes refinements to the MIPS subgroup reporting process, an increase to the quality data completeness threshold, and changes to the requirements and scoring of the Promoting Interoperability category. The proposed rule also includes requests for input on policy ideas for advancing health equity and transitioning to digital quality measurement.
Comments are due Sept. 7.
CMS adds
For a fact sheet on the CY 2023 Physician Fee Schedule proposed rule, please visit:https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/calendar-year-cy-2023-medicare-physician-fee-schedule-proposed-rule
For a fact sheet on the CY 2023 Quality Payment Program proposed changes, please visit (clicking link downloads zip file): https://qpp-cm-prod-content.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/1972/2023%20Quality%20Payment%20Program%20Proposed%20Rule%20Resources.zip
For a fact sheet on the proposed Medicare Shared Savings Program changes, please visit: https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/calendar-year-cy-2023-medicare-physician-fee-schedule-proposed-rule-medicare-shared-savings-program
For a CMS blog on the proposed behavioral health changes, please visit: https://www.cms.gov/blog/strengthening-behavioral-health-care-people-medicare
To view the CY 2023 Physician Fee Schedule and Quality Payment Program proposed rule, please visit: https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2022-14562/medicare-and-medicaid-programs-calendar-year-2023-payment-policies-under-the-physician-fee-schedule
From the nicotine front, STAT News tells us
The FDA suddenly reversed course this week on its efforts to ban Juul e-cigarette sales, an embarrassing about-face that calls into question the reasoning behind the agency’s initial decision, experts said.
Tuesday evening, the Food and Drug Administration announced it was giving Juul’s application for its vaping products a second look because of “scientific issues … that warrant additional review.” The move came less than two weeks after the FDA made international headlines for ordering all of the vaping giant’s products off the market, prompting praise from lawmakers and advocates alike.
The FDA previously said that Juul “did not provide [sufficient] evidence and instead left us with significant questions,” which prevented the agency from granting its application. But now, it seems, the FDA is acknowledging there is additional information in Juul’s application that regulators didn’t adequately consider.
Ruh-roh.
From the women’s healthcare front —
Employee Benefit News reports
Fertility benefits and family-building programs have become table stakes for employers looking to support their workforce, but an increasing number of providers and employees are working to offer care during the next stage of reproductive health: menopause.
Nine out of 10 working women said menopause affects their work performance, according to a survey by AARP, which estimates that companies lose $150 billion a year in lost productivity as a result. Yet, 99% of women in the U.S. don’t have access to an employer-sponsored menopause care benefit.
“This is an area that nobody has really focused on, and there isn’t much out there available for employees,” says Maya Bodinger, vice president of business development at P.volve. “The menopause transition can be anywhere from four years to 12. This is not just a year or two like how we traditionally think about reproductive health.”
MedPage reports
Cesarean deliveries have increased in the U.S. over the last few years, driven by a rise in patients who underwent first-time C-sections, according to a CDC report.
While the rate of primary C-sections fluctuated from 2016 to 2019, it increased from 2019 to 2021 among women in all age groups, reported Michelle Osterman, MHS, of the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics.
The primary cesarean rate reached 22.4% in 2021, Osterman wrote in Vital Statistics Rapid Release.
The repeat cesarean rate, however, which captures patients who have multiple procedures, steadily decreased by around 1% each year from 2016 to 2021 (87.6% to 85.9%), Osterman noted. Repeat cesarean delivery rates decreased specifically for women ages 25 to 39, those who identified as white or Hispanic, and those with full- or late-term pregnancies.
The increase in overall C-sections likely would have been higher if not for the decrease in repeat procedures, she said.
“Because 7 to 9 out of 10 pregnant folks with a prior cesarean will have a repeat cesarean, we can anticipate an overall climb in the overall cesarean delivery rate for the years ahead,” Kjersti Aagaard, MD, PhD, an ob/gyn at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, told MedPage Today.
Finally, the FEHBlog notes that benefits consultant Tammy Flanagan has released the second part of her three-part story on a typical federal employee’s experience with the federal government’s retirement process. The report appears in Govexec.