Earlier this month, the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary published the final rule for state importation of prescription drugs from Canada. To receive federal approval for their Section 804 importation programs (SIPs), the six states with laws enabling importation (VT, FL, ME, CO, NM, and NH) must meet the rule’s safety and cost-savings requirements and also navigate the rule’s implementation challenges.
While HHS made some of the states’ requested changes in the rule’s final version, such as giving states the flexibility to designate the agency responsible for administering a SIP, several concerns that states raised in their comments on the draft rule to ensure efficient and effective programs, were not reflected in the final rule.
Key among those concerns are issues relating to the role of the “foreign seller” (Canadian wholesaler) that purchases eligible prescription drugs from manufacturers in order to sell to the state “importer” in the United States. The final rule specifies that a SIP may work with just one foreign seller initially. Though the logic of the rule is to maintain a tight supply chain, limiting SIPs to just one foreign seller creates the risk that a manufacturer opposed to state importation may cut off its supplies to a single foreign seller that would be easily identified due to its increased demand for prescription drugs to supply a SIP.
Limiting SIPs to one foreign seller may also preempt normal forces of market competition that would otherwise help states maximize savings from importation.
Additionally, though the final rule gives states up to six months to identify a foreign seller after submitting their importation program applications to HHS, states may still be required to identify their foreign seller prior to federal approval of their SIPs. States had requested that the step of identifying a foreign seller come after program approval because foreign sellers may not choose to participate in a program that has not yet gained federal approval, especially when their participation may put them in a drug manufacturer’s crosshairs.
The final rule is scheduled to go into effect Nov. 30, 2020 – at which time a legal challenge from drug manufacturers is widely anticipated. Despite states’ request, the final rule did not include a severability clause – a provision that allows a law to stand even if a portion of the law is struck down by the courts. As a result, the federal framework for Canadian importation is vulnerable to being struck down if drug manufacturers successfully challenge even a minor provision of the rule.
Determined to achieve savings on prescription drugs for consumers despite the challenges presented by the final rule, states are continuing to do the groundwork necessary to design effective SIPs. For example, earlier this month, both Colorado and New Mexico convened stakeholder meetings in order to share information, solicit feedback, and answer questions. Four states – Vermont, Colorado, Maine, and Florida – had already submitted SIP applications for federal approval prior to publication of the final federal rule in order to meet timelines specified in their state statutes.
Florida issued an “Invitation to Negotiate” (ITN) to start the process of contracting with a vendor for a $30 million, three-year contract to manage its SIP. That contract was scheduled to be awarded in December 2020, however, Florida withdrew the ITN last week because no organizations responded to the ITN. While Florida sought a single contractor to fill multiple roles required to implement its SIP, Colorado, which is currently designing its own ITN for release in December, is taking an alternate approach by allowing diverse roles to be fill by multiple contractors as needed. The fact that Florida’s importation program is limited to public payers may have also made the contract less appealing to bidders from a market perspective, whereas Colorado’s program is directed at the commercial market. Florida also released its ITN prior to publication of the final federal rule, another consideration that may have inhibited potential respondents.
The National Academy for State Health Policy is continuing to work with states to advance their SIP plans and will provide updates about their progress.
Six states with laws enabling the importation of prescription drugs from Canada – Vermont, Florida, Maine, Colorado, New Mexico, and New Hampshire – are awaiting publication of federal rules currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget.
They are eager to see if the final rules address key concerns submitted by the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) in late March on the proposed rule, published in December 2019. In order to enable effective implementation of the program, states raised several concerns and requested changes, including:
- Giving states the flexibility to determine the most appropriate state agency in which to house a state importation program (SIP);
- Removal of the requirement that states must execute contracts with program partners prior to obtaining federal approval for a SIP; and
- An extension of the initial SIP program terms beyond two years.
In order to capture the savings promised by importation of drugs from Canada – where prices on commonly used drugs can be up to 80 percent lower than in the United States – states are requesting changes to ensure those savings can be passed to consumers. State officials fear the savings could be “absorbed” by several proposed requirements that experts contend are not necessary to maintain program safety – but appear certain to eat into savings that states are hoping to pass on to consumers.
For example, states are requesting removal of the requirement that all sampling, testing, and relabeling of imported drugs occur within the confines of a foreign trade zone or port – a geographic restriction that could prove costly to states without providing any additional safety.
Other changes states requested include permitting drugs to be re-labeled and repackaged in Canada – a change that would also provide a welcome financial incentive for Canada to support importation given that it has otherwise expressed reluctance to do so. Finally, in order to ensure a competitive marketplace, states requested authority to contract with multiple foreign sellers rather than just one – the current limit in the proposed rule.
While Vermont, Colorado, Maine, and Florida have submitted applications for federal approval for their SIPs according to timelines laid out in their state’s statutes, only Florida has issued an “Invitation to Negotiate” to begin the process of contracting with a vendor for a $30 million, three-year contract to manage its SIP. That contract is scheduled to be awarded in December 2020.
Florida’s SIP program design contains some important differences compared to other states’ proposed importation programs. While most states have determined that savings for consumers are likely to be greatest in the commercial sector and have designed their SIPs accordingly, Florida chose to limit its initial SIP to only public payers, such as Medicaid and its Department of Corrections, which already receive significant discounts and don’t require significant, if any, out-of-pocket spending by individuals. Though Florida’s application includes estimated savings of $150 million from its SIP, it did not include details describing how those savings would translate into consumer savings, which is a requirement for federal approval alongside a demonstration of safety.
Because the Trump Administration has promised quick action on importation along with other drug pricing initiatives, it is widely expected that rules will be finalized before the December timeline reflected in the Federal Register. States are eager to see if the final rules will reflect the states’ much-needed changes critical to allowing states to safely import drugs from Canada while delivering on the promise of cost-savings to consumers.
As prescription drug price increases greatly outpace inflation and new specialty drugs priced in the millions of dollars enter the market, several states have led the way as early adopters of drug price transparency legislation and are taking the first steps to curb costs with the help of transparent drug pricing information.
A new National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) report, What Are We Learning from State Reporting on Drug Pricing?, offers a cross-state analysis of drug price transparency findings through August 2019, based on reports from California, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Vermont. States are:
- Learning which drugs cost the most – and are the best targets for focused strategies;
- Tracking the percentage of health premiums attributed to drug spending – and identifying opportunities to leverage reporting on drug spending, such as implementing spending caps; and
- Beginning to capture information on net price – and profit – along the supply chain to inform fair and balanced policy approaches to ensure affordability.
Honing in on the Costliest Drugs to Take Action Where It Matters Most
States with transparency laws are identifying the drugs creating the greatest affordability challenges for both payers and consumers. State transparency laws require gathering data from a variety of sources, including through required reporting by public and private health plans (California, Oregon, Vermont), or through all-payer claims databases (Maine), or proprietary databases (Nevada), in order to report lists of:
- The costliest drugs in the state based on price and utilization;
- The drugs with the highest year-over-year cost growth; and
- The most commonly prescribed drugs.
A cross-state analysis of these reports identified 30 drugs that appear in common across drugs reported in three of five states. Many of the drugs reported are used for the treatment of diabetes, including Humalog, Lantus Solar, Novolog, Januvia, Metformin, and Victoza. Multiple drugs for the treatment of arthritis were also identified across states: Stelara, Cosentyx, Enbrel, and Humira.
Identifying the classes of drugs – and specific drugs within those categories – that are creating the greatest affordability challenges can help states hone in on strategies to address drug costs. For example, states working to leverage their purchasing power across agencies are seeking this type of information to guide potential approaches such as bulk purchasing or establishing single preferred drug list. State officials from Nevada have credited their transparency law, initially limited to diabetes medications and since expanded to include asthma medications, with bringing payers to the table to leverage their purchasing power through Nevada’s Silver State Scripts program.
Illuminating the Link between Rising Drug and Insurance Premium Costs
Several states (California, Vermont, and Oregon) require commercial health plans subject to state regulation to submit information on the impact of prescription drug spending on premiums rates. Results shared publicly to date include a range of prescription drug spending accounting for, on average, 13 percent in California, 15.67 percent in Vermont, and up to 18 percent of premiums in Oregon. Tracking prescription drug spending, as part of rate review or other initiatives, represents an important leverage point for states to take action on drug spending. Doing so can enable, for example, monitoring and enforcement of prescription drug spending caps. Several states, including New York, Massachusetts, and Maine, have established caps for drug spending – New York and Massachusetts have the authority to negotiate supplemental rebates to meet their caps while Maine tasks its Drug Affordability Review Board with identifying strategies to meet its voluntary cap on drug spending for public plans.
Uncovering the Factors Driving Up Prices along the Drug Supply Chain
One of the questions at the heart of drug price transparency laws is: What factors are driving high price increases and high launch prices? The only way for a state to determine the actual causes of high drug prices – and the relative profit accrued by players in the supply chain – is by requiring reporting across the entire supply chain, including manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), wholesalers, and health plans. In order to be meaningful, this information must shed light on the net cost of drugs – an otherwise closely guarded secret behind a black box of secret rebate negotiations between manufacturers and PBMs.
Some of the early adopter states, while laying the foundation for future transparency efforts, enacted laws with limitations in terms of their ability to shine a light on net prices or to uncover the interplay between players in the drug supply chain. California, for example, limits manufacturer reporting to information that is already in the public domain. While Nevada did require reporting of some information considered to be trade secrets, and required reporting by both manufacturers and PBMs, the lack of alignment in reporting requirements (e.g., state versus national level) makes it difficult to “follow the money” across the supply chain.
A new wave of tougher state transparency measures, including a 2019 Maine law, An Act To Further Expand Drug Price Transparency, will have the ability to shine a light on net drug prices – and profits – in order to guide fair and effective state policy solutions. The Maine law, based on NASHP’s model legislation, requires reporting by entities across the entire drug supply chain, including manufacturers, PBMs, wholesalers, and health plans.
In addition to establishing reporting requirements with the ability to produce meaningful, actionable data, states must also have the ability to enforce reporting their new requirements. Early efforts at collecting data from manufacturers have yielded imperfect compliance at best. California received data justifying price increase from only one-third of manufacturers required to report, and Nevada recently levied $17.4 million in fines on manufacturers for failure to report in that state. While non-reporters in Nevada face fines up to $5,000 a day, Maine’s new law increases that penalty to up to $30,000 a day.
Taking Action on What Transparency Reveals
As actionable information on net drug prices and profits across the supply chain becomes available, states will use the data to make informed, impactful policy decisions. Though state policymakers are challenged by a number of limits on their authority to regulate drug prices, and meaningful action at the federal level currently remains pending, states are advancing a number of policy options to address drug prices building on what transparency laws are revealing. One model is a state Drug Affordability Review Board (DARB) with the authority to review data on drugs deemed unaffordable, and if warranted, set an upper payment limit for that drug within the state. Transparency data is essential to DARBs and related efforts. Such approaches do not seek to prohibit profit along the supply chain, but to ensure that those profits are reasonably balanced with the need to preserve access to essential drugs by ensuring their affordability.
This report summarizes what states are learning from reporting required by prescription drug price transparency laws, which include reports on data submitted by health insurers, manufacturers, and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). The review period includes reports published by states through August 2019. The National Academy for State Health Policy’s Center for State Rx Drug Pricing, with support from Arnold Ventures, commissioned this analysis from experts affiliated with Mathematica.
This report summarizes what states are learning from reporting required by prescription drug price transparency laws, including reports on data submitted by health insurers, manufacturers, and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). The review period includes reports published by states through August 2019.
Costliest Drugs across States
Five states — California, Nevada, Maine, Oregon and Vermont — have published reports identifying specific drugs that are high cost, for which costs are rising fastest, and/or that are most frequently prescribed. In Nevada, these drugs include only those related to the treatment of diabetes. California, Maine, Oregon, and Vermont reported up to 126 prescription drugs across therapeutic uses. These states reported many of the same drugs—including five drugs used for treatment of diabetes and four drugs used for treatment of psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or rheumatoid arthritis.
Impact on Premiums
California, Vermont, and Oregon have reported impacts of retail prescription drug costs on insurance premiums, averaging 13 percent in California (before accounting for manufacturer rebates, which averaged 10.1 percent of insurers’ retail drug costs) in 2017, 15.67 percent of premiums in Vermont in 2018 (before accounting for rebates), and up to 18 percent of premiums in Oregon (after accounting for rebates) in 2018.
Manufacturer and PBM Reporting
Requiring both manufacturers and PBMs to report allows states to track drug pricing along the supply chain. As of August 2019, only Nevada had publicly reported information about manufacturer and PBM costs, focused on essential diabetes drugs. Nevada’s report indicates that:
- Production costs accounted for 29 percent of manufacturers’ estimated average revenue in 2018 for essential diabetes drugs after rebates. Administrative costs and profit each accounted for 25 percent. On average, manufacturers earned $42 in profits for every $100 spent on production and administrative cost for these drugs.
- Financial assistance to consumers accounted for 14 percent of the manufacturers’ estimated total revenues after rebates, although most manufacturers reported offering no financial assistance.
- Most of the rebates that PBMs in Nevada negotiated nationally for essential diabetes drugs were on behalf of private insurers and self-insured employer plans. PBMs retained 6.6 percent of all rebates, whether negotiated on behalf of private third parties or Medicaid.
The information these states have made public suggests some early lessons:
- States share concerns about the affordability of many of the same drugs. There may be substantial value in sharing information across states with similar confidentiality protections while reducing the burden of redundant reporting to multiple states.
- Understanding pricing across the entire supply chain, from the manufacturer to the consumer, is critical. Reporting that uses consistent concepts and measures can foster mutual understanding of facts among policymakers and stakeholders in a complex system.
- The agency responsible for obtaining data must have the authority and resources to follow up when the data are not complete or credible, if drug transparency laws are to help states develop a fair approach to ensuring that prescription drugs are affordable.
This report summarizes what states are learning from reporting required by prescription drug price transparency laws, including data reported by health insurers, manufacturers, and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). Since 2017, nine states have enacted drug price transparency legislation that requires such reporting.
Five of these states — California, Nevada, Maine, Oregon, and Vermont — have published reports identifying specific drugs that are high cost (defined by total spending), for which costs are rising fastest (defined as year over year increase), and/or that are most frequently prescribed (so represent high consumer exposure). In Nevada, these drugs include only those related to treatment of diabetes. California, Maine, Oregon, and Vermont included prescription drugs across all therapeutic classes. In Section 1, we present the drugs of interest that these states reported and look, in particular, at the 30 drugs of interest reported by at least three of these states.
In Section 2, we describe the impact of drug prices on health insurance premiums, as reported by three states, California, Oregon, and Vermont. These states have published the dollar amounts and/or the percentage of premiums attributed to retail prescription drugs — in California and Vermont, before manufacturer and other rebates and price discounts to insurers; and in Oregon, after rebates and price discounts.
In Section 3, we describe what Nevada is learning from the reporting required of manufacturers and PBMs. Currently, eight states have enacted laws requiring PBMs to report rebate amounts either for specific drugs or in the aggregate. These laws have taken effect in four states (Connecticut, Nevada, Texas, and Washington) as part of each state’s drug pricing transparency effort, but as of August 2019, only Nevada (for specified essential diabetes drugs) had made summary information public.
Reporting of High-Cost, High Cost-Growth, and Most Prescribed Drugs
California, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Vermont have reported drugs that account for high total cost or high cost growth, or because they are frequently prescribed, represent high consumer exposure. Maine derived its lists from analysis of the state’s all-payer claims database (APCD) system; California and Oregon relied on insurer reporting under special statutory authority; and Vermont relied on both insurer and Medicaid reporting. Nevada derived it list of drugs from analysis of a purchased database.
Table 1 lists the number of unique drug names reported in each state. California and Vermont reported the most extensive list of drugs: each reported on more than 120 unique drug names; Nevada, Maine, and Oregon each reported on approximately 50 unique drug names.
Table 1. Number of drugs listed in state public reports, by state
|Reporting state||Reference period||Number of unique drug names reported*|
*The number of unique drugs was developed by merging separate lists of drugs, if the state reported separate lists by reason for reporting and/or by insurer.
Source: Mathematica analysis of data reported in these reports: California Department of Managed Health Care (2018); Maine Health Data Organization (2018); Nevada Department of Health and Human Services (2018b); Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services (2019); and State of Vermont Green Mountain Care Board (2019). See full references at the end of this report.
We matched drugs reported across these states by National Drug Code (NDC) and identified 128 unique NDCs that at least two states selected in common (shown in Appendix 1). The 30 drugs that at least three states selected in common are shown in Table 2.
These 30 drugs span multiple therapeutic classes, but several have similar therapeutic uses. Eight of the drugs are used for treatment of diabetes myelitis — including five drugs, Lantus Solostar, Novolog, Januvia, Metformin, and Victoza, which four of the five states reported in common.
At least three of the four states that did not focus only on essential diabetes drugs — California, Maine, Oregon, and Vermont — selected in common a number of additional drugs that clustered around treatment for asthma (Fluticasone Prop, Ventolin, Proair, and Symbicort); depression (Bupropion Hcl and Sertraline); hepatitis C (Harvoni and Epclusa); multiple sclerosis (Copaxone and Tecfidera); psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and/or rheumatoid arthritis (Stelara, Cosentyx, Enbrel, Humira Syringe, and Humira Pen); and a range of cardiovascular concerns (Eliquis, Xarelto, Hydrochlorothiazide, Atorvastatin).
Table 2. Drugs reported by three or more states, 2017-2018 (in alphabetic order of primary therapeutic use)
|NDC||Drug name||States||Therapeutic class||Primary therapeutic use||Reasons for reporting|
|00054327099||Fluticasone Prop||CA, ME, VT||Respiratory tract agents||Treatment of allergic and non-allergic nasal symptoms; long term management of asthma, COPD||Most frequently prescribed (CA, ME, VT)|
|00173068220||Ventolin||CA, ME, OR, VT||Autonomic drugs; respiratory tract agents||Treatment of asthma, acute bronchitis||Most costly (CA); highest cost increase (CA); most frequently prescribed (CA, ME, OR, VT)|
|59310057922||Proair||CA, ME, OR, VT||Beta-Adrenergic agents||Treatment of asthma, acute bronchitis||Most frequently prescribed (CA, ME, OR, VT)|
|00186037020||Symbicort||CA, ME, VT||Antiasthmatic and bronchodilator agents||Treatment of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)||Most frequently prescribed (ME); most costly (ME, CA); highest price (VT)|
|00003089421||Eliquis||CA, ME, OR||Blood formation, coagulation, and thrombosis agents||Prevention of blood clots/stroke in people with atrial fibrillation.||Most frequently prescribed (ME); highest price increase (CA, ME); most costly (CA, ME)|
|50458057930||Xarelto||CA, ME, VT||Anticoagulants, coumarin type||Treatment/prevention of blood clots||Most costly (CA, ME); highest cost increase (CA, ME, VT)|
|50111078751||Azithromycin||CA, ME, OR||Antibacterials||Treatment of bronchitis; pneumonia, sexually transmitted diseases, and infections of the ears, lungs, sinuses, skin, throat, and reproductive organs.||Most frequently prescribed (CA, ME, VT)|
|45963014205||Bupropion Hcl||CA, VT, OR||Antidepressants||Treatment of depression||Most frequently prescribed (VT); most costly (CA); highest price increase (CA)|
|68180035302||Sertraline||CA, ME, OR, VT||Antidepressants||Treatment of depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), social anxiety disorder, panic disorder||Most frequently prescribed (CA, ME, OR, VT)|
|00002771559||Basaglar (Kwikpen)||ME, NV, OR||Hormones and synthetic substitutes||Treatment of diabetes myelitis type 1 and 2||Highest price increase (ME, NV)|
|00002879959||Humalog (Kwikpen)||ME, NV, OR||Hormones and synthetic substitutes||Treatment of diabetes myelitis type 1||Most costly (CA, ME); highest price increase (CA, ME, NV); most frequently prescribed (CA)|
|00002751001||Humalog||CA, ME, NV, OR||Hormones and synthetic substitutes||Treatment of diabetes myelitis type 1||Most costly (CA, ME, OR); most frequently prescribed (CA); highest price increase (CA, ME, NV)|
|00088221905||Lantus Solostar||CA, ME, NV, VT||Hormones and synthetic substitutes||Treatment of diabetes myelitis type 1 and 2||Most costly (CA, ME); highest price (VT); Most commonly prescribed (ME, VT); highest cost increase (NV)|
|00169633910||Novolog||NV, ME, OR, VT||Hormones and synthetic substitutes||Treatment of diabetes myelitis type 1 and 2||Most costly (ME); highest price (OR, VT); highest cost increase (NV); most frequently prescribed (CA)|
|00006027731||Januvia||CA, ME, NV, VT||Blood glucose regulators||Treatment of diabetes myelitis type 2||Most costly (CA, ME); highest cost increase (CA, ME, VT); most commonly prescribed (CA)|
|Multiple NDCs||Metformin||CA, NV, OR, VT||Blood glucose regulators||Treatment of diabetes myelitis type 2||Most frequently prescribed (CA, OR); highest cost increase (NV, VT); most costly (CA)|
|00169406013||Victoza||CA. ME, NV, VT||Hormones and synthetic substitutes||Treatment of diabetes myelitis type 2||Most costly (CA, ME); highest cost increase (CA, NV); most frequently prescribed (CA); highest price (VT)|
|61958180101||Harvoni||CA, ME, VT||Anti-infective agents||Treatment of hepatitis C||Most costly (CA, ME); highest cost increase (CA); highest price (VT)|
|61958220101||Epclusa||CA, ME, OR, VT||Antivirals||Treatment of hepatitis C||Most costly (CA, ME); highest price (OR, VT); highest cost increase (CA)|
|16729018317||Hydrochlorothiazide||CA, ME, OR, VT||Diuretics||Treatment of high blood pressure, edema, kidney stones||Most frequently prescribed (CA, ME, OR, VT)|
|60505258009||Atorvastatin||CA, ME, OR, VT||Antihyperlipidemics||Treatment of high cholesterol and triglyceride levels||Most frequently prescribed (CA, ME, OR, VT); most costly (CA); highest cost increase (CA)|
|61958200201||Descovy||CA, ME, VT||Antivirals||Treatment of HIV-1||Most costly (CA); highest cost increase (CA, ME, VT); most frequently prescribed (CA)|
|68546032512||Copaxone||CA, ME, OR, VT||Miscellaneous therapeutic agents||Treatment of multiple sclerosis||Most costly (CA, ME); highest cost increase (CA); highest price (OR, VT)|
|64406000602||Tecfidera||CA, ME, OR, VT||Psychotherapeutic and neurological agents – misc.||Treatment of multiple sclerosis||Most costly (CA, ME, OR); highest cost increase (CA); highest price (VT)|
|57894006103||Stelara||CA, ME, VT||Immunological agents||Treatment of plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis||Most costly (CA, ME); highest cost increase (CA, ME, VT); highest price (VT); most frequently prescribed (OR)|
|Multiple NDCs||Cosentyx||CA, ME, OR, VT||Immunological agents||Treatment of plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis||Highest price (VT); most costly (CA); highest cost increase (CA, ME, OR); most frequently prescribed (OR)|
|58406044504||Enbrel||CA, ME, OR, VT||Miscellaneous therapeutic agents||Treatment of plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis||Most costly (ME, CA); highest cost increase (CA, OR, VT); most frequently prescribed (CA, OR); highest cost (VT)|
|00074379902||Humira (Syringe)||CA, ME, OR, VT||Gastrointestinal drugs; miscellaneous therapeutic agents||Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, plaque psoriasis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis||Most costly (CA, ME, OR); highest price (VT); highest cost increase (CA, OR, VT); most frequently prescribed (CA)|
|00074433902||Humira (Pen)||CA, ME, OR, VT||Gastrointestinal drugs; miscellaneous therapeutic agents||Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, plaque psoriasis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis||Most costly (CA, ME, OR); highest price (VT); highest cost increase (CA, OR, VT); most frequently prescribed (CA)|
|69097081412||Gabapentin||CA, ME, OR, VT||Anticonvulsants||Treatment/prevention of seizures, pain||Most frequently prescribed (CA, ME, OR, VT); highest expenditure (CA)|
Source: Mathematica analysis of drug website data and data reported in: California Department of Managed Health Care (2018); Maine Health Data Organization (2018); Nevada Department of Health and Human Services (2018b); Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services (2019); and State of Vermont Green Mountain Care Board (2019).
Impact on Insurance Premiums
Three states — California, Oregon, and Vermont — have reported impacts of rising drug prices on insurance premiums. California reported that insurer payments for retail prescription drugs totaled $8.7 billion in 2017, accounting for 13.1 percent of health plan premiums that year. Specialty drugs accounted for a small minority of prescriptions (1.6 percent), but more than half (51.5 percent) of all insurer spending on retail prescription drugs.
Manufacturer rebates and consumer cost sharing lessened the impact of retail prescription drugs on premiums in California, compared to what it might otherwise have been. Manufacturer rebates to insurers equaled about 10.5 percent ($915 million) of the $8.7 billion insurers spent on retail prescription drugs. Among the 25 most frequently prescribed drugs (representing 42.8 percent of total spending on retail prescription drugs), health plan enrollees paid approximately 3 percent of the cost overall — ranging from 2.9 percent of the cost of specialty drugs to 56.6 percent of the cost of generics. Enrollees paid about 8.8 percent of the cost of the 25 most costly drugs (91.2 percent of total spending on retail prescription drugs) reported by insurers.
Vermont  reported that prescription drugs accounted for 15.67 percent of premium rates in 2018 (before accounting for manufacturer rebates and other price concessions). Expressed as a per member per month (PMPM) amount, that averaged $81.65 PMPM in 2018. Vermont also identified the three drugs contributing the most to premiums: Humira Pen, Harvoni, and Enbrel Sureclick. Specialty drugs as a category contributed most to premium increases, compared with generic or brand name drugs.
Oregon reported the impact of prescription drugs on premium rates PMPM in 2018 after accounting for manufacturer rebates or other price concessions to insurers. Insurers reported impacts that ranged from a low of 2.5 percent of premiums ($13 PMPM, or about $154 per member annually, for one insurer’s small-group plans) to 18 percent of premiums (about $85 PMPM, or more than or $1,000 per member annually, for two insurers’ small group plans, respectively. At the median, prescription drugs accounted for 11.9 percent of the premiums — nearly $53 PMPM in 2018, or about $635 annually.
Manufacturer and PBM Reporting
At present, five states — Nevada, Connecticut, Maine, Texas, and Washington — have enacted laws that require both manufacturers and PBMs to report annually. Manufacturers are required to report information on specified drugs. PBMs are required to report information about the rebates they have obtained from manufacturers — either in the aggregate (for all drugs) or for specified drugs. Requiring both manufacturers and PBMs to report offers the potential for states to track pricing along the supply chain for drugs of interest, if the state aligns the level of information that each must report.
The drug cost transparency reporting requirements in these states are shown in Table 3. Washington will require PBMs to report information for each covered drug—a provision that will enable the Washington Health Care Authority to track prices across the supply chain for each drug. Nevada requests PBM reporting on essential diabetes drugs (collectively), as specifically identified by the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services. Connecticut and Texas will require PBMs to report aggregate rebates obtained across all drugs from pharmaceutical manufacturers. In Maine, the Maine Health Data Organization will adopt rules specifying the data elements to be reported.
Table 3. States that require reporting by both manufacturers and PBMs*
|State||Manufacturers must report:**||PBMs must report:|
|Connecticut||· Total company level research and development costs for the most recent year||· The aggregate dollar amount for all rebates concerning drug formularies that PBM collected from pharmaceutical manufacturers, Including those that manufactured outpatient prescription drugs covered by the health carriers and are attributable to patient utilization of such drugs under the health care plan
· The aggregate dollar amount of all rebates excluding rebates received by health carriers
|Nevada||· Total administrative expenditures (including marketing and advertising costs)
· Profit earned and percentage of total profit attributable to the drug
· Total amount of financial assistance provided through patient assistance
· Cost associated with coupons
· Wholesale acquisition cost
· History of any increase over the 5 years including percentage increase, date of increase, and explanation
· Aggregate amount of all rebates provided to PBM’s
|· Total (aggregate) amount of rebates negotiated with manufacturers during the previous year
· Total amount of rebates retained by the PBM
· Total amount of rebates negotiated for purchases of drugs for use by Medicare and Medicaid recipients, and persons covered by third parties that are or are not governmental entities
|Texas||· Total company level research and development costs for the previous calendar year||· Aggregated rebates, fees, price concessions, and other payments from manufacturers
· Aggregated dollar amount of rebates, fees, price concessions from manufacturers that were (a) passed to insurers, (b) passed to enrollees at point of sale; and (c) retained by the PBM
|Washington||· Annual manufacturing costs
· Annual marketing and advertising costs
· Total research and development costs
· Total costs of clinical trials and regulation
· Total costs for acquisition of the drug
· Total financial assistance given by the manufacturer through assistance programs, rebates, and coupons
|· All discounts (total dollar amount and percentage discount) and all rebates received from manufacturers for each drug on the PBM’s formularies
· Total dollar amount of discounts and rebates that are retained by the PBM for each drug
· Actual total reimbursement amounts for each drug the PBM pays retail pharmacies after all fees
· Negotiated price health plan pays PBM for each drug
· Amount, terms, and conditions relating to copayments, reimbursement policies, etc.
· Disclosure of any ownership interest the PBM has in a pharmacy or health plan with which it conducts business
Sources: Connecticut HB 5384/Public Act 18-41(2018); Nevada Department of Health and Human Services (2018a); Texas HB 2536 (2019); and Washington HB 1224, Chapter 334 (2019).
* Maine also requires reporting from manufacturers and PBMs. The Maine Health Data Organization will adopt rules specifying the data elements to be reported.
** In addition to the items indicated, each state requires manufacturers to report reasons for price increases, if any.
As of August 2019, Nevada was the only state that had publicly reported information about manufacturer costs and the role of PBMs in the final cost of drugs to consumers that are privately insured or enrolled in Medicare or Medicare. Together with manufacturer reporting, reporting by PBMs offers a reasonably complete (if aggregated) picture of factors that contribute to essential diabetes drug costs in Nevada.
Nevada asks both manufacturers and PBMs to report pricing information for essential diabetes drugs in the aggregate and, in general, at the national level. Manufacturers report only one item specific to Nevada: rebates paid to PBMs for essential diabetes drugs in Nevada.
A summary of the information reported by manufacturers and PBMs, as shown in Nevada’s public report, is shown in Table 4. Because Nevada reported PBM-negotiated rebates for essential diabetes drugs ($1.9 billion) at the aggregate national level and manufacturer rebates only in Nevada and as the average aggregated across manufacturers, they cannot be compared. Such discrepancies make it impossible to track the supply chain for these drugs nationally or in Nevada. Nevertheless, some insights can be drawn within the information reported by manufacturers and PBMs, respectively.
Table 4. Summary of data reported by manufacturers and PBMs in Nevada for essential diabetes drugs
|Average amount per manufacturer (simple averages)||Percent of estimated average manufacturer revenue after rebates|
|Manufacturer-reported data for essential diabetes drugs|
|Estimated total revenue after rebates (national)*||$204,353,658||100.0 percent|
|Production cost||$58,934,388||28.8 percent|
|Administrative expenses||$65,548,748||32.1 percent|
|Cost of consumer financial assistance||$27,890,892||13.6 percent|
|Total provided through any patient prescription assistance program||$12,874,326||6.3 percent|
|Consumer coupons and consumer copayment assistance programs||$14,036,828||6.9 percent|
|Manufacturer cost of redeeming coupons and use of consumer copayment assistance programs||$979,738||0.5 percent|
|Aggregate rebates to PBMs in Nevada||$3,039,646||1.5 percent|
|Total amount (all PBMs)||Percent of PBMs’ total negotiated rebates|
|PBM-reported data for essential diabetes drugs (Nevada only):|
|Total rebates negotiated with manufacturers||$1,922,857,158||100.0 percent|
|Total rebates negotiated for persons covered by|
|3rd party governmental entities, not Medicare or Medicaid||$597,759,023||31.1 percent|
|3rd parties that are not governmental entities (potentially including self-insured employer plans)||$1,293,449,196||67.3 percent|
|Total rebates retained by the PBM||$126,754,864||6.6 percent|
Source: S. Jones, et al. (2019), Tables 4, 5 and 6.
*Calculated as the sum of all shown manufacturer-reported amounts excluding aggregate rebates to PBMs in Nevada.
- Manufacturer cost, profit, and consumer assistance
In 2018, average manufacturer costs and profits for essential diabetes drugs, reported at the national level, totaled nearly $204.4 million (Figure 1). Drug production costs accounted for just 29 percent of the total ($58.9 million).
Figure 1. Reported profits and production and administrative costs for essential diabetes drugs (Nevada)
Source: S. Jones, et al. (2019), Tables 4 and 5.
Manufacturers’ administrative expenditures, which may include executive compensation, accounting and legal fees, marketing, advertising, and other administrative expenses as each manufacturer deems reasonable, accounted for $65.5 million. This amount exceeded their reported average production costs (although the Nevada report indicates multiple drug manufacturers reported $0 for total administrative expenditures, and likely included all their costs for manufacturing the drug in the drug production costs).
Manufacturers reported average profits (nearly $52.0 million) — equal to 25.4 percent of the sum of production cost, administrative cost, consumer assistance, and profit — or 41.8 percent of total production and administrative cost. That is, aggregated across reporting manufacturers, manufacturers of essential diabetes drugs earned $42 in profits for every $100 they spent on production and administrative cost.
Nationally, financial assistance to consumers accounted for an estimated 13.6 percent ($27.9 million) of manufacturers’ estimated average total revenues after rebates for essential diabetes drugs. This financial assistance included patient prescription programs, coupons, or copayment assistance programs. However, more than half of the reporting manufacturers indicated that they provided no financial assistance through patient prescription assistance programs (58 percent), and also provided no rebates to PBMs or pharmacies (55 percent). By inference, the average dollar amount of financial assistance among manufacturers that provided any financial assistance (presumably the larger manufacturers) was more than twice the average across all manufacturers (including those that provided none).
- PBM negotiated and retained rebates
PBMs reported negotiating more than $1.9 billion in rebates for essential diabetes drugs for Nevadans (Table 4). Nearly this entire amount was negotiated on behalf of private third parties—predominantly private insurers and self-insured employer plans ($1.3 billion) or other nongovernmental third parties ($598 million). PBMs reported retaining 6.6 percent of all rebates that they negotiated, whether on behalf of private third parties or Medicaid.
Differences in how Nevada’s public report summarized the data obtained from manufacturers and PBMs make it impossible to develop a picture of the supply chain from the information offered—although it seems likely that Nevada has the information necessary to do this. Nevada’s report demonstrates the crucial importance of requiring manufacturers and PBMs to report information at the same level of aggregation—at the state level or nationally (but not either/or), and for the same individual drugs or narrowly specified groups of drugs—in order to build a coherent picture of the factors that contribute to high consumer cost.
This report summarizes information that five states—California, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Vermont—have obtained from insurers, manufacturers, and/or PBMs to achieve greater drug price transparency. Each of these states is in a relatively early stage of obtaining and understanding their data. Nevertheless, the information they have made public suggests some early lessons for states interested in obtaining meaningful reporting for drug price transparency.
- States share concerns regarding the affordability of many of the same drugs. We identified 120 drugs that concern at least two of the five states—due to high cost, fast-rising cost, and/or the frequency with which the drug is prescribed. The large number of drugs that are of concern across states indicates that there might be substantial value in sharing information across states. State efforts such as Maryland’s recently enacted Drug Affordability Review Board might initially focus on many of these same drugs. States that are developing statutory authority to require manufacturer reporting for these drugs might consider explicitly authorizing data sharing with other states that have compatible confidentiality protections—or else explore other options available in current law or regulation to reduce manufacturers’ burden of redundant reporting to multiple states.
- There is substantial value in understanding pricing across the entire supply chain, from the manufacturer to the consumer, for drugs that drive increases in health insurance premiums and consumer costs. States that design reporting templates using consistent and compatible concepts and measures, and report those measures publicly, can foster mutual understanding of facts among policymakers and stakeholders in a complex system. However, if rebates and other information are reported collectively for all drugs, it frustrates the ability of policymakers to understand impacts on costs for specific drugs. PBM reporting by manufacturer/product code (if not by NDC) is critical to understanding the supply chain for the specific drugs of interest to the states. Nevada’s PBM reporting requirement — for a list of specified NDCs—demonstrates that PBMs are able to report on specific drugs, not only on their aggregate business.
- When requiring manufacturers, PBMs, or other entities to report drug price data, it is critical that the responsible agency be given the authority and resources necessary to follow up when reported data are not complete or credible. Especially in the first years of implementation, the reporting entities may be learning how to report, and they may be reluctant to invest in getting the data right. Accurate reporting is essential for drug transparency laws to help states develop a fair approach to ensuring that prescription drugs are affordable.
References and Appendix
Arkansas SB 520/Act No. 994, 2019. Available at: http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2019/2019R/Acts/Act994.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2019.
California Department of Managed Health Care. “Prescription Drug Cost Transparency Report (SB 17): Measurement Year 2017.” Sacramento, CA: Department of Managed Health Care, December 2018. Available at https://www.dmhc.ca.gov/Portals/0/Docs/DO/sb17.pdf. Accessed July 31, 2019.
California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. “Cost Transparency: Prescription Drugs (CTRx),” 2019. Available at https://oshpd.ca.gov/data-and-reports/cost-transparency/rx/. Accessed July 31, 2019.
State of Connecticut, Substitute House Bill No. 5384/Public Act No. 18-41. Available at https://www.cga.ct.gov/2018/ACT/pa/pdf/2018PA-00041-R00HB-05384-PA.pdf. Accessed July 31, 2019.
Iowa SF 563, 2019. Available at: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga= 88&ba=SF percent20563. Accessed August 1, 2019.
Louisiana SB 283/Act No. 371, 2018. Available at: https://legiscan.com/LA/text/SB283/id/1799999/Louisiana-2018-SB283-Chaptered.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2019.
Maine Health Data Organization. “MHDO Prescription Drug Reports,” June 2018. Available at https://mhdo.maine.gov/tableau/prescriptionReports.cshtml. Accessed July 31, 2019.
Minnesota SF 278, 2019. Available at: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?b=senate&f=SF0278&ssn=0&y=2019. Accessed August 1, 2019.
Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, SB539 Reporting Timeline v08.10.2018, August 10, 2018a. Available at: http://dhhs.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dhhsnvgov/content/HCPWD/SB539 percent20Drug percent20Transparency percent20Reporting percent20Timeline_v08.10.2018_website.pdf. Accessed July 31, 2019.
Nevada Department of Health and Human Services. “Essential Diabetes Drugs Price Increase Report.” Carson City, NV: Division of Public and Behavioral Health, Primary Care Office. September 2018. Available at http://dhhs.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dhhsnvgov/content/HCPWD/09.11.2018 percent20Nevada percent20Essential percent20Diabetes percent20Drugs percent20Price percent20Increase percent20Report_Final.pdf. Accessed July 31. 2019.
Jones, S., P. Thompson, J. Tucker, H. Mitchell, T. McKnight, H. Wallace, and K. Devine. “Drug Transparency Report 2019 Essential Diabetes Drugs” Carson City, NV: Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public and Behavioral Health, May 2019. Available at http://dhhs.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dhhsnvgov/content/HCPWD/DHHS percent202019 percent20Drug percent20Transparency percent20Report percent205-31-2019(1).pdf. Accessed July 31, 2019.
Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services. “Insurer Reports on Prescription Drugs Drug Price Transparency Program,” 2019. Available at https://dfr.oregon.gov/drugtransparency/data/Documents/insurer-reports-rx-drugs-2019.pdf. Accessed October 16, 2019.
Texas HB 2536, 86th Legislature, 2019-2020. Available at: https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB2536/id/2027782/Texas-2019-HB2536-Enrolled.html. Accessed July 31, 2019.
Office of the Vermont Attorney General. “Prescription Drug Cost Transparency-Manufacturer and Health Insurer Annual Reporting” (undated). https://ago.vermont.gov/drug-price-transparency-manufacturer-and-health-insurer-annual-reporting/. Accessed July 31, 2019.
State of Vermont Green Mountain Care Board. “Impact of Prescription Drug Costs on Health Insurance Premiums.” Montpelier, VT: State of Vermont Green Mountain Care Board, January 2019. Available at https://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/Act-193-Report-Impact-of-Prescription-Drug-Costs-on-Health-Insurance-Premiums.pdf. Accessed July 31, 2019.
Washington HB 1224/Chapter 334, 2019. Available at: http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bills/House percent20Passed percent20Legislature/1224-S2.PL.pdf
Appendix 1: Drugs reported by two or more states: California, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Vermont
|00173069600||Advair (Diskus)||CA, ME||Respiratory Tract Agents|
|Multiple NDCs||Amlodipine Besylate||CA, OR||Antihypertensives|
|Multiple NDCs||Amoxicillin||CA, OR||Antibacterials|
|60505258009||Atorvastatin||CA, ME, OR, VT,||Antihyperlipidemics|
|60505257909||Atorvastatin||CA, OR, VT,||Antihyperlipidemics|
|50111078751||Azithromycin||CA, ME, OR||Antibacterials|
|00002771559||Basaglar (Kwikpen)||ME, NV, OR||Hormones and Synthetic Substitutes|
|00173085910||Breo Ellipta||CA, ME||Respiratory Tract Agents|
|45963014205||Bupropion Hcl||CA, OR, VT,||Antidepressants|
|10370010150||Bupropion Hcl||CA, OR, VT,||Antidepressants|
|00069046903||Chantix||CA, VT||Antidotes, Deterrents, and Toxicological Agents|
|00069047103||Chantix||CA, VT||Antidotes, Deterrents, and Toxicological Agents|
|68546032512||Copaxone||CA, ME, OR, VT,||Miscellaneous Therapeutic Agents; Miscellaneous Therapeutic Agents (Platelet-Aggregation Inhibitors)|
|Cosentyx||CA, ME, OR, VT,||Immunological Agents|
|61958200201||Descovy||CA, ME, VT||Antivirals|
|00024591401||Dupixent||ME, OR||Immunological Agents|
|00003089421||Eliquis||CA, ME, OR||Blood Formation, Coagulation, and Thrombosis Agents|
|58406044504||Enbrel||CA, ,ME, ,OR, VT||Miscellaneous Therapeutic Agents; Miscellaneous Therapeutic Agents (Platelet-Aggregation Inhibitors)|
|61958220101||Epclusa||CA, ME, OR, VT,||Antivirals|
|Multiple NDCs||Fluoxetine||CA, OR||Antidepressants|
|00054327099||Fluticasone Prop||CA, ME, VT||Respiratory Tract Agents|
|60505082901||Fluticasone Prop||CA, VT||Respiratory Tract Agents|
|69097081412||Gabapentin||CA, ME, OR, VT,||Anticonvulsants|
|00078060715||Gilenya||CA, VT||Immunological Agents|
|68084011201||Glipizide ER||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|68084029521||Glipizide ER||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|68084011101||Glipizide ER||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|61958180101||Harvoni||CA, ME, VT||Anti-infective Agents|
|00002879959||Humalog (Kwikpen)||ME, NV, OR||Hormones and Synthetic Substitutes|
|00002751001||Humalog||CA, ME, OR||Hormones and Synthetic Substitutes|
|00074433902||Humira (Pen)||CA, ME, OR, VT,||Gastrointestinal Drugs; Miscellaneous Therapeutic Agents; Miscellaneous Therapeutic Agents (Platelet-Aggregation Inhibitors)|
|00074379902||Humira (Syringe)||CA, ME, OR, VT,||Gastrointestinal Drugs; Miscellaneous Therapeutic Agents; Miscellaneous Therapeutic Agents (Platelet-Aggregation Inhibitors)|
|00002880559||Humulin N||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00002831501||Humulin N||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00002831517||Humulin N||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00002821501||Humulin R||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00002821517||Humulin R||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00002882427||Humulin R U-500 KwikPen||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00002850101||Humulin R U-500||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|16729018317||Hydrochlorothiazide||CA, ME, OR, VT,||Diuretics|
|00406012301||Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen||ME, OR, VT,||Analgesics – Opioid|
|50458014030||Invokana||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|50458014090||Invokana||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|50458014130||Invokana||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|50458014190||Invokana||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00006057761||Janumet||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00006057762||Janumet||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00006057782||Janumet||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00006057561||Janumet||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00006057562||Janumet||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00006057582||Janumet||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00006027731||Januvia||CA, ME, NV, VT||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00006011254||Januvia||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00006027733||Januvia||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00006027754||Januvia||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00006027782||Januvia||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00006022128||Januvia||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00006022131||Januvia||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00006022154||Januvia||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00006011228||Januvia||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00006011231||Januvia||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00006027702||Januvia||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00006027728||Januvia||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00597015230||Jardiance||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00597015237||Jardiance||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00597015290||Jardiance||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00597015330||Jardiance||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00597015337||Jardiance||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00597015390||Jardiance||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00088222033||Lantus||ME, NV||Hormones and Synthetic Substitutes|
|00088221905||Lantus Solostar||CA, ME, NV, VT||Hormones and Synthetic Substitutes|
|00169643810||Levemir||ME, NV||Hormones and Synthetic Substitutes|
|00378180310||Levothyroxine Sodium||,CA, OR, VT||Hormonal Agents – Thyroid|
|00185060501||Lisinopril||CA, ,OR, VT||Antihypertensives|
|68180098103||Lisinopril||CA, ME, OR||Antihypertensives|
|65862020390||Losartan Potassium||CA, ,OR, VT||Antihypertensives|
|00071101668||Lyrica||CA, VT||Neuropathic Pain|
|60687014301||Metformin HCL||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|49483062350||Metformin Hcl Er||CA, VT||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|62037083101||Metoprolol Succinate Er||CA, ,OR, VT||Beta Blockers|
|Multiple NDCs||Montelukast Sodium||CA, OR||Respiratory Tract Agents, Asthma|
|55513019001||Neulasta||OR, VT||Blood products and modifiers (Anti-infective for chemotherapy)|
|00169633910||Novolog||ME, NV, OR, VT,||Hormones and Synthetic Substitutes|
|00052027303||Nuvaring||CA, VT||Contraceptives, Intravaginal, Systemic|
|61958210101||Odefsey||CA, OR||Antivirals (HIV Treatment)|
|55111015810||Omeprazole||ME, ,OR, VT||Gastrointestinal Drugs|
|53885024510||Onetouch Ultra Test Strip||CA, VT||Blood Sugar Diagnostics|
|Non-matching NDCs||Orkambi||ME, VT||Respiratory Agents – Misc.|
|59310057922||Proair||CA, ME, OR, VT,||Beta-Adrenergic Agents|
|00023530105||Restasis (Multidose)||CA, ME||Eye, Ear, Nose, and Throat (EENT) Preparations|
|59572041028||Revlimid||CA, ME, OR||Antineoplastics|
|59572041000||Revlimid||CA, ME, OR||Antineoplastics|
|68180035302||Sertraline||CA, ME, OR, VT,||Antidepressants|
|69097083502||Sertraline||CA, VT, OR||Antidepressants|
|65862001305||Sertraline||CA, VT, OR||Antidepressants|
|Non-matching NDCs||Spiriva (Respimat/Handihaler)||ME, VT||Autonomic Drugs; Respiratory Tract Agents|
|12496120803||Suboxone||ME, VT||Central Nervous System Agents; Miscellaneous Therapeutic Agents; Miscellaneous Therapeutic Agents (Platelet-Aggregation Inhibitors)|
|52268001201||Suprep Bowel Prep Kit||CA, OR||Gastrointestinal Agents (Colonoscopy prep)|
|57894006103||Stelara||CA, ME, OR, VT,||Immunological Agents|
|00186037020||Symbicort||CA, ME, VT||Antiasthmatic And Bronchodilator Agents|
|64406000602||Tecfidera||CA, ME, OR, VT,||Psychotherapeutic And Neurological Agents – Misc.|
|49702022813||Tivicay||CA, VT||Antivirals, Hiv-Spec, Non-Peptidic Protease Inhib|
|00597014030||Tradjenta||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00597014061||Tradjenta||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|00597014090||Tradjenta||CA, NV||Blood Glucose Regulators|
|50111043301||Trazodone||ME, OR, VT,||Antidepressants|
|00169255013||Tresiba (Flextouch)||ME, NV||Hormones and Synthetic Substitutes|
|49702023113||Triumeq||CA, OR, VT,||Antivirals|
|Non-matching NDCs||Trulicity||ME, NV||Hormones and Synthetic Substitutes|
|61958070101||Truvada||CA, OR||HIV Treatment|
|61958070301||Truvada||CA, OR||HIV Treatment|
|00173068220||Ventolin||CA, ME, OR, VT,||Autonomic Drugs; Respiratory Tract Agents|
|00169406013||Victoza (3-Pak)||ME, NV, VT||Hormones and Synthetic Substitutes|
|50458057930||Xarelto||CA, ME, VT||Anticoagulants,Coumarin Type|
|54092060601||Xiidra||CA, VT||Opthalmic Agents|
|Non-matching NDCs||Metformin||CA, NV, OR, VT,||Blood Glucose Regulators|
Source: Mathematica analysis of data reported in: California Department of Managed Health Care (2018); Maine Health Data Organization (2018); Nevada Department of Health and Human Services (2018b); Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services (2019); and State of Vermont Green Mountain Care Board (2019).
 These states are California, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Texas, and Vermont. See: National Academy for State Health Policy Center for State Rx Pricing, Newly Enacted Laws at https://www.nashp.org/new-laws/, accessed August 8, 2019.
 See: California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (2018), Nevada Department of Health and Human Services (2018b), Maine Health Data Organization (2018), and State of Vermont Green Mountain Care Board (2019).
 See: California Department of Managed Health Care (December 2019).
 See: Vermont Green Mountain Care Board (January 2019).
 See: Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services (2019).
 Washington defines a covered drug as one that “is currently on the market, is manufactured by a covered manufacturer, and has a wholesale acquisition cost of more than one hundred dollars for a course of treatment lasting less than one month or a thirty-day supply, and … the manufacturer increases the wholesale acquisition cost at least …  percent, including the proposed increase and the cumulative increase over one calendar year prior to the date of the proposed increase [or]  percent, including the proposed increase and the cumulative increase over three calendar years prior to the date of the proposed increase.” See: Washington HB 1224/Chapter 334 (2019), Section 2.
 A number of other states recently passed (but have not yet enacted) legislation that would require PBM reporting. Such states include Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, and Minnesota. These states variously would require PBM reporting of total rebates (all states); rebates retained by the PBM (Minnesota—like Nevada, Texas, and Washington); rebates the PBM did (or did not) pass through to insurers (Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, and Minnesota—like Connecticut and Texas); rebates passed through to enrollees at point of sale (Arkansas—like Texas); the amount paid for pharmacy services (Arkansas—like Washington); administrative fees received by the PBM (Iowa and Louisiana); and the highest, lowest, and mean aggregate retained rebate percentage (Iowa, Louisiana, and Minnesota). See: Arkansas SB 520/Act No. 994 (2019); Iowa SF 563 (2019), Louisiana SB 283/Act No. 371 (2018); and Minnesota SF 278/Session Law Chapter 39 (2019).
 Nevada’s report notes that the variation among manufacturers (and potentially among drugs produced by the same manufacturer) is significant: a simple unweighted average per manufacturer, then calculated across manufacturers, produced an average profit of 152 percent of the sum of production and administrative cost—that is, for every dollar spent on combined production and administrative costs, the manufacturers earned, on average, $1.52 in profit. The report states that larger manufacturers (with lower profit rates) tend to reduce the aggregate profit ratio, as calculated in Figure 1.
 Built on the National Academy for State Health Policy’s model legislation, Maryland’s Prescription Drug Affordability Board is an independent body with the authority to review high-cost prescription drugs and identify fair, appropriate rates for Marylanders to pay.
 To obtain consistent information from all reporting entities, NASHP’s model legislation and reporting templates call for reporting at the NDC level, and they align national and state-level reporting to support a coherent picture of pricing along the supply chain for each drug. See: https://www.nashp.org/policy/prescription-drug-pricing/model-legislation/#toggle-id-1, accessed August 9, 2019.
Acknowledgements: The National Academy for State Healthy Policy’s Center for State Rx Drug Pricing, with support from Arnold Ventures, commissioned this analysis from experts affiliated with Mathematica Policy Research.
Without early identification and treatment of development delays, children may face long-lasting and costly consequences. With more states reporting their developmental screening Child Core Set measures and new federal initiatives promoting value-based payment for children’s health, Vermont’s innovative affordable care organization’s approach can provide valuable insights. This fact sheet describes Vermont’s strategy to prioritize developmental screenings of children covered by Medicaid during well-child visits.
- View or download: Vermont Uses an Accountable Care Organization Model to Prioritize Developmental Screenings during Well-Child Visits, May 2019
- To learn about other state initiatives, visit NASHP’s Healthy Child Development State Resource Center.
- To learn more about states’ Medicaid Incentives and Measures for Developmental Screening, view NASHP’s map.