In Proposed Regulations CMS Requests Information on Changes to Part D Negotiated Prices

by Mintz Levin - Health Law & Policy Matters

Today, January 16, 2018 is the deadline for interested parties to submit comments to CMS regarding the proposed contract year 2019 Medicare Advantage and Part D regulations.  The proposed rule focuses on many issues.  In addition to the changes that CMS formally proposes, CMS has also included a request for information. CMS often uses a “request for information” in order to gain insight on an issue so that it can decide whether to formally make proposed changes relating to the issue in the future.  CMS’s request for information relates to the application of manufacturer rebates and pharmacy price concessions to drug prices at the point of sale.  CMS has been gathering information regarding these topics for many years.  You can read more here, here, here, and here.

CMS asks stakeholders to comment on CMS’s proposal: (a) to require that a percentage of manufacturer rebates be passed through at the point of sale, and (b) to require pharmacy price concessions (such as performance-based pharmacy adjustments) be reflected at the point of sale.  CMS specifically requests that all commenters provide quantitative analytical support for their responses wherever possible.

Potential Changes to Negotiated Prices

CMS’s discussion suggests that CMS is considering changing negotiated prices (a defined term) to reflect both a portion of manufacturer rebates and all pharmacy price concessions.  The defined term negotiated prices has 5 subsections.  One of the requirements for negotiated prices, directly applicable to CMS’s discussion of rebates and price concessions, is that negotiated prices means the price the “Part D sponsor (or other intermediary contracting organization) and the network dispensing pharmacy or other network dispensing provider have negotiated as the amount such network entity will receive, in total, for a particular drug.” (Emphasis added.)  Negotiated prices are then used by plan sponsors to report to CMS the price paid for a drug on a PDE.  Rebates and pharmacy price concessions that were not reflected in the negotiated price are then reported by plan sponsors through their annual direct and indirect remuneration (“DIR”) report, as instructed by CMS

For the sake of discussion, it is easiest if we break the request for information into two sections (a) pharmacy price concessions, and (b) manufacturer rebates.

Pharmacy Price Concessions

As CMS explains, “[i]n recent years, a growing proportion of Part D sponsors and their contracted PBMs have entered into payment arrangements with Part D network pharmacies in which a pharmacy’s reimbursement for a covered Part D drug is adjusted after the point of sale based on the pharmacy’s performance on various measures defined by the sponsor or its PBM.”  Because these amounts are tied to performance and “cannot be reasonably determined” at the point of sale, many plan sponsors have been reporting them in the annual DIR report, as instructed by CMS.  Now, in its request for information, CMS is considering whether to change how and when performance-based price concessions that “cannot reasonably be determined” at the point of sale are reported.  CMS is suggesting removing the “cannot be reasonably be determined” exception and requiring that the negotiated price reflect the lowest possible reimbursement that a network pharmacy could receive from a particular Part D Sponsor for a covered Part D drug.  This change would require that all pharmacy price concessions, even when such concessions are contingent upon performance by the pharmacy, be reflected in the negotiated price.

Pharmacy price concessions are agreed to between the network pharmacy and plan sponsor or PBM (which is an “other intermediary contracting organization” referenced in the definition of negotiated prices).  Therefore, regardless of whether one agrees with the suggested change, changing how they are reflected in negotiated prices seems logical since negotiated prices are those negotiated between a plan sponsor/PBM and pharmacy, the same parties involved with pharmacy price concessions.  If CMS ultimately required all pharmacy price concessions be reflected in the negotiated price, this would be an operational change for many Part D plans and could likely result in many pharmacies being paid less at the point of sale.

Manufacturer Rebates

CMS’s proposal regarding reflecting a portion of manufacturer rebates in the negotiated price is more complicated.

CMS lists many reasons and concerns it has as motivation for why it is now considering whether it should require plan sponsors to reflect a portion of rebates in negotiated prices.  CMS’s strongest concern relates to Part D beneficiary coinsurance.  If plan sponsors were required to reflect a portion of rebates that they might receive in negotiated prices, many Part D beneficiaries would pay lower coinsurance.  CMS simultaneously recognizes that if it were to require this, all Part D beneficiaries would see larger premium increases.

CMS broadly asks for comments on its proposal, and highlights certain issues on which it would like to receive feedback.  Some of these issues include:

  • What percentage of rebates should CMS require be reflected at the point of sale?
  • How to define drug category or class?  CMS is sensitive to not establishing a system that results in proprietary rebate information for a specific drug being disclosed.
  • How to calculate the applicable average rebate amount for a given drug category or class?
    • CMS suggests that:
      • Rebates be calculate by drug class or category and determined by 11-digit NDC.
      • Rebates be calculated based on the rebates that are expected to be received in the given plan year, not past years.
      • Rebates should be calculated and applied at the plan level, not at the contract level because of how rebates can be affected by plan design.
      • A weighted average for each drug category rather than simple average should be used.
  • How often should plan sponsors have to recalculate the applicable average rebate amount?
  • CMS suggests that the requirement to pass through a portion of rebates would only apply to drugs for which the plan sponsor receives rebates to ensure that beneficiaries see a price differential in drugs that are rebatable.

As noted above, CMS recognizes that requiring a portion of rebates to be reflected in the negotiated price will reduce coinsurance for some beneficiaries and result in larger premium increases for all Part D beneficiaries.  As a result, CMS is also considering whether it should limit the possible pass through requirement to only certain classes of drugs so as to reduce the impact on beneficiary premiums.

Towards the end of CMS’s discussion of its rebate pass through proposal, CMS states that “we believe that such an approach could…potentially increase the incentive for sponsors and PBMs to negotiate lower prices at the point of sale instead of higher DIR [since rebates are reported in DIR now].”  This statement seems misplaced.  Plan sponsors and their contracted PBMs negotiate “lower prices at the point of sale” with pharmacies, not manufacturers.  Whether a manufacturer agrees to provide a plan sponsor a $0 rebate or a $100 rebate has no bearing on the negotiated price that the plan sponsor or its contracted PBM must pay a network pharmacy.  This statement appears to ignore the role pharmacies play in point of sale, negotiated prices.  A bill sponsored by Senator Wyden in early 2017 similarly appeared to ignore pharmacies’ roll.

If CMS ultimately adopted a requirement that plan sponsors pass through a portion of rebates at the point of sale by reflecting such rebates in the negotiated price, it seems that plan sponsors could be required to pay pharmacies more than they report to CMS as the “plan pay amount” for a drug.  For example, assume: (a) the negotiated price with a pharmacy for drug A is $100, (b) the plan sponsor expects to receive an average rebate for drugs in drug A’s therapeutic category of $40, (c) the plan sponsor is required to reduce the negotiated price used to calculate the beneficiary coinsurance by using 50% of the expected rebate, and (d) the beneficiary coinsurance is 25%.  In this example, the beneficiary would pay the pharmacy $20 (($100-$20 (half of the expected rebate)) times 25%) and the plan sponsor would pay the pharmacy $80, because the pharmacy would still need to be paid $100.  While it is still unclear, it seems like the plan sponsor under CMS’s proposal would then report the plan pay amount of the drug as being $60, even though the plan actually paid $80.  This would be the result of the plan giving the beneficiary the benefit of 50% of the rebate while having to pay the pharmacy the remainder of the negotiated price that, from the pharmacy’s perspective, has nothing to do with manufacturer rebates.

If this were the result, how many claims processing systems are ready to pay the pharmacy one amount, calculate a coinsurance based on an entirely separate amount (calculated by drug category), and report that separate amount minus the coinsurance to CMS on a PDE?

Comments are due today, Tuesday, January 16.  Given the complexities of CMS’s request for information, we anticipate that CMS will receive plenty of feedback.

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Mintz Levin - Health Law & Policy Matters | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Mintz Levin - Health Law & Policy Matters

Mintz Levin - Health Law & Policy Matters on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.