AMP Final Rule: Puerto Rico in the Balance

The 2016 Final Rule expanded our definition of “states, allowing the five US territories to join the MDRP. John Shakow’s stimulating presentation at the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program summit 2016, on September 21, dealt with this component of the Final Rule, and identified several areas for concern, and evaluations that manufacturers need to do prior to the April 1, 2017 day of decision.

Expansion

Territories:

• May join MDRP
• May waive participation

Drug Activity:

• Utilization - Subject to Medicaid rebates
• Transactions - Eligible for inclusion in AMP and BP calculations

** Manufacturers must include transactions regardless of waiver status**

Demographics

Puerto Rico is the largest of the territories, with 3.5 million people. The other four territories total 348 thousand, less than 10% of Puerto Rico’s population.

Economics

Puerto Rico is very poor, and almost half are enrolled in Managed Medicaid (1.67 million). Comparable state Medicaid enrollments:
WA 1.8 million

• AZ 1.8 million
• NJ 1.7 million
• TN 1.5 million

Puerto Rico has a $72 billion debt crisis. All public obligations are threatened with default.

Congress passes law in June 2016 to address this, called PROMESA (Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act). PROMESA (committee of 7) has the power to set fiscal policy, including waivers and Medicaid payments, and to cancel contracts.

Politics

Gubernatorial election is set for November 8. Current governor is not running, and neither candidate for office has taken a position on the waiver. The lame duck period runs into January 2017.

Applicable Medicaid Organizations

ASES - Puerto Rican Health Insurance Administration (Administracion de Seguros Salud de Puerto Rico) – responsible for Medicaid.

PSG - The Government Health Plan (Plan de Salud de Gobierno) - Puerto Rico’s Medicaid program

Abarca Health - The PBM that maintains, among other things, the prescription drug list and pharmacy benefit for PSG.

DACO - Puerto Rican Department of Consumer Affairs (Departamento de Asuntos del Consumidor de Puerto Rico) has price control authority over wholesalers and pharmacies (Regulation 3707).

Medicaid in Puerto Rico

Manufacturers contract with Abarca Health for PDL access, and pay rebates for inclusion.

Many contracts expire December 31, 2016, but can be automatically renewed.
John Shakow has seen Abarca contracts with “Best Price rip cord clauses” and “termination provisions.”

Price Controls - DRACO

Targeted drugs

• High volume drugs
• Chronic disease drugs
• Drugs used by elderly or infants
• Currently 75 drugs (innovator and generic)
• List can be changed

Pharmacies must maintain public price lists

Waiver Decision

• The decision to participate in MDRP lies with AES leaders (appointed by governor)
• Decision in January, AFTER new governor is sworn in

Considerations in Decision

• Abarca rebates – Will they be higher or lower than the MDRP URAs?
• If lower, will AES set up supplemental rebates to compensate?

Implications for Manufacturers

• Waiver executed – Abarca rebates remain
• No waiver

• URAs due on every unit reimbursed under PSG, possibly exceeding Abarca amounts
• May join consortium of states to obtain supplemental rebates

All of this is up in the air. So many variables or outcomes make planning difficult, but mandatory. Manufacturers need to look at commercial pricing concessions for best price impact, and model potential liabilities for either scenario.

One more thought. After considering John’s presentation, it could be déjà vu. If manufacturers decide that doing business in Puerto Rico is no longer in their financial best interest, or offering rebates to these purchasers is no longer attractive, they may refuse to sell there. The CMS FAQ36 answer to this requirement to sell to the Territories was “The final rule does not require that a drug manufacturer sell its drugs to certain purchasers.” If enough manufactures apply this tactic to a territory with such a large vulnerable population, will we see another version of the Veteran’s Health Care Act of 1992?

John Bliss is a contributing writer for the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program Summit. He has extensive experience in the pharmaceutical industry, including AstraZeneca, Sanofi Aventis, Merck, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, and Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). The bulk of John’s career was at BMS. When OBRA90 hit, Government Pricing took over his life. Government pricing, managed care contracting, rebates, and chargebacks continue to extend challenges and provide meaningful employment. John now works as a consultant, primarily subcontracted by other consulting firms, providing value added services to each of them and their clients.

Unintended Consequences – AMP and 5i

It had humble beginnings. In 1991, Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA 90), setting up the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (MDRP). The goal was to enlist the aid of pharmaceutical manufacturers in lowering the cost of pharmaceuticals prescribed to Medicaid patients, and financed by the Federal and state governments. Access to manufacturers’ “best price” was the goal, to help balance the Federal budget. The metric used to measure the best price differential was Average Manufacturer Price, or AMP.

AMP was defined in the statute as the average price paid to the manufacturer for the drug in the United States by wholesalers for drugs distributed to the retail class of trade. The calculation methodology worked reasonably well for the first fourteen years, without the benefit of regulations from CMS. CMS did provide some guidance through manufacturer notices, dealing with the classes of trade to be included in the retail class, and identifying the credits that could be applied to correctly compute this metric.

All that changed in 2007. In July, CMS released a final rule implementing the price reporting provisions of the Deficit Reporting Act (DRA) of 2005. The DRA modified the customer classes, and discounts, that could be included in AMP calculations. Not a huge deal. However, the DRA burdened the AMP with a new task; it was to become the basis for the Federal Upper Limit (FUL).

FULs are used to determine reimbursement values for generic drugs dispensed in the Medicaid program. Prior to this, FULs had always used Average Wholesaler Price (AWP) as the metric for paying pharmacies. CMS was concerned, for valid reasons, that AWP did not reflect marketplace reality, and that CMS was funding these transactions based upon some “suggested retail” pricing at the government’s expense.


The reaction in the retail industry was immediate. On December 19th, 2007, the U.S. District Court in Washington issued a preliminary injunction order to prevent the implementation of the new AMP rules and the AMP-based FUL, in response to a lawsuit filed by the National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS). NACDS claimed the drug stores were likely to suffer irreparable harm if these rules were implemented.

ACA Proposed Rule…”Average Manufacturer Price (AMP) means, with respect to a covered outpatient drug of a manufacturer (including those sold under an NDA approved under section 505(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)), the average price paid to the manufacturer for the drug in the United States by wholesalers for drugs distributed to retail community pharmacies and retail community pharmacies that purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer.” This rule was finalized this year intact, and solidified the concept of RCP.

Narrowly defining the marketplace class of drugs led to an obvious question…what happens to the drugs that rarely or never go through an RCP? Are they subject to the same calculation parameters? To resolve this dilemma, CMS had defined drugs that are “injected, infused, inhaled, instilled, or implanted.”

These are the new “5i” drugs, with their own AMP calculation methodologies, including which discounts are included, and how the entity classification is to be determined, all on a monthly basis. It raises several concerns, such as sharing the same Base AMP with “standard” AMP, determining the true split between pharmacy types when RCPs dispense 5i drugs, and the ability to make this determination monthly.
The beat goes on.


About the author:

John Bliss is a contributing writer for the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program Summit. He has extensive experience in the pharmaceutical industry, including AstraZeneca, Sanofi Aventis, Merck, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, and Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). The bulk of John’s career was at BMS. When OBRA90 hit, Government Pricing took over his life. Government pricing, managed care contracting, rebates, and chargebacks continue to extend challenges and provide meaningful employment. John now works as a consultant, primarily subcontracted by other consulting firms, providing value added services to each of them and their clients.

MDRP Pre-conference Day - Recap on the AMP Final Rule

A recap from the MDRP pre-conference Day on the AMP Final Rule by John Bliss, an independent government pricing consultant.


I spent most of the day in Symposia C. The focus was on the ”AMP rule: Application, Implementation and Impact of the Final Rule.” The first session was a panel of manufacturer representatives, and the rest of the sessions were led by members of various legal and consulting firms.

The panel discussed the various components of the final rule, and pointed out that 2016-2017 will be a transitional year. It will be critical to provide and archive a record of all the activities surrounding the actions taken to implement the final rule, including legal sources, consulting recommendations, policies and procedures, and contract changes. The goal is to also steer documentation into “non-privledged” files, to prevent complications if audited in the future.

Topics addressed by the panel were:

• Retail Community Pharmacies (RCP) and Specialty Pharmacies
• Oral Dosage Forms
• Specialty Pharmacies Class of Trade Issues
• 5I Drugs
• Line Extensions
• Best Price – Offered or Achieved?
• Authorized Generics – who is doing the repackaging?

The rest of the day was spent digging into these topics, and others (Bundles and BFSF).

Comments:

Retail Community Pharmacies (RCP)

• Do not set up Specialty Pharmacy Class of Trade (COT) – not defined in rule
• If set up, set up two…mail and non-mail
• Learn the customer – pick up the phone

Oral Dosage Forms:

May need to go to the “Ship To” level

5i Drugs

• CMS does not understand them - may need to write it up and present it to CMS
• 70/30 ratio may be difficult to ascertain - evaluate status monthly
• Need created by NACDS lawsuit to limit AMP to RCP activities
• Not generally distributed through RCP
• Filter by Class of Trade (COT) only
• Restatements not requires

Line Extensions

• Waiting for CMS to finalize rule
• “We are clarifying” – scary words
• Congress wanted to captue dollars based on original base AMP
• Anti Dependency Formula disqualifies line extension status

Bundled Sales

• Bundles are pricing conditions based on products and performance
• Plenty of ambiguity within the definitions
• Communication critical among GP, Legal and Contracting

Bona Fide Service Fees

• Conceptually difficult

• Bona Fide = Ignore, not included in AMP
• Non Bona Fide = Include in AMP = reduce AMP

• Avoid putting legal definitions in contracts
• Look forward – involved Contracting personnel
• Critical – must have 4-part testing set up
• Review existing, catalog itemized services

OVERALL:

The main take away for all of these sessions is clear. Make the assumptions when required, and Document, Document, Document.


About the author:

John Bliss is a contributing writer for the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program Summit. He has extensive experience in the pharmaceutical industry, including AstraZeneca, Sanofi Aventis, Merck, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, and Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). The bulk of John’s career was at BMS. When OBRA90 hit, Government Pricing took over his life. Government pricing, managed care contracting, rebates, and chargebacks continue to extend challenges and provide meaningful employment. John now works as a consultant, primarily subcontracted by other consulting firms, providing value added services to each of them and their clients.

Read more on this topic and about MDRP 2016 here:

• MDRP 2016 Pre-Conference, Track C: The AMP Final Rule
• Track D: 340B Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers: Fundamentals, Operations, and Compliance
• Drug Pricing is Today's Environment
• MDRP 2016: Day One - Government Agency Sessions
• A Review with Some of the Top GP Legal Experts
• Farewell to 2016's MDRP Summit

Unintended Consequences - 340B

It began with Medicaid.

In 1991, Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA 90). The goal was to enlist the aid of pharmaceutical manufacturers in lowering the cost of pharmaceuticals prescribed to Medicaid patients, and financed by the Federal and state governments. Access to manufacturers’ “best price” was the goal, to help balance the Federal budget.

Manufacturers, commercial entities all, recognized that the “best prices” were the ones on the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS); the prices paid by the Veterans Administration (VA) and the Department of Defense (DOD). There was no legislated exemption for these, so manufacturers raised the FFS prices to list price. These actions severely impacted the DOD and VA budgets, so an amendment was added to exempt FSS prices from OBRA. On June 30, 1992, this amendment expired.

Subsequently, P.P 102-585, the Veteran’s Health Care Act (VHCA) of 1992 was passed. Sections 601 and 603 establish the pricing rules for DOD and VA. Section 602 amended the Public Health Service (PHS) Act by adding a “Subpart VII, Sec. 340B” to Part D of Title III. 340B was born!

Congress created a program to offer uninsured indigent patients better access to prescription drugs by providing these drugs at discounted prices to covered entities (CE) serving large numbers of this uninsured population. Intention….give these patients better access to these drugs.

Over time, for many reasons, the program has grown exponentially. HRSA sub-regulations, the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA), and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have wrought significant changes in the program participants and their collective behaviors. The program has outgrown its mission.

The patient definition, or its interpretation, has expanded to include all outpatients of the CE, regardless of insurance coverage. The CE list has been broadened, and now includes hospital satellite locations, sole community hospitals, and free-standing cancer centers, to name a few. In 2010, CEs were allowed to begin utilizing multiple contract pharmacies to supply these drugs. Manufacturers concerns, other than the low pricing requirements, involve diversion and double dipping.


Diversion happens when a 340B-priced drug is dispensed to anyone not entitled to receive it. That list includes in-patients, and any outpatient that does not fit the HRSA definition. Diversion also happens if the drug is sold or transferred to another entity. Double dipping occurs when a Medicaid claim is filed with the state for a 340B drug, thereby duplicating the Medicaid rebate. Over time, states have improved the identification of 340B claims in the Fee-For-Service (FFS) arena, and have excluded them. However, since the ACA now requires manufactures to pay Medicaid rebates on Medicaid MCO utilization, double dipping is back in focus. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report in June stating that many state methods for identifying 340B drugs may create a risk of “duplicate discounts and foregone rebate.” Since the ACA now requires manufactures to pay Medicaid rebates on Medicaid MCO utilization, double dipping is back in focus, along with the potential for “forgone” rebates.

Concerns:

• CEs are profiting from the system. In any economic system, if access to low priced commodities is available, organizations will find ways to maximize them. And if the penalties for non-compliance are weak and non-existent, boundaries will be pushed. Consider: A CE can legitimately purchase drugs at 340B prices, and then bill the applicable insurance company. They cannot legally bill Medicaid, but all others are fair game.

• A retail store serving as a contract pharmacy has the potential to profit from the same situation. Oversight of these institutions is the duty of the CE whom it serves. Regular audits of these entities are expected by HRSA, but enforcement is apparently not currently a HRSA priority.

• A CE can acquire a physician oncology practice to gain access to 340B pricing on those drugs.

• Patient care may be impacted clinically by moving or scheduling a procedure on an out-patient facility or status to take advantage of the cheaper medications.

These are just a few of the concerns to be considered. The 340B Program has grown into something beyond what its creators had envisioned. 


The 21th MDRP Summit includes a full day pre-conference Symposia on 340B Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufactures. Download the agenda to see a complete list of topics here. 



About the author:

John Bliss is a contributing writer for the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program summit. He has extensive experience in the pharmaceutical industry, including AstraZeneca, Sanofi Aventis, Merck, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, and Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). The bulk of John’s career was at BMS. When OBRA90 hit, Government Pricing took over his life. Government pricing, managed care contracting, rebates, and chargebacks continue to extend challenges and provide meaningful employment. John now works as a consultant, primarily subcontracted by other consulting firms, providing value added services to each of them and their clients.

Did you like the article? Subscribe to our newsletter here!
Join the conversation on Twitter

Government Programs Session Spotlight: Background and Goals of the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program

Leading up to Government Programs 2011, we'll be highlighting a session from the upcoming conference. It will take place March 7-9, 2011, in Baltimore, Maryland. For more information, download the brochure.

Featured Session: Background and Goals of the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program
Presenter: John Bliss, Manager, Contract Management, GRACEWAY PHARMACEUTICALS
About the session:
• Understand the history of key legislative acts and how they affected the program
• Learn medicaid rebate terminology to decipher the acronyms
• Follow the fl ow of payments and reimbursements to understand the big picture
• Identify the roles of AMP, AWP, ASP, WAC, BP, FSS, and non-FAMP