The Trump administration’s budget proposal has been criticised by industry experts, as it does not overtly tackle lowering the price of expensive medicine. The proposal, which was put forward after Congress ’ two year budget agreement, lists zero of expenses cuts for drugs in the federal Medicare program. Additionally, spending on medicine for Medicaid will undergo an overhaul. Though any drug price alterations will be significant due to the scale of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, the underlying issue behind drug prices will likely remain unaddressed, due to the proposal’s plan to move money rather than force price reductions. The proposal suggest that discounts and rebates negotiated by pharmacy benefit managers be removed for seniors who purchase medicine through Medicare Part D, leading to lower out-of-pocket expenses. However, premiums may be raised, as insurers would miss out on discounts. It also suggested that low-income seniors that benefit from Medicare should not have to pay for generic drugs, and that out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries passing through the “doughnut hole” coverage gap should be capped. The CEA paper and the president’s budget come on the heels of Congress passing a spending pact Friday that includes a big benefit to Medicare enrollees at the expense of the pharmaceutical industry. Beneficiaries presently pay 5 percent coinsurance in the “catastrophic phase, but this would be reduced to billions if suggestions are followed. Drugs currently being paid for under Congress Part B, such as chemotherapy and rheumatoid arthritis infusions, may be moved into the Part D Medicare offering to inspire price negotiations. The proposal also suggested a five -state pilot project, designed to enable state Congress programs to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers, and to establish their own drug formularies. Congress has just passed a spending pact that offers a large benefit to Medicare enrollees, at a cost to the pharmaceutical industry, to close the “doughnut hole” in 2019 . However, all the measures suggested have been criticized for being a rehash of old policies or Obama-era pilots, or policies that are already part of the rulemaking process.
The Trump administration’s budget proposal has been criticised by industry experts, as it does not overtly tackle lowering the price of expensive medicine. The proposal, which was put forward after Congress ’ two year budget agreement, lists zero of expenses cuts for drugs in the federal Medicare program. Additionally, spending on medicine for Medicaid will undergo an overhaul. Though any drug price alterations will be significant due to the scale of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, the underlying issue behind drug prices will likely remain unaddressed, due to the proposal’s plan to move money rather than force price reductions. The proposal suggest that discounts and rebates negotiated by pharmacy benefit managers be removed for seniors who purchase medicine through Medicare Part D, leading to lower out-of-pocket expenses. However, premiums may be raised, as insurers would miss out on discounts. It also suggested that low-income seniors that benefit from Medicare should not have to pay for generic drugs, and that out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries passing through the “doughnut hole” coverage gap should be capped. Beneficiaries presently pay 5 percent coinsurance in the “catastrophic phase, but this would be reduced to billions if suggestions are followed. Drugs currently being paid for under Congress Part B, such as chemotherapy and rheumatoid arthritis infusions, may be moved into the Part D Medicare offering to inspire price negotiations. The proposal also suggested a five -state pilot project, designed to enable state Congress programs to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers, and to establish their own drug formularies. Congress has just passed a spending pact that offers a large benefit to Medicare enrollees, at a cost to the pharmaceutical industry, to close the “doughnut hole” in 2019 . However, all the measures suggested have been criticized for being a rehash of old policies or Obama-era pilots, or policies that are already part of the rulemaking process.