Archives For health care

Mylan Pharmaceuticals recently reinvigorated the public outcry over pharmaceutical price increases when news surfaced that the company had raised the price of EpiPens by more than 500% over the past decade and, purportedly, had plans to increase the price even more. The Mylan controversy comes on the heels of several notorious pricing scandals last year. Recall Valeant Pharmaceuticals, that acquired cardiac drugs Isuprel and Nitropress and then quickly raised their prices by 525% and 212%, respectively. And of course, who can forget Martin Shkreli of Turing Pharmaceuticals, who increased the price of toxoplasmosis treatment Daraprim by 5,000% and then claimed he should have raised the price even higher.

However, one company, pharmaceutical giant Allergan, seems to be taking a different approach to pricing.   Last week, Allergan CEO Brent Saunders condemned the scandalous pricing increases that have raised suspicions of drug companies and placed the entire industry in the political hot seat. In an entry on the company’s blog, Saunders issued Allergan’s “social contract with patients” that made several drug pricing commitments to its customers.

Some of the most important commitments Allergan made to its customers include:

  • A promise to not increase prices more than once a year, and to limit price increases to singe-digit percentage increases.
  • A pledge to improve patient access to Allergan medications by enhancing patient assistance programs in 2017
  • A vow to cooperate with policy makers and payers (including government drug plans, private insurers, and pharmacy benefit managers) to facilitate better access to Allergan products by offering pricing discounts and paying rebates to lower drug costs.
  • An assurance that Allergan will no longer engage in the common industry tactic of dramatically increasing prices for branded drugs nearing patent expiry, without cost increases that justify the increase.
  • A commitment to provide annual updates on how pricing affects Allergan’s business.
  • A pledge to price Allergan products in a way that is commensurate with, or lower than, the value they create.

Saunders also makes several non-pricing pledges to maintain a continuous supply of its drugs, diligently monitor the safety of its products, and appropriately educate physicians about its medicines. He also makes the point that the recent pricing scandals have shifted attention away from the vibrant medical innovation ecosystem that develops new life-saving and life-enhancing drugs. Saunders contends that the focus on pricing by regulators and the public has incited suspicions about this innovation ecosystem: “This ecosystem can quickly fall apart if it is not continually nourished with the confidence that there will be a longer term opportunity for appropriate return on investment in the long R&D journey.”

Policy-makers and the public would be wise to focus on the importance of brand drug innovation. Brand drug companies are largely responsible for pharmaceutical innovation. Since 2000, brand companies have spent over half a trillion dollars on R&D, and they currently account for over 90 percent of the spending on the clinical trials necessary to bring new drugs to market. As a result of this spending, over 550 new drugs have been approved by the FDA since 2000, and another 7,000 are currently in development globally. And this innovation is directly tied to health advances. Empirical estimates of the benefits of pharmaceutical innovation indicate that each new drug brought to market saves 11,200 life-years each year.  Moreover, new drugs save money by reducing doctor visits, hospitalizations, and other medical procedures, ultimately for every $1 spent on new drugs, total medical spending decreases by more than $7.

But, as Saunders suggests, this innovation depends on drugmakers earning a sufficient return on their investment in R&D. The costs to bring a new drug to market with FDA approval are now estimated at over $2 billion, and only 1 in 10 drugs that begin clinical trials are ever approved by the FDA. Brand drug companies must price a drug not only to recoup the drug’s own costs, they must also consider the costs of all the product failures in their pricing decisions. However, they have a very limited window to recoup these costs before generic competition destroys brand profits: within three months of the first generic entry, generics have already captured over 70 percent of the brand drugs’ market. Drug companies must be able to price drugs at a level where they can earn profits sufficient to offset their R&D costs and the risk of failures. Failure to cover these costs will slow investment in R&D; drug companies will not spend millions and billions of dollars developing drugs if they cannot recoup the costs of that development.

Yet several recent proposals threaten to control prices in a way that could prevent drug companies from earning a sufficient return on their investment in R&D. Ultimately, we must remember that a social contract involves commitment from all members of a group; it should involve commitments from drug companies to price responsibly, and commitments from the public and policy makers to protect innovation. Hopefully, more drug companies will follow Allergan’s lead and renounce the exorbitant price increases we’ve seen in recent times. But in return, we should all remember that innovation and, in turn, health improvements, depend on drug companies’ profitability.

As regulatory review of the merger between Aetna and Humana hits the homestretch, merger critics have become increasingly vocal in their opposition to the deal. This is particularly true of a subset of healthcare providers concerned about losing bargaining power over insurers.

Fortunately for consumers, the merger appears to be well on its way to approval. California recently became the 16th of 20 state insurance commissions that will eventually review the merger to approve it. The U.S. Department of Justice is currently reviewing the merger and may issue its determination as early as July.

Only Missouri has issued a preliminary opinion that the merger might lead to competitive harm. But Missouri is almost certain to remain an outlier, and its analysis simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

The Missouri opinion echoed the Missouri Hospital Association’s (MHA) concerns about the effect of the merger on Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. It’s important to remember, however, that hospital associations like the MHA are not consumer advocacy groups. They are trade organizations whose primary function is to protect the interests of their member hospitals.

In fact, the American Hospital Association (AHA) has mounted continuous opposition to the deal. This is itself a good indication that the merger will benefit consumers, in part by reducing hospital reimbursement costs under MA plans.

More generally, critics have argued that history proves that health insurance mergers lead to higher premiums, without any countervailing benefits. Merger opponents place great stock in a study by economist Leemore Dafny and co-authors that purports to show that insurance mergers have historically led to seven percent higher premiums.

But that study, which looked at a pre-Affordable Care Act (ACA) deal and assessed its effects only on premiums for traditional employer-provided plans, has little relevance today.

The Dafny study first performed a straightforward statistical analysis of overall changes in concentration (that is, the number of insurers in a given market) and price, and concluded that “there is no significant association between concentration levels and premium growth.” Critics never mention this finding.

The study’s secondary, more speculative, analysis took the observed effects of a single merger — the 1999 merger between Prudential and Aetna — and extrapolated for all changes in concentration (i.e., the number of insurers in a given market) and price over an eight-year period. It concluded that, on average, seven percent of the cumulative increase in premium prices between 1998 and 2006 was the result of a reduction in the number of insurers.

But what critics fail to mention is that when the authors looked at the actual consequences of the 1999 Prudential/Aetna merger, they found effects lasting only two years — and an average price increase of only one half of one percent. And these negligible effects were restricted to premiums paid under plans purchased by large employers, a critical limitation of the studies’ relevance to today’s proposed mergers.

Moreover, as the study notes in passing, over the same eight-year period, average premium prices increased in total by 54 percent. Yet the study offers no insights into what was driving the vast bulk of premium price increases — or whether those factors are still present today.  

Few sectors of the economy have changed more radically in the past few decades than healthcare has. While extrapolated effects drawn from 17-year-old data may grab headlines, they really don’t tell us much of anything about the likely effects of a particular merger today.

Indeed, the ACA and current trends in healthcare policy have dramatically altered the way health insurance markets work. Among other things, the advent of new technologies and the move to “value-based” care are redefining the relationship between insurers and healthcare providers. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Medicare and Medicare Advantage market at the heart of the Aetna/Humana merger.

In an effort to stop the merger on antitrust grounds, critics claim that Medicare and MA are distinct products, in distinct markets. But it is simply incorrect to claim that Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare aren’t “genuine alternatives.”

In fact, as the Office of Insurance Regulation in Florida — a bellwether state for healthcare policy — concluded in approving the merger: “Medicare Advantage, the private market product, competes directly with Traditional Medicare.”

Consumers who search for plans at Medicare.gov are presented with a direct comparison between traditional Medicare and available MA plans. And the evidence suggests that they regularly switch between the two. Today, almost a third of eligible Medicare recipients choose MA plans, and the majority of current MA enrollees switched to MA from traditional Medicare.

True, Medicare and MA plans are not identical. But for antitrust purposes, substitutes need not be perfect to exert pricing discipline on each other. Take HMOs and PPOs, for example. No one disputes that they are substitutes, and that prices for one constrain prices for the other. But as anyone who has considered switching between an HMO and a PPO knows, price is not the only variable that influences consumers’ decisions.

The same is true for MA and traditional Medicare. For many consumers, Medicare’s standard benefits, more-expensive supplemental benefits, plus a wider range of provider options present a viable alternative to MA’s lower-cost expanded benefits and narrower, managed provider network.

The move away from a traditional fee-for-service model changes how insurers do business. It requires larger investments in technology, better tracking of preventive care and health outcomes, and more-holistic supervision of patient care by insurers. Arguably, all of this may be accomplished most efficiently by larger insurers with more resources and a greater ability to work with larger, more integrated providers.

This is exactly why many hospitals, which continue to profit from traditional, fee-for-service systems, are opposed to a merger that promises to expand these value-based plans. Significantly, healthcare providers like Encompass Medical Group, which have done the most to transition their services to the value-based care model, have offered letters of support for the merger.

Regardless of their rhetoric — whether about market definition or historic precedent — the most vocal merger critics are opposed to the deal for a very simple reason: They stand to lose money if the merger is approved. That may be a good reason for some hospitals to wish the merger would go away, but it is a terrible reason to actually stop it.

[This post was first published on June 27, 2016 in The Hill as “Don’t believe the critics, Aetna-Humana merger a good deal for consumers“]

Thanks to Geoff for the introduction. I look forward to posting a few things over the summer.

I’d like to begin by discussing Geoff’s post on the pending legislative proposals designed to combat strategic abuse of drug safety regulations to prevent generic competition. Specifically, I’d like to address the economic incentive structure that is in effect in this highly regulated market.

Like many others, I first noticed the abuse of drug safety regulations to prevent competition when Turing Pharmaceuticals—then led by now infamous CEO Martin Shkreli—acquired the manufacturing rights for the anti-parasitic drug Daraprim, and raised the price of the drug by over 5,000%. The result was a drug that cost $750 per tablet. Daraprim (pyrimethamine) is used to combat malaria and toxoplasma gondii infections in immune-compromised patients, especially those with HIV. The World Health Organization includes Daraprim on its “List of Essential Medicines” as a medicine important to basic health systems. After the huge price hike, the drug was effectively out of reach for many insurance plans and uninsured patients who needed it for the six to eight week course of treatment for toxoplasma gondii infections.

It’s not unusual for drugs to sell at huge multiples above their manufacturing cost. Indeed, a primary purpose of patent law is to allow drug companies to earn sufficient profits to engage in the expensive and risky business of developing new drugs. But Daraprim was first sold in 1953 and thus has been off patent for decades. With no intellectual property protection Daraprim should, theoretically, now be available from generic drug manufactures for only a little above cost. Indeed, this is what we see in the rest of the world. Daraprim is available all over the world for very cheap prices. The per tablet price is 3 rupees (US$0.04) in India, R$0.07 (US$0.02) in Brazil, US$0.18 in Australia, and US$0.66 in the UK.

So what gives in the U.S.? Or rather, what does not give? What in our system of drug distribution has gotten stuck and is preventing generic competition from swooping in to compete down the high price of off-patent drugs like Daraprim? The answer is not market failure, but rather regulatory failure, as Geoff noted in his post. While generics would love to enter a market where a drug is currently selling for high profits, they cannot do so without getting FDA approval for their generic version of the drug at issue. To get approval, a generic simply has to file an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) that shows that its drug is equivalent to the branded drug with which it wants to compete. There’s no need for the generic to repeat the safety and efficacy tests that the brand manufacturer originally conducted. To test for equivalence, the generic needs samples of the brand drug. Without those samples, the generic cannot meet its burden of showing equivalence. This is where the strategic use of regulation can come into play.

Geoff’s post explains the potential abuse of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (“REMS”). REMS are put in place to require certain safety steps (like testing a woman for pregnancy before prescribing a drug that can cause birth defects) or to restrict the distribution channels for dangerous or addictive drugs. As Geoff points out, there is evidence that a few brand name manufacturers have engaged in bad-faith refusals to provide samples using the excuse of REMS or restricted distribution programs to (1) deny requests for samples, (2) prevent generic manufacturers from buying samples from resellers, and (3) deny generics whose drugs have won approval access to the REMS system that is required for generics to distribute their drugs. Once the FDA has certified that a generic manufacturer can safely handle the drug at issue, there is no legitimate basis for the owners of brand name drugs to deny samples to the generic maker. Expressed worries about liability from entering joint REMS programs with generics also ring hollow, for the most part, and would be ameliorated by the pending legislation.

It’s important to note that this pricing situation is unique to drugs because of the regulatory framework surrounding drug manufacture and distribution. If a manufacturer of, say, an off-patent vacuum cleaner wants to prevent competitors from copying its vacuum cleaner design, it is unlikely to be successful. Even if the original manufacturer refuses to sell any vacuum cleaners to a competitor, and instructs its retailers not to sell either, this will be very difficult to monitor and enforce. Moreover, because of an unrestricted resale market, a competitor would inevitably be able to obtain samples of the vacuum cleaner it wishes to copy. Only patent law can successfully protect against the copying of a product sold to the general public, and when the patent expires, so too will the ability to prevent copying.

Drugs are different. The only way a consumer can resell prescription drugs is by breaking the law. Pills bought from an illegal secondary market would be useless to generics for purposes of FDA approval anyway, because the chain of custody would not exist to prove that the samples are the real thing. This means generics need to get samples from the authorized manufacturer or distribution company. When a drug is subject to a REMS-required restricted distribution program, it is even more difficult, if not impossible, for a generic maker to get samples of the drugs for which it wants to make generic versions. Restricted distribution programs, which are used for dangerous or addictive drugs, by design very tightly control the chain of distribution so that the drugs go only to patients with proper prescriptions from authorized doctors.

A troubling trend has arisen recently in which drug owners put their branded drugs into restricted distribution programs not because of any FDA REMS requirement, but instead as a method to prevent generics from obtaining samples and making generic versions of the drugs. This is the strategy that Turing used before it raised prices over 5,000% on Daraprim. And Turing isn’t the only company to use this strategy. It is being emulated by others, although perhaps not so conspicuously. For instance, in 2015, Valeant Pharmaceuticals completed a hostile takeover of Allergan Pharmaceuticals, with the help of the hedge fund, Pershing Square. Once Valeant obtained ownership of Allergan and its drug portfolio, it adopted restricted distribution programs and raised the prices on its off-patent drugs substantially. It raised the price of two life-saving heart drugs by 212% and 525% respectively. Others have followed suit.

A key component of the strategy to profit from hiking prices on off-patent drugs while avoiding competition from generics is to select drugs that do not currently have generic competitors. Sometimes this is because a drug has recently come off patent, and sometimes it is because the drug is for a small patient population, and thus generics haven’t bothered to enter the market given that brand name manufacturers generally drop their prices to close to cost after the drug comes off patent. But with the strategic control of samples and refusals to allow generics to enter REMS programs, the (often new) owners of the brand name drugs seek to prevent the generic competition that we count on to make products cheap and plentiful once their patent protection expires.

Most brand name drug makers do not engage in withholding samples from generics and abusing restricted distribution and REMS programs. But the few that do cost patients and insurers dearly for important medicines that should be much cheaper once they go off patent. More troubling still is the recent strategy of taking drugs that have been off patent and cheap for years, and abusing the regulatory regime to raise prices and block competition. This growing trend of abusing restricted distribution and REMS to facilitate rent extraction from drug purchasers needs to be corrected.

Two bills addressing this issue are pending in Congress. Both bills (1) require drug companies to provide samples to generics after the FDA has certified the generic, (2) require drug companies to enter into shared REMS programs with generics, (3) allow generics to set up their own REMS compliant systems, and (4) exempt drug companies from liability for sharing products and REMS-compliant systems with generic companies in accordance with the steps set out in the bills. When it comes to remedies, however, the Senate version is significantly better. The penalties provided in the House bill are both vague and overly broad. The bill provides for treble damages and costs against the drug company “of the kind described in section 4(a) of the Clayton Act.” Not only is the application of the Clayton Act unclear in the context of the heavily regulated market for drugs (see Trinko), but treble damages may over-deter reasonably restrictive behavior by drug companies when it comes to distributing dangerous drugs.

The remedies in the Senate version are very well crafted to deter rent seeking behavior while not overly deterring reasonable behavior. The remedial scheme is particularly good, because it punishes most those companies that attempt to make exorbitant profits on drugs by denying generic entry. The Senate version provides as a remedy for unreasonable delay that the plaintiff shall be awarded attorneys’ fees, costs, and the defending drug company’s profits on the drug at issue during the time of the unreasonable delay. This means that a brand name drug company that sells an old drug for a low price and delays sharing only because of honest concern about the safety standards of a particular generic company will not face terribly high damages if it is found unreasonable. On the other hand, a company that sends the price of an off-patent drug soaring and then attempts to block generic entry will know that it can lose all of its rent-seeking profits, plus the cost of the victorious generic company’s attorneys fees. This vastly reduces the incentive for the company owning the brand name drug to raise prices and keep competitors out. It likewise greatly increases the incentive of a generic company to enter the market and–if it is unreasonably blocked–to file a civil action the result of which would be to transfer the excess profits to the generic. This provides a rather elegant fix to the regulatory gaming in this area that has become an increasing problem. The balancing of interests and incentives in the Senate bill should leave many congresspersons feeling comfortable to support the bill.

Brand drug manufacturers are no strangers to antitrust accusations when it comes to their complicated relationship with generic competitors — most obviously with respect to reverse payment settlements. But the massive and massively complex regulatory scheme under which drugs are regulated has provided other opportunities for regulatory legerdemain with potentially anticompetitive effect, as well.

In particular, some FTC Commissioners have raised concerns that brand drug companies have been taking advantage of an FDA drug safety program — the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies program, or “REMS” — to delay or prevent generic entry.

Drugs subject to a REMS restricted distribution program are difficult to obtain through market channels and not otherwise readily available, even for would-be generic manufacturers that need samples in order to perform the tests required to receive FDA approval to market their products. REMS allows (requires, in fact) brand manufacturers to restrict the distribution of certain drugs that present safety or abuse risks, creating an opportunity for branded drug manufacturers to take advantage of imprecise regulatory requirements by inappropriately limiting access by generic manufacturers.

The FTC has not (yet) brought an enforcement action, but it has opened several investigations, and filed an amicus brief in a private-party litigation. Generic drug companies have filed several antitrust claims against branded drug companies and raised concerns with the FDA.

The problem, however, is that even if these companies are using REMS to delay generics, such a practice makes for a terrible antitrust case. Not only does the existence of a regulatory scheme arguably set Trinko squarely in the way of a successful antitrust case, but the sort of refusal to deal claims at issue here (as in Trinko) are rightly difficult to win because, as the DOJ’s Section 2 Report notes, “there likely are few circumstances where forced sharing would help consumers in the long run.”

But just because there isn’t a viable antitrust case doesn’t mean there isn’t still a competition problem. But in this case, it’s a problem of regulatory failure. Companies rationally take advantage of poorly written federal laws and regulations in order to tilt the market to their own advantage. It’s no less problematic for the market, but its solution is much more straightforward, if politically more difficult.

Thus it’s heartening to see that Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), along with three of his colleagues (Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)), has proposed a novel but efficient way to correct these bureaucracy-generated distortions in the pharmaceutical market without resorting to the “blunt instrument” of antitrust law. As the bill notes:

While the antitrust laws may address actions by license holders who impede the prompt negotiation and development on commercially reasonable terms of a single, shared system of elements to assure safe use, a more tailored legal pathway would help ensure that license holders negotiate such agreements in good faith and in a timely manner, facilitating competition in the marketplace for drugs and biological products.

The legislative solution put forward by the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples (CREATES) Act of 2016 targets the right culprit: the poor regulatory drafting that permits possibly anticompetitive conduct to take place. Moreover, the bill refrains from creating a per se rule, instead implementing several features that should still enable brand manufacturers to legitimately restrict access to drug samples when appropriate.

In essence, Senator Lee’s bill introduces a third party (in this case, the Secretary of Health and Human Services) who is capable of determining whether an eligible generic manufacturer is able to comply with REMS restrictions — thus bypassing any bias on the part of the brand manufacturer. Where the Secretary determines that a generic firm meets the REMS requirements, the bill also creates a narrow cause of action for this narrow class of plaintiffs, allowing suits against certain brand manufacturers who — despite the prohibition on using REMS to delay generics — nevertheless misuse the process to delay competitive entry.

Background on REMS

The REMS program was introduced as part of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA). Following the withdrawal of Vioxx, an arthritis pain reliever, from the market because of a post-approval linkage of the drug to heart attacks, the FDA was under considerable fire, and there was a serious risk that fewer and fewer net beneficial drugs would be approved. The REMS program was introduced by Congress as a mechanism to ensure that society could reap the benefits from particularly risky drugs and biologics — rather than the FDA preventing them from entering the market at all. It accomplishes this by ensuring (among other things) that brands and generics adopt appropriate safety protocols for distribution and use of drugs — particularly when a drug has the potential to cause serious side effects, or has an unusually high abuse profile.

The FDA-determined REMS protocols can range from the simple (e.g., requiring a medication guide or a package insert about potential risks) to the more burdensome (including restrictions on a drug’s sale and distribution, or what the FDA calls “Elements to Assure Safe Use” (“ETASU”)). Most relevant here, the REMS process seems to allow brands considerable leeway to determine whether generic manufacturers are compliant or able to comply with ETASUs. Given this discretion, it is no surprise that brand manufacturers may be tempted to block competition by citing “safety concerns.”

Although the FDA specifically forbids the use of REMS to block lower-cost, generic alternatives from entering the market (of course), almost immediately following the law’s enactment, certain less-scrupulous branded pharmaceutical companies began using REMS for just that purpose (also, of course).

REMS abuse

To enter into pharmaceutical markets that no longer have any underlying IP protections, manufactures must submit to the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for a generic, or an Abbreviated Biologic License Application (ABLA) for a biosimilar, of the brand drug. The purpose is to prove to the FDA that the competing product is as safe and effective as the branded reference product. In order to perform the testing sufficient to prove efficacy and safety, generic and biosimilar drug manufacturers must acquire a sample (many samples, in fact) of the reference product they are trying to replicate.

For the narrow class of dangerous or highly abused drugs, generic manufacturers are forced to comply with any REMS restrictions placed upon the brand manufacturer — even when the terms require the brand manufacturer to tightly control the distribution of its product.

And therein lies the problem. Because the brand manufacturer controls access to its products, it can refuse to provide the needed samples, using REMS as an excuse. In theory, it may be true in certain cases that a brand manufacturer is justified in refusing to distribute samples of its product, of course; some would-be generic manufacturers certainly may not meet the requisite standards for safety and security.

But in practice it turns out that most of the (known) examples of brands refusing to provide samples happen across the board — they preclude essentially all generic competition, not just the few firms that might have insufficient safeguards. It’s extremely difficult to justify such refusals on the basis of a generic manufacturer’s suitability when all would-be generic competitors are denied access, including well-established, high-quality manufacturers.

But, for a few brand manufacturers, at least, that seems to be how the REMS program is implemented. Thus, for example, Jon Haas, director of patient access at Turing Pharmaceuticals, referred to the practice of denying generics samples this way:

Most likely I would block that purchase… We spent a lot of money for this drug. We would like to do our best to avoid generic competition. It’s inevitable. They seem to figure out a way [to make generics], no matter what. But I’m certainly not going to make it easier for them. We’re spending millions and millions in research to find a better Daraprim, if you will.

As currently drafted, the REMS program gives branded manufacturers the ability to limit competition by stringing along negotiations for product samples for months, if not years. Although access to a few samples for testing is seemingly such a small, trivial thing, the ability to block this access allows a brand manufacturer to limit competition (at least from bioequivalent and generic drugs; obviously competition between competing branded drugs remains).

And even if a generic competitor manages to get ahold of samples, the law creates an additional wrinkle by imposing a requirement that brand and generic manufacturers enter into a single shared REMS plan for bioequivalent and generic drugs. But negotiating the particulars of the single, shared program can drag on for years. Consequently, even when a generic manufacturer has received the necessary samples, performed the requisite testing, and been approved by the FDA to sell a competing drug, it still may effectively be barred from entering the marketplace because of REMS.

The number of drugs covered by REMS is small: fewer than 100 in a universe of several thousand FDA-approved drugs. And the number of these alleged to be subject to abuse is much smaller still. Nonetheless, abuse of this regulation by certain brand manufacturers has likely limited competition and increased prices.

Antitrust is not the answer

Whether the complex, underlying regulatory scheme that allocates the relative rights of brands and generics — and that balances safety against access — gets the balance correct or not is an open question, to be sure. But given the regulatory framework we have and the perceived need for some sort of safety controls around access to samples and for shared REMS plans, the law should at least work to do what it intends, without creating an opportunity for harmful manipulation. Yet it appears that the ambiguity of the current law has allowed some brand manufacturers to exploit these safety protections to limit competition.

As noted above, some are quite keen to make this an antitrust issue. But, as also noted, antitrust is a poor fit for handling such abuses.

First, antitrust law has an uneasy relationship with other regulatory schemes. Not least because of Trinko, it is a tough case to make that brand manufacturers are violating antitrust laws when they rely upon legal obligations under a safety program that is essentially designed to limit generic entry on safety grounds. The issue is all the more properly removed from the realm of antitrust enforcement given that the problem is actually one of regulatory failure, not market failure.

Second, antitrust law doesn’t impose a duty to deal with rivals except in very limited circumstances. In Trinko, for example, the Court rejected the invitation to extend a duty to deal to situations where an existing, voluntary economic relationship wasn’t terminated. By definition this is unlikely to be the case here where the alleged refusal to deal is what prevents the generic from entering the market in the first place. The logic behind Trinko (and a host of other cases that have limited competitors’ obligations to assist their rivals) was to restrict duty to deal cases to those rare circumstances where it reliably leads to long-term competitive harm — not where it amounts to a perfectly legitimate effort to compete without giving rivals a leg-up.

But antitrust is such a powerful tool and such a flexible “catch-all” regulation, that there are always efforts to thwart reasonable limits on its use. As several of us at TOTM have written about at length in the past, former FTC Commissioner Rosch and former FTC Chairman Leibowitz were vocal proponents of using Section 5 of the FTC Act to circumvent sensible judicial limits on making out and winning antitrust claims, arguing that the limits were meant only for private plaintiffs — not (implicitly infallible) government enforcers. Although no one at the FTC has yet (publicly) suggested bringing a REMS case as a standalone Section 5 case, such a case would be consistent with the sorts of theories that animated past standalone Section 5 cases.

Again, this approach serves as an end-run around the reasonable judicial constraints that evolved as a result of judges actually examining the facts of individual cases over time, and is a misguided way of dealing with what is, after all, fundamentally a regulatory design problem.

The CREATES Act

Senator Lee’s bill, on the other hand, aims to solve the problem with a more straightforward approach by improving the existing regulatory mechanism and by adding a limited judicial remedy to incentivize compliance under the amended regulatory scheme. In summary:

  • The bill creates a cause of action for a refusal to deal only where plaintiff can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that certain well-defined conditions are met.
  • For samples, if a drug is not covered by a REMS, or if the generic manufacturer is specifically authorized, then the generic can sue if it doesn’t receive sufficient quantities of samples on commercially reasonable terms. This is not a per se offense subject to outsized antitrust damages. Instead, the remedy is a limited injunction ensuring the sale of samples on commercially reasonable terms, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and a monetary fine limited to revenue earned from sale of the drug during the refusal period.
  • The bill also gives a brand manufacturer an affirmative defense if it can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, regardless of its own refusal to supply them, samples were nevertheless available elsewhere on commercially reasonable terms, or where the brand manufacturer is unable to supply the samples because it does not actually produce or market the drug.
  • In order to deal with the REMS process problems, the bill creates similar rights with similar limitations when the license holders and generics cannot come to an agreement about a shared REMS on commercially reasonable terms within 120 days of first contact by an eligible developer.
  • The bill also explicitly limits brand manufacturers’ liability for claims “arising out of the failure of an [eligible generic manufacturer] to follow adequate safeguards,” thus removing one of the (perfectly legitimate) objections to the bill pressed by brand manufacturers.

The primary remedy is limited, injunctive relief to end the delay. And brands are protected from frivolous litigation by an affirmative defense under which they need only show that the product is available for purchase on reasonable terms elsewhere. Damages are similarly limited and are awarded only if a court finds that the brand manufacturer lacked a legitimate business justification for its conduct (which, under the drug safety regime, means essentially a reasonable belief that its own REMS plan would be violated by dealing with the generic entrant). And monetary damages do not include punitive damages.

Finally, the proposed bill completely avoids the question of whether antitrust laws are applicable, leaving that possibility open to determination by courts — as is appropriate. Moreover, by establishing even more clearly the comprehensive regulatory regime governing potential generic entrants’ access to dangerous drugs, the bill would, given the holding in Trinko, probably make application of antitrust laws here considerably less likely.

Ultimately Senator Lee’s bill is a well-thought-out and targeted fix to an imperfect regulation that seems to be facilitating anticompetitive conduct by a few bad actors. It does so without trampling on the courts’ well-established antitrust jurisprudence, and without imposing excessive cost or risk on the majority of brand manufacturers that behave perfectly appropriately under the law.

Last week, the Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing (CSRxP)—whose membership includes health insurance companies and other health payors, health providers, and consumers—proposed various reforms aimed at addressing the high costs of prescription drugs. CSRxP declares that their proposals will improve the functioning of the pharmaceutical market by increasing pricing transparency, promoting competition, and enhancing value. Although there are some good ideas in their list of proposals, others will negatively affect the pharmaceutical market, and ultimately, consumers.

The first set of proposals is aimed at increasing transparency in drug pricing.  I’ve previously commented on the likely negative effects of transparency reforms: they impose extensive legal and regulatory costs on businesses and risk harming competition if competitively-sensitive information gets into the wrong hands. CSRxP proposes that manufacturers disclose the price they intend to charge for a drug as part of the FDA approval process and, after approval, report price changes to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Requiring manufacturers to report expected pricing as a condition of FDA approval suggests that the FDA’s role in assessing the risks and efficacy of drugs will merge with a central planner’s job of determining how products should be priced in the market. Will a drug not be approved if the price is too high? Shouldn’t consumers and payors, not a government agency, determine the market demand for a drug? And what will HHS do with the price change information—just condemn the “blameworthy” manufacturers or institute some sort of price control with its ensuing harms?

The second set of proposals purports to promote competition in the market for drugs. Many of these proposals are good ideas, and will help bring more and cheaper drugs to the market.  However, policy makers should tread carefully with other proposals, such as a call to prohibit product-hopping, because an overeager adoption or imprecise application of these reforms could curb pharmaceutical innovation and worsen patient health outcomes.  Lawmakers must ensure that adopted reforms balance incentives to innovate with the fostering of competition and lower prices.

The third set of proposals target the so-called “value” of drugs. Here, CSRxP proposes that manufacturers perform comparison studies to demonstrate that their drug is superior to existing drugs. While, in theory, knowing the relative effectiveness of drugs sounds great, there are two critical problems with this approach. First, are we really going to require more testing by drug manufacturers? It is estimated that testing and development costs already reach an average of $2.6 billion for each new drug brought to market; this is one of the explanations for the already high price of drugs. Why would we want to add more expensive testing? Also, I’m skeptical that comparison studies can offer the necessary insight into what drug works best for an individual patient. Drugs that perform extremely well for a small group of people may appear to have only average effectiveness in aggregate studies. And we certainly don’t want the expense of separate comparison studies on countless small groups of patients.

CSRxP also proposes that the government adopt value-based purchasing (VBP) arrangements that link payment for medications to patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness rather than just the quantity of treatments. Although CSRxP doesn’t detail the specific form of VBP they prefer, some of the possibilities could produce harmful consequences. Namely, VBP arrangements that set a standard payment rate for a group of similar drug products, such as reference pricing, will effectively act like a price control because the only way certain drugs will be available is if drug companies agree to offer them at that set rate. Price controls—whether direct or indirect—are a bad idea for prescription drugs for several reasons. Evidence shows that price controls lead to higher initial launch prices for drugs, increased drug prices for consumers with private insurance coverage, drug shortages in certain markets, and reduced incentives for innovation.

In sum, while CSRxP has some good ideas in their list, many of the proposals would ultimately harm the very patients the proposals are designed to benefit. Policymakers should steer clear of any reform that could act as a direct or indirect price control, increase the already high costs of developing drugs, or reduce incentives for innovation.

In an effort to control drug spending, several states are considering initiatives that will impose new price controls on prescription drugs. Ballot measures under consideration in California and Ohio will require drug companies to sell drugs under various state programs at a mandated discount. And legislators in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania have drafted bills that would create new government commissions to regulate the price of drugs. These state initiatives have followed proposals by presidential nominees to enact new price controls to address the high costs of pharmaceuticals.

As I explain in a new study, further price controls are a bad idea for several reasons.

First, as I discussed in a previous post, several government programs, such as Medicaid, the 340B Program, the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs drug programs, and spending in the coverage gap of Medicare Part D, already impose price controls. Under these programs, required rebates are typically calculated as set percentages off of a drug company’s average drug price. But this approach gives drug companies an incentive to raise prices; a required percentage rebate off of a higher average price can serve to offset the mandated price control.

Second, over 40 percent of drugs sold in the U.S. are sold under government programs that mandate price controls. With such a large share of their drugs sold at significant discounts, drug companies have the incentive to charge even higher prices to other non-covered patients to offset the discounts. Indeed, numerous studies and government analyses have concluded that required discounts under Medicaid and Medicare have resulted in increased prices for other consumers as manufacturers seek to offset revenue lost under price controls.

Third, evidence suggests that price controls contribute to significant drug shortages: at a below-market price, the demand for drugs exceeds the amount of drugs that manufacturers are willing or able to sell.

Fourth, price controls hinder innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Brand drug companies incur an average of $2.6 billion in costs to bring each new drug to market with FDA approval. They must offset these significant costs with revenues earned during the patent period; within 3 months after patent expiry, generic competitors will have already captured over 70 percent of the brand drugs’ market share and significantly eroded their profits. But price controls imposed on drugs under patent increase the risk that drug companies will not earn the profits they need to offset their development costs (only 20% of marketed brand drugs ever earn enough sales to cover their development cost). The result will be less R&D spending and less innovation. Indeed, a substantial body of empirical literature establishes that pharmaceutical firms’ profitability is linked to their research and development efforts and innovation.

Instead of imposing price controls, the government should increase drug competition in order to reduce drug spending without these negative consequences. Increased drug competition will expand product offerings, giving consumers more choice in the drugs they take. It will also lower prices and spur innovation as suppliers compete to attain or protect valuable market share from rivals.

First, the FDA should reduce the backlog of generic drugs awaiting approval. The single most important factor in controlling drug spending in recent decades has been the dramatic increase in generic drug usage; generic drugs have saved consumers $1.68 trillion over the past decade. But the degree to which generics reduce drug prices depends on the number of generic competitors in the market; the more competitors, the more price competition and downward pressure on prices. Unfortunately, a backlog of generic drug approvals at the FDA has restricted generic competition in many important market segments. There are currently over 3,500 generic applications pending approval; fast-tracking these FDA approvals will provide consumers with many new lower-priced drug options.

Second, regulators should expedite the approval and acceptance of biosimilars—the generic counterparts to high-priced biologic drugs. Biologic drugs are different from traditional medications because they are based on living organisms and, as a result, are far more complex and expensive to develop. By 2013, spending on biologic drugs comprised a quarter of all drug spending in the U.S., and their share of drug spending is expected increase significantly over the next decade. Unfortunately, the average cost of a biologic drug is 22 times greater than a traditional drug, making them prohibitively expensive for many consumers.

Fortunately, Congress has recognized the need for cheaper, “generic” substitutes for biologic drugs—or biosimilars. As part of the Affordable Care Act, Congress created a biosimilars approval pathway that would enable these cheaper biologic drugs to obtain FDA approval and reach patients more quickly. Nevertheless, the FDA has approved only one biosimilar for use in the U.S. despite several pending biosimilar applications. The agency has also yet to provide any meaningful guidance as to what standards it will employ in determining whether a biosimilar is interchangeable with a biologic. Burdensome requirements for interchangeability increase the difficulty and cost of biosimilar approval and limit the ease of biosimilar substitution at pharmacies.

Expediting the approval of biosimilars will increase competition in the market for biologic drugs, reducing prices and allowing more patients access to these life-saving and life-enhancing treatments. Estimates suggest that a biosimilar approval pathway at the FDA will save U.S. consumers between $44 billion and $250 billion over the next decade.

The recent surge in drug spending must be addressed to ensure that patients can continue to afford life-saving and life-enhancing medications. However, proposals calling for new price controls are the wrong approach. While superficially appealing, price controls may have unintended consequences—less innovation, drug shortages, and higher prices for some consumers—that could harm consumers rather than helping them. In contrast, promoting competition will lower pharmaceutical prices and drug spending without these deleterious effects.

 

 

 

Politicians have recently called for price controls to address the high costs of pharmaceuticals. Price controls are government-mandated limits on prices, or government-required discounts on prices. On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton has called for price controls for lower-income Medicare patients while Donald Trump has recently joined Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and President Obama in calling for more government intervention in the Medicare Part D program. Before embarking upon additional price controls for the drug industry, policymakers and presidential candidates would do well to understand the impacts and problems arising from existing controls.

Unbeknownst to many, a vast array of price controls are already in place in the pharmaceutical market. Over 40 percent of outpatient drug spending is spent in public programs that use price controls. In order to sell drugs to consumers covered by these public programs, manufacturers must agree to offer certain rebates or discounts on drug prices. The calculations are generally based on the Average Manufacturer Price (AMP–the average price wholesalers pay manufacturers for drugs that are sold to retail pharmacies) or the Best Price (the lowest price the manufacturer offers the drug to any purchaser including all rebates and discounts). The most significant public programs using some form of price control are described below.

  1. Medicaid

The Medicaid program provides health insurance for low-income and medically needy individuals. The legally-required rebate depends on the specific category of drug; for example, brand manufacturers are required to sell drugs for the lesser of 23.1% off AMP or the best price offered to any purchaser.

The Affordable Care Act significantly expanded Medicaid eligibility so that in 2014, the program covered approximately 64.9 million individuals, or 20 percent of the U.S. population. State Medicaid data indicates that manufacturers paid an enormous sum — in excess of $16.7 billion — in Medicaid rebates in 2012.

  1. 340B Program

The “340B Program”, created by Congress in 1992, requires drug manufacturers to provide outpatient drugs at significantly reduced prices to 340B-eligible entities—entities that serve a high proportion of low-income or uninsured patients. Like Medicaid, the 340B discount must be at least 23.1 percent off AMP. However, the statutory formula calculates different discounts for different products and is estimated to produce discounts that average 45 percent off average prices. Surprisingly, the formulas can even result in a negative 340B selling price for a drug, in which case manufacturers are instructed to set the drug price at a penny.

The Affordable Care Act broadened the definition of qualified buyers to include many additional types of hospitals. As a result, both the number of 340B-eligible hospitals and the money spent on 340B drugs tripled between 2005 and 2014. By 2014, there were over 14,000 hospitals and affiliated sites in the 340B program, representing about one-third of all U.S. hospitals.

The 340B program has a glaring flaw that punishes the pharmaceutical industry without any offsetting benefits for low-income patients. The 340B statute does NOT require that providers only dispense 340B drugs to needy patients. In what amounts to merely shifting profits from pharmaceutical companies to other health care providers, providers may also sell drugs purchased at the steep 340B discount to non-qualified patients and pocket the difference between the 340B discounted price and the reimbursement of the non-qualified patients’ private insurance companies. About half of the 340B entities generate significant revenues from private insurer reimbursements that exceed 340B prices.

  1. Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs Drug Programs

In order to sell drugs through the Medicaid program, drug manufacturers must also provide drugs to four government agencies—the VA, Department of Defense, Public Health Service and Coast Guard—at statutorily-imposed discounts. The required discounted price is the lesser of 24% off AMP or the lowest price manufacturers charge their most-favored nonfederal customers under comparable terms. Because of additional contracts that generate pricing concessions from specific vendors, studies indicate that VA and DOD pricing for brand pharmaceuticals was approximately 41-42% of the average wholesale price.

  1. Medicare Part D

An optional Medicare prescription drug benefit (Medicare Part D) was enacted in 2005 to offer coverage to many of the nation’s retirees and disabled persons. Unlike Medicaid and the 340B program, there is no statutory rebate level on prescription drugs covered under the program. Instead, private Medicare Part D plans, acting on behalf of the Medicare program, negotiate prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers and may obtain price concessions in the form of rebates. Manufacturers are willing to offer significant rebates and discounts in order to provide drugs to the millions of covered participants. The rebates often amount to as much as a 20-30 percent discount on brand medicines. CMS reported that manufacturers paid in excess of $10.3 billion in Part D rebates in 2012.

The Medicare Part D program does include direct price controls on drugs sold in the coverage gap. The coverage gap (or “donut hole”) is a spending level in which enrollees are responsible for a larger share of their total drug costs. For 2016, the coverage gap begins when the individual and the plan have spent $3,310 on covered drugs and ends when $7,515 has been spent. Medicare Part D requires brand drug manufacturers to offer 50 percent discounts on drugs sold during the coverage gap. These required discounts will cost drug manufacturers approximately $41 billion between 2012-2021.

While existing price controls do produce lower prices for some consumers, they may also result in increased prices for others, and in the long-term may drive up prices for all.  Many of the required rebates under Medicaid, the 340B program, and VA and DOD programs are based on drugs’ AMP.  Calculating rebates from average drug prices gives manufactures an incentive to charge higher prices to wholesalers and pharmacies in order to offset discounts. Moreover, with at least 40% of drugs sold under price controls, and some programs even requiring drugs to be sold for a penny, manufacturers are forced to sell many drugs at significant discounts.  This creates incentives to charge higher prices to other non-covered patients to offset the discounts.  Further price controls will only amplify these incentives and create inefficient market imbalances.

 

On January 12, 2016, the California state legislature will hold a hearing on AB 463: the Pharmaceutical Cost Transparency Act of 2016. The proposed bill would require drug manufacturers to disclose sensitive information about each drug with prices above a certain level.  The required disclosure includes various production costs including:  the costs of materials and manufacturing, the costs of research and development into the drug, the cost of clinical trials, the costs of any patents or licenses acquired in the development process, and the costs of marketing and advertising. Manufacturers would also be required to disclose a record of any pricing changes for the drug, the total profit attributable to the drug, the manufacturer’s aid to prescription assistance programs, and the costs of projects or drugs that fail during development.  Similar bills have been proposed in other states.

The stated goal of the proposed Act is to ‘make pharmaceutical pricing as transparent as the pricing in other sectors of the healthcare industry.’ However, by focusing almost exclusively on cost disclosure, the bill seemingly ignores the fact that market price is determined by both supply and demand factors. Although costs of development and production are certainly an important factor, pricing is also based on factors such as therapeutic value, market size, available substitutes, patent life, and many other factors.

Moreover, the bill does not clarify how drug manufacturers are to account for and disclose one of the most significant costs to pharmaceutical manufacturers: the cost of failed drugs that never make it to market. Data suggests that only around 10 percent of drugs that begin clinical trials are eventually approved by the FDA. Drug companies depend on the profits from these “hits” in order to stay in business; companies must use the profits from successful drugs to subsidize the significant losses from the 90 percent of drugs that fail.   AB 463 enables manufacturers to disclose the costs of failures, but is unclear if they are able to consider the total losses from the 90 percent of drugs that fail, or only failed drugs that were developed in conjunction with the drug in question. Moreover, even though profits from successful drugs are necessary to subsidize failures, AB 463 is silent on whether the losses from failures can be included in profit calculations.

It’s also worth pointing out that any evaluation of drug manufacturers’ profits should recognize the basic risk-return tradeoff. In order to willingly incur risk—and a 90 percent failure rate of drugs in development is a significant risk—investors and companies demand profits or returns greater than the return on less risky endeavors. That is, if investors or companies can make a 5% return on a safe, predictable investment that has little variation in returns, why would they ever engage in a risky endeavor (especially one with a 90% failure rate) if they don’t earn a substantially higher return?  The market resolves these issues by compensating risky endeavors with a higher expected return. Thus, we should expect companies engaged in the risky business of drug development to receive higher profits than businesses engaged in more conservative businesses.

It will also prove difficult, if not impossible, for drug manufacturers to disclose information about even the “hits” because many of the costs that manufacturers incur are difficult to attribute to a specific drug. Much pre-clinical research is for the purpose of generating dozens or hundreds of possible drug candidates; how should these very expensive research costs be attributed?  How should companies allocate the costs of meeting regulatory requirements; these are rarely incurred independently for each drug? And the overhead costs of operating a business with thousands of employees are also impossible to allocate to a specific drug.  By ignoring these shared costs, AB 463 does little to illuminate the full costs to drug manufacturers.

Instead of providing useful information to make drug pricing more transparent, AB 463 will impose extensive legal and regulatory costs on businesses. The additional disclosure directly increases costs for manufacturers as they collect, prepare, and present the required data. Manufacturers will also incur significant costs as they consult with lawyers and regulators to ensure that they are meeting the disclosure requirements. These costs will ultimately be passed on to consumers in the form of higher drug prices.

Finally, disclosure of such competitively-sensitive information as that required under AB 463 risks harming competition if it gets into the wrong hands. If the confidentiality provisions prove unclear or inadequate, AB 463 may permit the broader disclosure of sensitive information to competitors. This will, in turn, facilitate collusion, raise prices, and harm the very consumers AB 463 is designed to protect.

In sum, the incomplete disclosure required under AB 463 will provide little transparency to the public. The resources could be better used to foster innovation and develop new treatments that lower total health care costs in the long run.

Thanks to the Truth on the Market bloggers for having me. I’m a long-time fan of the blog, and excited to be contributing.

The Third Circuit will soon review the appeal of generic drug manufacturer, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, in the latest case involving “product hopping” in the pharmaceutical industry — Mylan Pharmaceuticals v. Warner Chilcott.

Product hopping occurs when brand pharmaceutical companies shift their marketing efforts from an older version of a drug to a new, substitute drug in order to stave off competition from cheaper generics. This business strategy is the predictable business response to the incentives created by the arduous FDA approval process, patent law, and state automatic substitution laws. It costs brand companies an average of $2.6 billion to bring a new drug to market, but only 20 percent of marketed brand drugs ever earn enough to recoup these costs. Moreover, once their patent exclusivity period is over, brand companies face the likely loss of 80-90 percent of their sales to generic versions of the drug under state substitution laws that allow or require pharmacists to automatically substitute a generic-equivalent drug when a patient presents a prescription for a brand drug. Because generics are automatically substituted for brand prescriptions, generic companies typically spend very little on advertising, instead choosing to free ride on the marketing efforts of brand companies. Rather than hand over a large chunk of their sales to generic competitors, brand companies often decide to shift their marketing efforts from an existing drug to a new drug with no generic substitutes.

Generic company Mylan is appealing U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond’s April decision to grant defendant and brand company Warner Chilcott’s summary judgment motion. Mylan and other generic manufacturers contend that Defendants engaged in a strategy to impede generic competition for branded Doryx (an acne medication) by executing several product redesigns and ceasing promotion of prior formulations. Although the plaintiffs generally changed their products to keep up with the brand-drug redesigns, they contend that these redesigns were intended to circumvent automatic substitution laws, at least for the periods of time before the generic companies could introduce a substitute to new brand drug formulations. The plaintiffs argue that product redesigns that prevent generic manufacturers from benefitting from automatic substitution laws violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

Product redesign is not per se anticompetitive. Retiring an older branded version of a drug does not block generics from competing; they are still able to launch and market their own products. Product redesign only makes competition tougher because generics can no longer free ride on automatic substitution laws; instead they must either engage in their own marketing efforts or redesign their product to match the brand drug’s changes. Moreover, product redesign does not affect a primary source of generics’ customers—beneficiaries that are channeled to cheaper generic drugs by drug plans and pharmacy benefit managers.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly concluded that “the antitrust laws…were enacted for the protection of competition not competitors” and that even monopolists have no duty to help a competitor. The district court in Mylan generally agreed with this reasoning, concluding that the brand company Defendants did not exclude Mylan and other generics from competition: “Throughout this period, doctors remained free to prescribe generic Doryx; pharmacists remained free to substitute generics when medically appropriate; and patients remained free to ask their doctors and pharmacists for generic versions of the drug.” Instead, the court argued that Mylan was a “victim of its own business strategy”—a strategy that relied on free-riding off brand companies’ marketing efforts rather than spending any of their own money on marketing. The court reasoned that automatic substitution laws provide a regulatory “bonus” and denying Mylan the opportunity to take advantage of that bonus is not anticompetitive.

Product redesign should only give rise to anticompetitive claims if combined with some other wrongful conduct, or if the new product is clearly a “sham” innovation. Indeed, Senior Judge Douglas Ginsburg and then-FTC Commissioner Joshua D. Wright recently came out against imposing competition law sanctions on product redesigns that are not sham innovations. If lawmakers are concerned that product redesigns will reduce generic usage and the cost savings they create, they could follow the lead of several states that have broadened automatic substitution laws to allow the substitution of generics that are therapeutically-equivalent but not identical in other ways, such as dosage form or drug strength.

Mylan is now asking the Third Circuit to reexamine the case. If the Third Circuit reverses the lower courts decision, it would imply that brand drug companies have a duty to continue selling superseded drugs in order to allow generic competitors to take advantage of automatic substitution laws. If the Third Circuit upholds the district court’s ruling on summary judgment, it will likely create a circuit split between the Second and Third Circuits. In July 2015, the Second Circuit court upheld an injunction in NY v. Actavis that required a brand company to continue manufacturing and selling an obsolete drug until after generic competitors had an opportunity to launch their generic versions and capture a significant portion of the market through automatic substitution laws. I’ve previously written about the duty created in this case.

Regardless of whether the Third Circuit’s decision causes a split, the Supreme Court should take up the issue of product redesign in pharmaceuticals to provide guidance to brand manufacturers that currently operate in a world of uncertainty and under the constant threat of litigation for decisions they make when introducing new products.

Last week concluded round 3 of Congressional hearings on mergers in the healthcare provider and health insurance markets. Much like the previous rounds, the hearing saw predictable representatives, of predictable constituencies, saying predictable things.

The pattern is pretty clear: The American Hospital Association (AHA) makes the case that mergers in the provider market are good for consumers, while mergers in the health insurance market are bad. A scholar or two decries all consolidation in both markets. Another interested group, like maybe the American Medical Association (AMA), also criticizes the mergers. And it’s usually left to a representative of the insurance industry, typically one or more of the merging parties themselves, or perhaps a scholar from a free market think tank, to defend the merger.

Lurking behind the public and politicized airings of these mergers, and especially the pending Anthem/Cigna and Aetna/Humana health insurance mergers, is the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Unfortunately, the partisan politics surrounding the ACA, particularly during this election season, may be trumping the sensible economic analysis of the competitive effects of these mergers.

In particular, the partisan assessments of the ACA’s effect on the marketplace have greatly colored the Congressional (mis-)understandings of the competitive consequences of the mergers.  

Witness testimony and questions from members of Congress at the hearings suggest that there is widespread agreement that the ACA is encouraging increased consolidation in healthcare provider markets, for example, but there is nothing approaching unanimity of opinion in Congress or among interested parties regarding what, if anything, to do about it. Congressional Democrats, for their part, have insisted that stepped up vigilance, particularly of health insurance mergers, is required to ensure that continued competition in health insurance markets isn’t undermined, and that the realization of the ACA’s objectives in the provider market aren’t undermined by insurance companies engaging in anticompetitive conduct. Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans have generally been inclined to imply (or outright state) that increased concentration is bad, so that they can blame increasing concentration and any lack of competition on the increased regulatory costs or other effects of the ACA. Both sides appear to be missing the greater complexities of the story, however.

While the ACA may be creating certain impediments in the health insurance market, it’s also creating some opportunities for increased health insurance competition, and implementing provisions that should serve to hold down prices. Furthermore, even if the ACA is encouraging more concentration, those increases in concentration can’t be assumed to be anticompetitive. Mergers may very well be the best way for insurers to provide benefits to consumers in a post-ACA world — that is, the world we live in. The ACA may have plenty of negative outcomes, and there may be reasons to attack the ACA itself, but there is no reason to assume that any increased concentration it may bring about is a bad thing.

Asking the right questions about the ACA

We don’t need more self-serving and/or politicized testimony We need instead to apply an economic framework to the competition issues arising from these mergers in order to understand their actual, likely effects on the health insurance marketplace we have. This framework has to answer questions like:

  • How do we understand the effects of the ACA on the marketplace?
    • In what ways does the ACA require us to alter our understanding of the competitive environment in which health insurance and healthcare are offered?
    • Does the ACA promote concentration in health insurance markets?
    • If so, is that a bad thing?
  • Do efficiencies arise from increased integration in the healthcare provider market?
  • Do efficiencies arise from increased integration in the health insurance market?
  • How do state regulatory regimes affect the understanding of what markets are at issue, and what competitive effects are likely, for antitrust analysis?
  • What are the potential competitive effects of increased concentration in the health care markets?
  • Does increased health insurance market concentration exacerbate or counteract those effects?

Beginning with this post, at least a few of us here at TOTM will take on some of these issues, as part of a blog series aimed at better understanding the antitrust law and economics of the pending health insurance mergers.

Today, we will focus on the ambiguous competitive implications of the ACA. Although not a comprehensive analysis, in this post we will discuss some key insights into how the ACA’s regulations and subsidies should inform our assessment of the competitiveness of the healthcare industry as a whole, and the antitrust review of health insurance mergers in particular.

The ambiguous effects of the ACA

It’s an understatement to say that the ACA is an issue of great political controversy. While many Democrats argue that it has been nothing but a boon to consumers, Republicans usually have nothing good to say about the law’s effects. But both sides miss important but ambiguous effects of the law on the healthcare industry. And because they miss (or disregard) this ambiguity for political reasons, they risk seriously misunderstanding the legal and economic implications of the ACA for healthcare industry mergers.

To begin with, there are substantial negative effects, of course. Requiring insurance companies to accept patients with pre-existing conditions reduces the ability of insurance companies to manage risk. This has led to upward pricing pressure for premiums. While the mandate to buy insurance was supposed to help bring more young, healthy people into the risk pool, so far the projected signups haven’t been realized.

The ACA’s redefinition of what is an acceptable insurance policy has also caused many consumers to lose the policy of their choice. And the ACA’s many regulations, such as the Minimum Loss Ratio requiring insurance companies to spend 80% of premiums on healthcare, have squeezed the profit margins of many insurance companies, leading, in some cases, to exit from the marketplace altogether and, in others, to a reduction of new marketplace entry or competition in other submarkets.

On the other hand, there may be benefits from the ACA. While many insurers participated in private exchanges even before the ACA-mandated health insurance exchanges, the increased consumer education from the government’s efforts may have helped enrollment even in private exchanges, and may also have helped to keep premiums from increasing as much as they would have otherwise. At the same time, the increased subsidies for individuals have helped lower-income people afford those premiums. Some have even argued that increased participation in the on-demand economy can be linked to the ability of individuals to buy health insurance directly. On top of that, there has been some entry into certain health insurance submarkets due to lower barriers to entry (because there is less need for agents to sell in a new market with the online exchanges). And the changes in how Medicare pays, with a greater focus on outcomes rather than services provided, has led to the adoption of value-based pricing from both health care providers and health insurance companies.

Further, some of the ACA’s effects have  decidedly ambiguous consequences for healthcare and health insurance markets. On the one hand, for example, the ACA’s compensation rules have encouraged consolidation among healthcare providers, as noted. One reason for this is that the government gives higher payments for Medicare services delivered by a hospital versus an independent doctor. Similarly, increased regulatory burdens have led to higher compliance costs and more consolidation as providers attempt to economize on those costs. All of this has happened perhaps to the detriment of doctors (and/or patients) who wanted to remain independent from hospitals and larger health network systems, and, as a result, has generally raised costs for payors like insurers and governments.

But much of this consolidation has also arguably led to increased efficiency and greater benefits for consumers. For instance, the integration of healthcare networks leads to increased sharing of health information and better analytics, better care for patients, reduced overhead costs, and other efficiencies. Ultimately these should translate into higher quality care for patients. And to the extent that they do, they should also translate into lower costs for insurers and lower premiums — provided health insurers are not prevented from obtaining sufficient bargaining power to impose pricing discipline on healthcare providers.

In other words, both the AHA and AMA could be right as to different aspects of the ACA’s effects.

Understanding mergers within the regulatory environment

But what they can’t say is that increased consolidation per se is clearly problematic, nor that, even if it is correlated with sub-optimal outcomes, it is consolidation causing those outcomes, rather than something else (like the ACA) that is causing both the sub-optimal outcomes as well as consolidation.

In fact, it may well be the case that increased consolidation improves overall outcomes in healthcare provider and health insurance markets relative to what would happen under the ACA absent consolidation. For Congressional Democrats and others interested in bolstering the ACA and offering the best possible outcomes for consumers, reflexively challenging health insurance mergers because consolidation is “bad,” may be undermining both of these objectives.

Meanwhile, and for the same reasons, Congressional Republicans who decry Obamacare should be careful that they do not likewise condemn mergers under what amounts to a “big is bad” theory that is inconsistent with the rigorous law and economics approach that they otherwise generally support. To the extent that the true target is not health insurance industry consolidation, but rather underlying regulatory changes that have encouraged that consolidation, scoring political points by impugning mergers threatens both health insurance consumers in the short run, as well as consumers throughout the economy in the long run (by undermining the well-established economic critiques of a reflexive “big is bad” response).

It is simply not clear that ACA-induced health insurance mergers are likely to be anticompetitive. In fact, because the ACA builds on state regulation of insurance providers, requiring greater transparency and regulatory review of pricing and coverage terms, it seems unlikely that health insurers would be free to engage in anticompetitive price increases or reduced coverage that could harm consumers.

On the contrary, the managerial and transactional efficiencies from the proposed mergers, combined with greater bargaining power against now-larger providers are likely to lead to both better quality care and cost savings passed-on to consumers. Increased entry, at least in part due to the ACA in most of the markets in which the merging companies will compete, along with integrated health networks themselves entering and threatening entry into insurance markets, will almost certainly lead to more consumer cost savings. In the current regulatory environment created by the ACA, in other words, insurance mergers have considerable upside potential, with little downside risk.

Conclusion

In sum, regardless of what one thinks about the ACA and its likely effects on consumers, it is not clear that health insurance mergers, especially in a post-ACA world, will be harmful.

Rather, assessing the likely competitive effects of health insurance mergers entails consideration of many complicated (and, unfortunately, politicized) issues. In future blog posts we will discuss (among other things): the proper treatment of efficiencies arising from health insurance mergers, the appropriate geographic and product markets for health insurance merger reviews, the role of state regulations in assessing likely competitive effects, and the strengths and weaknesses of arguments for potential competitive harms arising from the mergers.