- CMS sets the standards for the entire healthcare ecosystem. Lowering prices is not as simple as saying “Let’s drop that price to $XXX dollars per month.” Some questions to keep in mind as these negotiations continue: Is one of these medications the most advanced medication available and serves patients much better than what came before? Will there be interest in pursuing continued research if you drop the price too far? Will research into sures be disrupted? Will formularies be disrupted, and access changed? Will patients who use the product off label, or in a different dose, have their care interrupted? – Elizabeth Helms, Patient Advocate, Founder & Director, Chronic Care Policy Alliance
- CMS must stand firm on its principles and negotiate the best price possible for patients and take advantage of the unique opportunity provided by two medications in the same therapeutic class – both Xarelto and Eliquis. Xarelto was approved in 2011, but in 2018, Bayer and Janssen won a suit to prevent generic competition until 2024, but they have been involved with multiple lawsuits with generic manufacturers since then to proactively extend their patent. – Raj, Patient Advocate, Doctors for America
- CMS should use head-to-head studies when comparing treatments and avoid using the equal value of life years gained methodology as that may discriminate against older adults and people with disabilities, CMS’s main patient population. Pricing should also acknowledge that ambiguity exists. Different studies show varying side effects on Eliquis versus Xarelto. – Michael, Alliance for Aging Research
- The negotiation process will have rippling effects on the healthcare system in the long and short term – John Clymer, Patient Advocate, Executive Director, National Forum for Heart Disease & Stroke Prevention
- This law jeopardizes access for many cardiovascular patients. I am apprehensive about the law’s potential ripple effects on the cardiovascular sector. Five of the ten drugs selected are used in treating heart patients. This could inhibit new drug development and may hinder programs and trials that would benefit rare diseases. – Scott Leezer, Patient Advocate, Mended Hearts
- I urge CMS to look into the funding sources of speakers in the listening sessions, to ensure there are no conflicts of interest. – Raj, Patient Advocate, Doctors for America
- We want to ensure CMS receives feedback during these sessions; CMS needs to be able to ask clarifying questions and have an ongoing dialogue. – Michael, Alliance for Aging
- CMS must consider relevant pricing and outcomes on secondary indications for establishing prices, given the agency’s moiety policy. – Michael, Alliance for Aging Research
- This program is already slowing innovation. All the previous patients in this and other sessions have spoken about how vital the medications discussed are to their well-being. Patients require a flowing pipeline of new drugs since some patients with the same conditions require different medications, and some people have adverse reactions. Saying you are targeting one drug is like saying you want cream in only half of your cup of coffee. Innovation comes out of a wide range of investigations. CMS has been given a hard task, to hurt the people it has sworn to protect – I ask that CMS protects patients’ hope. – John Czwartacki, Patient Advocate, Founder, Survivors for Solutions