NPC says mandatory drug pricing model myths are unsupported by evidence

A new Health Affairs Forefront article from the National Pharmaceutical Council argues that mandatory international reference pricing would not lower drug costs for most patients and could harm patients and innovation. The piece lands as federal and congressional policymakers weigh versions of the model for Medicare drug pricing.

Why it matters: - Mandatory international reference pricing is showing up in both major policy pipelines, raising the odds that Medicare drug prices could be tied to foreign benchmarks. - The National Pharmaceutical Council says the approach rests on assumptions that are not supported by evidence. - NPC says the current proposals would not reduce drug costs for most patients. - NPC argues that PBM reforms and limits on 340B growth are better paths to affordability.

What happened: - The National Pharmaceutical Council published a new Health Affairs Forefront article, “Myths of Mandatory International Reference Pricing for Prescription Drugs.” - The article says it includes evidence meant to challenge common claims about mandatory international reference pricing, or IRP. - CMS proposed mandatory IRP policies through the GLOBE and GUARD models. - Those models are under review at the Office of Management and Budget. - The models would set the cost of certain drugs in Medicare Parts B and D at the lowest price among 19 reference countries. - Senate Finance Committee Minority Staff also issued a Request for Information on how to incorporate mandatory IRP into the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program.

The details: - NPC’s article says reference countries are not comparable to the U.S. - NPC says mandatory IRP would not help seniors and people with disabilities. - NPC says prescription drug costs are not the main driver of higher U.S. healthcare spending versus other countries. - NPC says mandatory IRP cannot cut U.S. drug costs without harming patients and pharmaceutical innovation. - NPC’s bottom line is that mandatory IRP is a bad idea because its assumptions lack evidence and the policy would not lower drug costs for most patients. - The article says PBM reforms and addressing growth in the 340B program are more promising routes to patient affordability. - NPC describes its mission as research on patient access to innovative medicines and the value of scientific advancement.

Between the lines: - The policy debate is broadening beyond one party or one agency. - CMS action and Senate Finance Committee interest suggest mandatory IRP could remain part of the drug pricing agenda. - NPC is trying to frame the debate around evidence, patient impact and innovation risk rather than headline savings claims.

What's next: - CMS’s GLOBE and GUARD models will continue moving through the review process at OMB. - Lawmakers and staff are expected to keep assessing whether mandatory IRP should be part of Medicare drug pricing changes. - The public debate will likely continue to focus on whether foreign price benchmarking can lower costs without reducing access or innovation.

The bottom line: - NPC’s message is simple: mandatory IRP is not a patient affordability fix, and policymakers should look instead to PBM reform and 340B changes. - More information is available in NPC’s announcement and the article can be read in Health Affairs Forefront.