Skip to Main Content

Many Americans are angry and worried about the price of prescription drugs. Yet underneath the anecdotes and headlines, a deeper, more consequential issue is often ignored. A major transformation in the drug industry has occurred in recent years — and continues today. The science and economics of the pharmaceutical industry have fundamentally changed, but the way we pay for medicines has not.

We essentially have 21st-century drugs with a 20th-century payment system. It’s like using a 1999 road atlas in the era of Google Maps. There’s been a huge shift, and few policymakers understand its implications or what to do about it.


Here’s the 20th-century model: relatively simple drugs (think statins for lowering cholesterol) intended for broad populations that are easily copied as generics, which lower prices when they come to market. In contrast, the 21st-century model includes more complex drugs (think biologics like personalized therapies using the body’s own immune system to fight cancer) targeted for smaller populations (people with a specific genetic composition) that are harder to copy and often have higher costs compared to traditional drugs.

The cures these new drugs offer are often extraordinary. But with their development, policymakers face a fundamental question: Have the costs associated with developing these new lifesaving medicines outstripped our ability to pay for them?

Some policymakers think the solution is for the federal government to set prices far lower than drug companies now charge. But such government price-setting could be a major obstacle to discovering new cures for life-threatening diseases. So what do we do? I offer four proposals that could pave the way for a more modern payment system.


First, if more expensive medicines are the new normal, we should find a way to reduce out-of-pocket costs for patients. One place to start is Medicare. Today, there is no cap on seniors’ out-of-pocket spending in Medicare Part D unless they have low incomes. About 1 million seniors in 2016 found themselves in the catastrophic phase of the Part D benefit, where they got stuck paying an endless 5% of the cost of their drugs, some of which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. As more expensive, personalized cures become available, patients should be financially protected and we should provide industry stakeholders with incentives to better control costs.

Second, a 21st-century payment model must modernize how we pay for drugs in the Medicare Part B program. Unlike medicines you pick up at your local pharmacy, many Part B therapies are administered via injection, usually in a doctor’s office or at the hospital. These are also some of the most expensive new drugs on the market today. However, due to some perverse incentives, doctors and hospitals get paid more when they use more expensive drugs.

Even stranger, Medicare typically pays a physician employed by a hospital more to administer the same drug than a physician in an independent practice. This affects how much a Medicare patient pays for the service, leading seniors to face higher out-of-pocket costs with little transparency or ability to plan. We need to change these obviously flawed incentives.

Third, a 21st-century payment system should speed the development and approval of biosimilars, which are effectively the generic version of biologics. Biosimilars can help increase competition and lower prices. But right now, there are only 20 biosimilars approved in the U.S. — with just a handful available on the market — while more than 50 have been approved in Europe.

Why so different? In the U.S., some biosimilars face legal barriers in coming to the market because of the originator biologics’ significant patent protections. Some providers and payers are not able to convert patients to biosimilars because of a lack of information about — or confidence in — the interchangeability of a biosimilar with its reference biologic. Finally, biosimilars don’t always have the same discount relative to their biologics as generics do to their branded drug. That’s because biosimilars have approval processes that cost nearly as much as biologics. These issues must be addressed in a reformed payment system.

Fourth, we need more creative payment models in general. For example, no homeowner is expected to pay for a house with one lump-sum payment or for a car that doesn’t start. Creative models to finance over time, reimbursing for results, and reinsurance options that help payers hedge against high upfront costs are all features we should consider in a 21st-century payment system.

Drug therapies have changed dramatically in recent years, but the way we pay for them has not. This new reality is harming patients and their families and straining our health system. And it will only get worse if we maintain an outdated payment system.

Devin Nunes represents California’s 22nd Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives and is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health of the House Ways and Means Committee.

  • As a pharmacist, who has worked in hospitals, military, community health centers and PBMs for over thirty years, I find that the cost of drugs is not a nation wide problem for most americans. However, the quality of the products is a problem that should be addressed. Generic drugs are somewhat cheaper but, the quality of the products are much lower although purported by FDA to be equivalent.
    PBMs are the worst offenders for buying essentially generic trash from foreign countries and passing them to the American public as treatment for health care related problems. It is really disgusting what occurs. The FDA is falling short of its obligations to Americans.
    Physicians over prescribe.
    Patients do not control their weight,
    dietary, or exercise in an appropriate manner.
    Monitoring of the desired outcome of drug therapy is not provided by pharmacists through laboratory values and other testing methods.
    Prescription prices could be lowered
    in the following manner:
    1. A formulary of various maintenance drugs could be established and manufacturers of drugs would be invited to bid on the contracts. The contracts would be lucrative enough to provide a profit to manufacturers.
    Contracts would require drug ingredients to be Made in America to ensure quality. Foreign drug ingredients hold the American public hostage. Quality and accessability is questionable.
    2. Patients pay a copay for the formulary drugs and monitoring by a pharmacist is required.
    3. Pharmacists are required to educate, review and monitor drug therapy and report results electronically to the patient’s physician. Adjustments to therapy would be recommended by the pharmacists and other healthcare providers to the physician.

    The costs savings would acurre to the government by reducing acquisition cost, monitoring, and patient involvement finacially and

    The process is successful because
    the quality is guaranted because control of quality is assured from the initial process through outcome.

    More detail is available on request.

    Gary Frech
    [email protected]

Comments are closed.