As the largest, single US healthcare payer, the government plays a dominant role in shaping the healthcare marketplace. Our experts track, interpret, and model federal policies that affect insurance coverage, access, and consumer choice so you can see around the bend.
As the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) consider what, if any, changes to propose to Medicare Advantage (MA) through fall rulemaking, stakeholders should consider where the Biden adminstration’s priorities may differ from the previous administration’s. Topics that may be addressed—either in regulation or via legislation—include health equity, supplemental benefit flexibility, star ratings, payment and risk adjustment, and end-stage renal disease (ESRD).
While access to insurance has increased for millions, mid-year plan switching can have unforeseen consequences for patients.
As Congress renews focus on drug pricing reforms, an Avalere analysis examines recent trends in the Part D program’s subsidy payments and implications on stakeholder liabilities in the program.
Policy proposals for Medicare’s CAR-T inpatient reimbursement build on policies finalized in last year’s rulemaking. Looking ahead, stakeholders will continue to weigh the appropriateness of payment.
As the COVID-19 pandemic draws to a close in the US, another public health concern is once again coming to the fore: antimicrobial resistance (AMR).
New Avalere analysis finds that lowering the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 60 could expand access to Medicare coverage for an additional 24.5 million individuals, but Medicare premiums may be less affordable in some cases than subsidized exchange coverage.
In his first address to Congress, President Biden signaled that healthcare will continue to be a high priority for his administration, specifically highlighting pandemic response, drug pricing priorities (e.g., Medicare negotiation), and Affordable Care Act (ACA) enhancements.
Digital health will continue to be a focus under recently confirmed Secretary Becerra‘s leadership at the Department of Health and Human Services. As the Biden administration looks to enforce compliance across a range of data interoperability and price transparency rules, as well as usher in new Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) coverage policies for medical technologies and digital health tools, the industry is responding with a range of innovations.
For prescription drug fills across 4 therapeutic areas, Avalere analysis finds that Medicare Part D beneficiaries who receive the Low-Income Subsidy (LIS) have those drugs prescribed by a specialist less frequently than those who do not receive LIS.
Tune into another episode of Avalere Health Essential Voice in our Start Your Day with Avalere series. In this segment, our policy experts discuss the topic of healthcare price transparency in terms of policy, compliance, and the potential impact of making previously confidential pricing information public.
A new analysis from Avalere estimates the impact of reverting back to the Calendar Year (CY) 2017 Medicare Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) payment policy that reimbursed all separately payable drugs at average sales price (ASP) plus 6%. Key findings suggest beneficiary cost sharing for separately payable drugs at 340B OPPS hospitals would increase by $472.8 million. Also, 82% of all OPPS hospitals—specifically 89% of rural, 80% of urban, and 49% of 340B hospitals—would see net total payment decreases.
Join Avalere’s panel of data analytics, market access, and policy experts for a discussion on the potential for federal drug pricing reform in Congress or via administrative action.
They bring nearly 40 years combined healthcare experience to the firm, with expertise in the health insurance sector.
New Avalere analysis finds that 3 proposals to redesign the Part D benefit—H.R.19/S.3129, Prescription Drug Price Reduction Act (PDPRA), and Elijah Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act (H.R.3)—would increase 2023 mandatory manufacturer discounts by 80%, 81%, and 283%, respectively, with significant variation across therapeutic areas.
Over 3 million Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries are enrolled in plans providing additional supplemental benefits to individuals with chronic illnesses, compared to just over 1 million in 2020.
Recent regulatory action released in the final days of the Trump administration related to Medicare Advantage (MA) and Part D could significantly impact plan and manufacturer calendar year (CY) 2022 contracting strategies and stakeholder advocacy priorities.
Avalere analysis found that in 2017 and 2018, more than half (56%) of Medicare patients with breast cancer taking a medicine covered by Medicare Part B received a therapy that was not routinely covered by England’s National Health Service (NHS) or its Cancer Drug Fund (CDF).
The COVID-19 pandemic has created significant challenges for all Americans, particularly for its most vulnerable populations, including the elderly and people with disabilities in Medicare. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently reported that 21% of fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare enrollees have stated they are forgoing non-COVID-19 related care due to the pandemic. Avalere conducted analyses to determine if a similar decrease in utilization is occurring in Medicare Advantage (MA) and assess the potential impact of deferred care on MA enrollees and plans.
On October 8, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published their 2021 Star Ratings for Medicare Advantage (MA-PDs) and standalone Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs) on Medicare Plan Finder.
The 351(k) biosimilars pathway was legally established under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010. Since the passage of the ACA, 28 biosimilars have been approved by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) along with the promulgation of policy that also applies to all biologics, including the creation of a suffix within the nonproprietary name of these products. Additionally, substantial case law has been made with respect to intellectual property pertaining to biologics. With the legality of the ACA currently under scrutiny, the future of BPCIA and biosimilars is uncertain.