Pharmaceutical executives offered President Trump alternatives to his most favored nation executive order, which has yet to be published.

Executives proposed two plans, one for Medicare Part B and one for Part D. Opposition to the newly proposed plans claim that the heavily biased proposals do not do enough to lower drug prices for patients, could cut pay for physicians, and would increase federal spending in most cases. To read the full article, click here.  

A recent survey conducted by McLaughlin & Associates, for AHIP, shows consumer opposition to recent drug pricing executive orders.

The survey concluded that while voters approve of President Trump’s efforts to lower the cost of prescriptions, they are not in favor of rebates. When asked specifically about rebates, less than half of the respondents were in favor of the order. Similarly, when given more information about the implications of the executive order, +9% of respondents disapproved. To review the complete survey, click here.

In a commentary post, member of the JAMA editorial board highlighted the impact that the cost escalation of biologics and specialty drugs has on Medicare Part B and D expenditures.

The original research claimed that biologic substitutions should be used by pharmacists to reduce costs, but this comment argues that that is not enough at a federal level. To read the entire commentary on the proposed solutions, click here.

• To review the original study, click here.

340B Health and 6 other national associations representing both hospitals and pharmacies wrote a letter to HHS Secretary Azar to prevent pharmaceutical companies from undermining the 340B drug pricing program.

This letter comes in the wake of 5 major pharmaceutical companies announcing that they will be limiting their participation in the 340B program by restricting their discounts. To read the full 340B Health press release, click here.

• To review the letter to Secretary Azar, click here.

‍