Policy and Regulation News

What Final Medicaid Value-Based Purchasing Rule Means for Payers

In the finalized rule, CMS addressed two concerns that payers and other stakeholders had about the definition of value-based purchasing and implications for “best price” policies.

Medicaid Spending, CMS, Medicaid, Value-Based Contracting, Value-based Reimbursement

Source: Getty Images

By Kelsey Waddill

- CMS has finalized a rule which promotes private payers and states negotiating value-based purchasing contracts for Medicaid drugs, along with other changes.

The final rule was built upon the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (MDRP) law from the 1990s, also called the Medicaid “best price” rule. The rule established that Medicaid beneficiaries should receive a rebate from pharmaceutical manufacturers. In establishing this law, Congress aimed to secure the lowest price on prescription drugs for Medicaid beneficiaries.

The program has evolved over the past three decades, but this core driver has remained the same.

Midway through 2020, CMS suggested that MDRP was due for more extensive updates in order to provide more flexibility for payers looking to cover Medicaid prescriptions under value-based purchasing models.

“Many insurers are experimenting with value-based purchasing approaches due to the proliferation of new therapies coming to market today that fight disease in an entirely new way, which could not have been imagined at the start of the MDRP 30 years ago,” the press release announcing the finalized rule acknowledged. “The potentially transformative impact of these new therapies has prompted insurers, including Medicaid, to rethink innovative payment approaches.”

READ MORE: How Payers Can Drive A Quicker Transition to Value-Based Care

Prescription drug manufacturers struggled to account for innovative value-based purchasing arrangements when they reported to CMS. The flexibilities in the final rule are designed to enable easier reporting of these value-based arrangements. Without the logistical barriers, payers may have more success negotiating value-based contracts with drug manufacturers.

CMS achieved this level of flexibility by expanding the definition for value-based purchasing. Additionally, the agency permitted pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer more than one best price to states.

As payers negotiate more value-based purchasing arrangements with pharmaceutical manufacturers, federal and state entities are poised to benefit from the savings, CMS projected. According to the agency’s estimates, three years after the rule goes into effect, value-based purchasing will have saved federal and state governments up to $228 million.

“When payers are positioned to be stronger negotiators with drug manufacturers, Medicaid beneficiaries will benefit from better access to prescription medications,” the press release explained.

The rule also refined requirements around cost-sharing assistance. If cost-sharing assistance measures do not diminish costs for patients but instead lower prices for payers, then pharmaceutical manufacturers will have to count them as Medicaid rebates.

READ MORE: Medicare Value-Based Contracting Model Emphasizes Care Coordination

Most of the rule will go into effect on March 1, 2021. However, CMS delayed the effective date for the cost-sharing changes and average Medicaid and best price determinations until January 1, 2023 and certain definition expansions as well as the changes to Medicaid drug rebates and state requirements will go into effect on January 1, 2022.

In the final rule, CMS responded to two major concerns that many organizations shared related to the definition of value-based purchasing and loopholes in the new best price policies.

Honing definitions

In the proposed rule, commenting organizations such as the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) were concerned about the new CMS definition for value-based purchasing agreements.

These organizations worried that the definition was excessively broad, permitting too many arrangements to qualify as “value-based,” and that the term “value” itself was particularly vague. They predicted that pharmaceutical companies would leverage this ambiguity to boost revenue and diminish Medicaid rebates.

CMS mostly retained its broad definition for the best price and average Medicaid price determinations and reporting. But the agency added the term “select” before “populations” in the finalized definition in order to emphasize that the value-based arrangements must apply to specific populations using the drug therapy.

READ MORE: How Medicare Successes Inform Medicaid Value-Based Care Progress

“We believe the definition of VBP arrangement should be broad enough so that manufacturers and payers, including states, have the flexibility to structure a VBP arrangement specific to the drug therapy being offered. Therefore, we are maintaining a broad definition to ensure such arrangements are recognized for purposes of determining and reporting best price and AMP; however, we agree with commenters that the evidence or outcomes-based measures used in a VBP arrangement should be evaluated in a select population,” CMS explained in the final rule.

CMS gave further clarification around its choice of words for the definition, which can be found in the text of the final rule.

Addressing “best price”

AARP and others also expressed concerns that the new CMS regulation would weaken the Medicaid best price policy. AARP credited the best price requirement with saving Medicaid up to $5 billion in 2015. But by promoting value-based purchasing, the CMS final rule could result in higher drug launch prices, which would increase Medicaid spending, AARP explained.

In the same vein, commenters predicted that pharmaceutical manufacturers might take advantage of the flexibility to offer multiple best prices.

“It is not clear from the rule as drafted if states would default to having the option to participate in a VBP arrangement offered to a commercial payer. It is not even certain that manufacturers would be able to share the details of a VBP arrangement, as such information is generally proprietary. Nor is it clear if states would need to be in identical VBP arrangements with the same targets, metrics, and outcomes to avail themselves of best prices realized between manufacturers and private entities,” National Association of Medicaid Directors (NAMD) said in its letter.

In response to these concerns, CMS emphasized that this rule builds on the previous regulation. Manufacturers have been using the bundled sales approach—which value-based purchasing agreements will fall under when the regulation goes into effect—with the assumption that value-based purchasing models would be categorized as such.

The best price reporting requirement will continue to be in place and manufacturers that do not engage in value-based agreements will have to report a single best price.

“To the extent that manufacturers increase prices on their products faster than the CPI-U, manufacturers would pay additional rebates (that is, inflation penalties) as required under section 1927(c) of the Act,” CMS explained.

Furthermore, regarding concerns related to implementation challenges for states, CMS noted that this regulation is just one tool that states may choose to use to lower costs. If it does not appear in their beneficiaries’ best interests, the states are not required to enter into value-based purchasing models with manufacturers.

That being said, CMS promised to support operational and implementation challenges by providing a Medicaid Drug Program system to replace the Drug Data Reporting and Medicaid Data Reporting systems. It will be available in July 2021.

Despite CMS support for these arrangements, value-based purchasing agreements between payers and pharmaceutical manufacturers are not plentiful. This past year, few—if any—value-based contracts between payers and drug manufacturers have hit the headlines.

In 2019, CMS approved an alternative payment model for Colorado’s Medicaid program, with the intent of reining in prescription drug spending.

Under these value-based contracts, Colorado would receive additional rebates if the drugs fail to meet patient outcomes metrics. As in many value-based arrangements, the metrics are based on health outcomes and results in targeted populations.

Other states have initiated population-based value-based purchasing arrangements, such as Washington’s arrangement with AbbVie.

Time will tell whether this final rule gives value-based purchasing the boost CMS thinks it needs.