Candidates’ Stances on Healthcare Issues, including Drug Pricing, Medicaid and AI
The article is talking around the issues. The country is calling on former drug company management to assist in taking down an industry giant. It probably will not succeed as many of these experts still have ties to the industry and the companies employing them. Think Azar . . .
Pharma companies were using “value-based” analysis to determine old drug pricing even without improvement. This is precisely what HHS Alex Azar did at Eli Lilly with Humalog a decades old drug used to treat diabetes. The six million diabetic Americans watched as insulin (Humalog) prices tripled under Azar’s watch at Eli Lilly from 2007 to 2017. During his tenure as president and vice president, Eli Lilly raised the price of Humalog by 345% from $2,657.88 per year to $9,172.80 per year. The resulting pricing shock forced some patients to attempt rationing their taking of the product which in some cases caused death. “Can You Patent the Sun?” Angry Bear.
This is a profit orientation to business which does not exist in Medicare or Medicaid. So boasting that so and so has experience in drugs and profitability is a red herring. What is needed is a background in drug manufacturing so the head of a government entity can fairly judge what the pricing and costs really are. Alex Azar was not interested in bettering drug pricing and many of today’s government officials do not know enough about the manufacture of drugs. Presidents fly blind in negotiations.
Where Trump & Harris Stand on Payers, AI, Drug Pricing and CMS,
– by Katie Adams
MedCity News
Experts from Berkley Research Group (BRG) recently discussed the two presidential candidates’ stances on key healthcare issues, including drug pricing, Medicaid and AI.
The 2024 presidential election is less than three weeks away. Whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump win the race, the U.S. healthcare system is certain to undergo some changes as a result of the election.
This week, international consultancy BRG hosted a webinar in which its experts discussed some of the candidates’ key stances on healthcare.
Corporate governance and payer ramifications
A Harris presidency would be more active on the antitrust front than a Trump presidency, said Thomas O’Neil, managing director at BRG.
During the Biden-Harris administration, the Department of Justice has initiated an “unprecedented number” of antitrust and anticompetitive behavior investigations, he noted.
Although the prior Trump-Pence administration initiated significantly fewer antitrust investigations, it did challenge key deals, such as the CVS Caremark-Aetna deal, O’Neil pointed out.
He also noted that both presidential candidates have demonstrated a commitment to improving Medicare Advantage.
The current Biden-Harris administration is increasing transparency in the Medicare Advantage insurance market, as well as working toward strengthening programmatic data, O’Neil remarked. As for Trump, he signed executive orders that improved Medicare Advantage beneficiaries’ access to tax advantaged savings accounts and paid for limited long-term care expenses, he said.
Additionally, O’Neil pointed out that a Harris presidency would probably be tougher on healthcare fraud than a Trump presidency.
The Biden-Harris administration has increased the enforcement of regulations related to healthcare fraud, waste and abuse — particularly in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, he said.
A Trump presidency would most likely mean “more regulatory flexibility” and “looser standards” for the enforcement of fraud protection laws, O’Neil remarked. He noted that the Trump administration increased regulatory flexibility for the Anti-Kickback Statute and Physician Self-Referral (Stark) Law.
Value-based care and CMS
The candidates have different stances on Affordable Care Act exchange subsidies.
The Biden-Harris administration expanded subsidies through the end of 2025, and Harris would likely support extending them if she is elected president, said Patrick Dooley, managing director at BRG. The Trump administration unsuccessfully attempted to repeal the ACA, he added.
As for Medicaid, Harris would probably work to expand access, while Trump would work to reduce access, Dooley said.
He noted that Harris is likely to expand Medicaid in states that have not already done so, as well as extend more Medicaid benefits to cover health-related social needs.
As for Trump, Dooley said that he is likely to continue efforts from his first term to increase work requirements for Medicaid enrollees. He also said that Trump may make cuts to the Medicaid program or explore block grants for states.
AI regulation
Despite their stark differences in rhetoric, Harris and Trump campaigns have pretty similar views when it comes to AI, pointed out Amy Reeder Worley, managing director at BRG.
“Both Vice President Harris and President Trump have been focused on what I’ll call the supply side of AI in healthcare — really focusing on initiatives to drive innovation for better care, for patients, for providers and for payers. I would say both Vice President Harris and President Trump are optimistic about AI’s promises to help more than it hurts,” she declared.
Both candidates would support further AI innovation if elected, Reeder Worley added. She noted that Harris is a Californian with knowledge of the tech sector, and J.D. Vance has connections to Silicon Valley leaders who have historically opposed regulation.
Drug pricing reform
Whoever wins the presidential election will be tasked with implementing the Inflation Reduction Act, which allows for the negotiations of Medicare drug prices, said John Barkett, managing director at BRG.
“If the person receiving that baton is Vice President Harris, I expect her to build off President Biden’s and her administration’s drug pricing reform efforts. She’s talked about how she would want to see Medicare drug negotiations expanded — meaning more drugs for negotiations. It could also mean selecting drugs that have been on the market for less time. It could also mean lowering the ceiling price for offers that the Secretary could make to drug manufacturers when they negotiate,” he explained.
He also noted that Harris would likely expand the $35 insulin price cap to all. This means she would support legislation applying the $35-or-less co-pay policy to non-Medicare populations.
Barkett added that Harris would support efforts to reform pharmacy benefit managers — including more oversight from federal competition authorities.
As for Trump, he might try to establish international reference pricing policies, Barkett said. These are policies in which Medicare wouldn’t pay any more for a drug than the prices charged for that same drug in other countries.
Trump may also try to bring back policies that his previous presidential administration failed to establish. Some of these include policies eliminating rebates and relaxing formulary standards in Medicare Part D, as well as laws that would increase state adoption of drug importation policy, Barkett remarked.