Fact Checking the NYT Fact Check on the Trump Proposal

The Drug Pricing Lab takes issue with The New York Times "Fact Check" on the recent Trump Administration proposal to pilot alternative reimbursement for Part B drugs.
Originally published Drug Pricing Lab

The New York Times ran a ‘Fact Check’ about the recent Trump Administration proposal to pilot alternative reimbursement for Part B drugs. But, in an effort to clear up potential confusion, the article made its own errors. Here are a few.

1.The ‘fact check’ took issue with the word “voluntary” in Secretary Azar’s assertion that “U.S. drug companies voluntarily cut the price of drugs overseas…,” pointing out that companies lower prices to meet price ceilings countries set based on a variety of means, including assessing the value of the products, and checking against what other countries pay.

  • Problem: While the word ‘voluntarily’ might imply that companies lower their prices cheerfully, if we are talking facts, the opposite of ‘voluntarily’ is not ‘grudgingly’ but ‘involuntarily.’ To be clear, the pharmaceutical market in the US and in other OECD countries is, in fact, a voluntary one – countries (and payers generally) arrive at prices they are willing to pay; drug companies decide, voluntarily, to sell their products at those prices, or not.
  • The fact checker could have taken issue with the phrase “U.S. drug companies” as it implies that the pharmaceutical industry is a U.S. based one. This is incorrect, five out of ten of the largest biopharma companies in the world are based outside the U.S.

2. The ‘fact check’ took issue with the statement that “In Medicare Part B today, the government gets the bill, and we just blindly pay for it…there is no negotiation,” suggesting that in fact the government reimbursement for Part B drugs piggybacks off of discounts achieved through negotiation in U.S. commercial markets.

  • Problem: The fact-checker lists several entities that do not actually negotiate over prices of Part B drugs. Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) play essentially no role in negotiating for Part B (medical benefit) drugs. It also lists health insurers, but in nearly all cases they negotiate reimbursement rates with physicians and hospitals for the use of medical benefit drugs, not with drug manufacturers over the price of those drugs. This system is called “buy and bill” and is outlined here.
  • Problem: The fact-checker says that price concessions on Part B drugs are treated as trade secrets. This is incorrect, at least in the aggregate. The net prices (called the Average Sales Prices) for Part B drugs is published in the aggregate every quarter by CMS, these prices form the basis of Medicare’s reimbursement.  Here are the tables for the most recent quarter. Some sales of Part B drugs are discounted by law, such as sales to 340B hospitals. These are excluded from ASP calculations.
  • Problem: The fact-checker incorrectly implies that the concessions achieved by these various negotiations achieves discounts well below list price for Part B drug, citing a range of -15% to -35%. The list price is a colloquial term that generally refers to the Wholesale Acquisition Cost (the WAC) of a Part B drug. The Medicare Payment Advisory Committee in 2017 examined the difference between WAC and ASP for eight drug launches in among the top 20 highest expenditure Part B drugs in 2014, and none of the eight drugs were discounted more than 3%.

Source: MedPAC, Report to the Congress: Medicare and the Health Care Delivery System

3. The Fact Checker quotes the well-respected oncologist Debra Patt, MD, who raises concerns about the administration’s proposed changes. But it lists her affiliation as working at Texas Oncology, a physician practice. It fails to note that per Dr. Patt’s LinkedIn profile, she actually also works for both the drug wholesaler McKesson and for its subsidiary US Oncology that has an affiliation with Texas Oncology. Her profile reads “Dr. Patt serves as a medical director McKesson Specialty Health and The US Oncology Network,” and lists this affiliation as commencing in 2016. [A previous version listed Texas Oncology as owned by US Oncology.]


Research & Insights

We conduct non-partisan, independent research, and make our work accessible and informative to policymakers and the general audience alike. Browse our featured research or explore our work by article type.

Part B Pilot Congressional Concerns
Members of Congress provided conflicting forecasts on how the agency's proposed pilot program of Part B drug payment might affect aspects of Medicare beneficiary care.
Drug Pricing Lab 05/16/2016
Part B Payment for Medicare Drugs
A new analysis sheds light on why proposed changes to the system are being met with opposition and what they could mean for providers and patients.
Drug Pricing Lab 04/11/2016
The Drugs at the Heart of Our Pricing Crisis
The US drug pricing system is broken, but not irreparable. For large-molecule biologic drugs, enter: Production Plus Profit Pricing (P-quad, pronounced like Ahab's seagoing vessel).
NYTimes 03/15/2021
Biosimilars: Market Changes do not equal policy success
Numerous articles and reports have trumpeted biosimilar market growth, but it's critical we do not lose sight of the sole objective for creating the biosimilar market: to reduce the cost of older biologic drugs for society and taxpayers.
Drug Pricing Lab 03/15/2021
Bottom-Up Pricing Estimate for P-quad
How much would biologic drugs cost under P-quad pricing? Two approaches to estimating fully loaded costs plus a profit (10% and 20% examined) suggest net discounts from current prices would be at least 65% to 75%
Drug Pricing Lab 03/12/2021
Modeling P-quad
The Drug Pricing Lab engaged Milliman to conduct an independent analysis of the Production Plus Profit Pricing (P-quad) policy proposal. The Milliman analysis estimates the projected spending on U.S. biologic and biosimilar drugs under a referent scenario where there is no biosimilar entry or competition, the existing ‘status quo’ scenario under the current biosimilar environment, and the Drug Pricing Lab’s P-quad policy proposal. 

This report was commissioned by Drug Pricing Lab.
Milliman 03/12/2021
Ethics of Clinical Trials to Evaluate Biosimilars
Biosimilars require extensive, expensive, and time-consuming human testing prior to market entry, a process vastly different than generics. So why are we still doing them?
MedRx IV 03/09/2021
COVID-19 Reduced Average Life Expectancy of Americans by Five Days,…
The CDC made a mistake.
STAT 02/25/2021
Instead of debating 'first-shot' vs 'set-aside' vaccine approaches, hospitals' study…
Hospitals could start studies of their own employees to answer important questions, including whether the first-shot approach has downsides when compared to the set-aside strategy.
STAT 01/04/2021
After 4 Years of Trump, Medicare and Medicaid Badly Need…
Many promising ideas won't work as expected, and that's all the more reason for CMS to evaluate how medical care is delivered to its patients.
NYTimes 12/01/2020
Trump's Drug-Pricing Ideas Would Cost Taxpayers a Bundle
Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies would stand to make a lot more money.
Bloomberg Opinion 09/29/2020
We can't tackle the pandemic without figuring out which Covid-19…
There may be several Covid-19 vaccines by winter, but there will also need to be a study comparing the viruses to one another as part of rolling out widespread vaccination.
STAT 09/24/2020

Stay up to date on our work and news