CMS Part D Guidance on LTC Pharmacy Rebates Creates Confusion
Client Alert | 2 min read | 02.01.06
by Arthur Lerner and Ben Butler
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently issued guidance in which it expressed “significant concerns” about access/performance rebates paid by pharmaceutical manufacturers to long-term care (LTC) pharmacies that participate in Medicare Part D plan LTC pharmacy networks. This guidance creates confusion given CMS' prior remarks on rebates received by independent PBMs participating in the Part D program.
In an answer to a question posted on its website, CMS implied that LTC pharmacy rebates might increase program and beneficiary costs and create fraud and abuse concerns in the Part D context. CMS stated that such LTC pharmacy rebates should at minimum be fully disclosed to the Part D plan sponsor, who would then have to account for this benefit in the plan's bid and would have to net out the price concessions for purposes of allowable reinsurance and risk corridor costs. CMS argued that when the Medicare program pays for 100% of the costs of the drug benefit, as is the case for most institutionalized beneficiaries, the benefit of the LTC pharmacy rebate should accrue to the government. As regards purported fraud and abuse concerns, the statement did not acknowledge the possible application of the anti-kickback law discount safe harbor to rebates paid to the LTC pharmacies.
CMS' reasoning is arguably in tension with its earlier guidance regarding manufacturer rebates paid to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). Specifically, CMS recognized that where a PBM serves as an independent subcontractor to a Part D sponsor, and is not acting as the sponsor's negotiating agent, “the PBM may not necessarily pass through 100% of rebates it receives” to the sponsor. CMS acknowledged that, in this instance, the PBM's retention of manufacturer rebates would be subject to negotiations with the Part D sponsor.
The difference in CMS' reasoning with respect to the LTC and PBM guidance is unclear. In each instance, the Part D sponsor presumably enters into arms-length negotiations with its subcontractor based on certain assumptions regarding rebates that the subcontractor may, or may not, be receiving. The parties may decide, for example, to negotiate for all rebates to be passed through to the sponsor, or they may negotiate an arrangement which permits the LTC pharmacy to retain some or all of the rebates it receives, in exchange for lower rates of payment from the health plan on covered prescription drugs
CMS' guidance on LTC pharmacy rebates, now unsettles these expectations after negotiations have been completed. If the agency maintains its position, it might be appropriate, at a minimum, to permit parties sufficient time to adjust to the guidance, e.g., by stating that any rebates must be passed through effective as of the 2007 plan year. As it stands, the industry may see LTC pharmacies demand renegotiation of rates with plan sponsors if they are, in fact, expected to turn over any rebates received to the plans.
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.27.25
Federal Circuit Resolves Circuit Split on Scope of IPR Estoppel
As part of the 2012 America Invents Act, statutory estoppel was included to balance the interests of patent owners and patent challengers following an inter partes review (“IPR”). Estoppel prevents an IPR petitioner from later asserting in court that a claim “is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during the IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). As applied, estoppel prevents petitioners from later relying in district court or in ITC proceedings on most patents or printed publications – the limited bases upon which petitioner can rely in an IPR. But a question remained, and contradictory district court decisions arose, as to whether petitioners would be estopped from relying on a prior art commercial product (known as “device art,” which could not itself have been raised in the IPR) even if a printed publication describing the product (i.e. a patent or technical manual) was available and presumably could have been raised.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 05.27.25
U.S. Departments of State and Treasury Issue Immediate Sanctions Relief for Syria
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.23.25
Executive Order Seeks Most-Favored-Nation Drug Pricing and HHS Announces Price Targets
Client Alert | 4 min read | 05.22.25
Opportunities for Procurement on the Horizon as UK Concludes Free Trade Agreement With India