Ron Lanton Discusses U.S. MFN Pricing Agreements with APM Market Access
Ron Lanton spoke with APM Market Access reporter Jen Brogan about the differing terms of U.S. MFN drug pricing agreements with Eli Lilly and Pfizer, including GLP-1 exclusions, the challenges of measuring savings and the implications for state Medicaid programs.
In a September 23 article for APM Market Access, reporter Jen Brogan spoke with Lanton Strategies International President Ron Lanton about the differing terms of the U.S. government's most-favored-nation (MFN) drug pricing agreements with Eli Lilly and Pfizer.
The discussion focused on the challenges of implementing MFN pricing when individual agreements apply different methodologies, exclusions and conditions. The treatment of high-spend GLP-1 medications is one example of how these differences can complicate the assessment of potential savings.
Lanton also discussed the implications for state governments, including provisions that may require states to waive certain pricing restrictions to participate in negotiated arrangements.
As the administration continues to pursue MFN pricing, understanding which drugs are covered, how prices are determined and what conditions apply will be important for manufacturers, payers and state Medicaid programs.
Read Jen Brogan's full article in APM Market Access: Differing U.S. MFN deals make 'one consistent pricing policy' difficult – lawyer.
U.S. Drug Pricing Policy Is Starting to Reshape Europe’s Launch Map
U.S. MFN drug pricing could change where pharmaceutical companies launch medicines first in Europe. But reference pricing, HTA requirements, and proposed EU access rules make the strategy far more complicated than simply avoiding larger markets.
U.S. drug pricing policy is beginning to influence decisions that happen far beyond the United States.
A recent Pink Sheet report by Francesca Bruce examined how the U.S. Most Favored Nation drug pricing framework could change the way pharmaceutical companies think about European launch sequencing.
If prices in certain European markets can ultimately affect U.S. pricing, companies may have a stronger incentive to reconsider which countries they enter first.
That could make smaller European markets that historically have not been early launch priorities more attractive.
The strategy, however, is more complicated than simply avoiding countries included in U.S. reference baskets.
Central and Eastern European markets often look to pricing, reimbursement decisions, and health technology assessments from larger Western European countries. A company that delays entry into Germany, France, or other established markets may therefore find that it lacks some of the evidence or reimbursement precedent needed elsewhere.
European pharmaceutical reform could add another layer. Proposals intended to improve access to medicines across EU member states may also affect how much flexibility manufacturers have in sequencing launches across Europe.
The result is a much more interconnected launch environment.
Pharmaceutical companies increasingly need to consider U.S. pricing policy, European reimbursement systems, reference pricing, HTA requirements, and market-access obligations as parts of the same commercial strategy.
The question is becoming less about where a company can secure the strongest price first and more about how one launch decision may affect pricing, reimbursement, and access across multiple markets.
That is why MFN is becoming more than a U.S. drug-pricing policy.
It is becoming a global market-access and launch-strategy issue.
Francesca Bruce explores the broader implications of U.S. drug-pricing policy for Europe in Pink Sheet, including whether the USTR’s investigation into German pharmaceutical pricing is turning reimbursement policy into a trade issue. Read the full Pink Sheet article here.