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
Xeljanz, the FDA, and nine years of patient harm
Quantifying population-level adverse events in the near decade between when safety concerns were identified and FDA action
Drug Pricing Lab 05/31/2022
Atypical antipsychotics: Decades of use, unfathomable harms
Using attributable risk calculations to quantify how many premature deaths resulted from atypical antipsychotic use in the elderly
Drug Pricing Lab 05/31/2022
Medicare Part B Premium Dynamics Explained
The Drug Pricing Lab commissioned Milliman to prepare a report exploring the impact of changes in Medicare Part B program costs on beneficiaries’ premiums and Social Security payments. This report focuses on the 2022 Part B premium for beneficiaries with various income levels to illustrate the payment dynamics and discusses the implications for related programs.
Milliman 12/23/2021
Comparing Factors that Influence Pharmaceutical Pricing and Access in the…
Drug prices in the United States are some of the highest in the world, which has triggered several policy proposals aimed at adopting pricing strategies used by other countries.
Drug Pricing Lab 12/20/2021
Biosimilars in Medicare Part D: pricing dynamics and considerations
The Drug Pricing Lab engaged Milliman to prepare a report summarizing the pricing dynamics affecting utilization of biosimilars in the current Medicare Part D marketplace and under the proposed Part D benefit design in the Build Back Better Act.

This report was commissioned by the Drug Pricing Lab.
Milliman 12/14/2021
Evaluating Industry’s Drug Pricing Claims
A closer look at three of PhRMA’s most cited talking points.
Drug Pricing Lab 11/18/2021
Mapping conflict of interests: scoping review
A scoping review of the literature to identify all known ties between the medical product industry and the parties and activities in the healthcare ecosystem.
Drug Pricing Lab 11/03/2021
Production Plus Profit Pricing (P-quad) FAQ
What A Waste! The National Academy Of Medicine’s Report On…
Why Congress should not follow the National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine’s recommendation to remove the JW modifier.
Health Affairs Blog 07/09/2021
Medicare Must Study Unproven, Expensive Alzheimer’s Drug
Medicare cannot indiscriminately cover the cost of Aduhelm for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease without first evaluating whether it truly works.
Bloomberg Opinion 06/15/2021

Featured News

See All News
Drug Pricing Lab 09/01/2021

Senate Moves Forward with $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Bill, Includes Funding Offset from Bach’s Drug Vial Waste Research

The infrastructure bill includes a drug waste provision from the Recovering Excessive Funds for Unused and Needless Drugs (REFUND) Act, which requires manufacturers to rebate the amount wasted back to CMS. An estimated $3 billion over 10 years can be recouped and invested in roads, bridges, and other infrastructure initiatives.
Read Article

Stay up to date on our work and news