AMCP Guide to Pharmaceutical Payment Methods
- PMID: 17970611
AMCP Guide to Pharmaceutical Payment Methods
Abstract
The methods by which the U.S. health care system pays for prescription drugs have been subject to much attention and increased scrutiny in recent years. In particular, ground-breaking legislation has been enacted and regulations implemented that have changed the basis for payment for prescription drugs in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and a number of precedent-setting court cases are likely to result in further modifications to drug payment methods used by public and private payers. These developments will have significant implications for many stakeholders beyond public and private payers; they will affect consumers' access to drugs, payment to pharmacists and other providers of drugs, and spending for the health care system as a whole. Recent debate centers on determining the most appropriate basis for calculating how payers, including government, employers, and health plans, should pay pharmacists and other providers for drugs. Historically, payment for prescription drugs has been based on benchmark prices that do not necessarily reflect the actual acquisition costs paid by providers, primarily pharmacists, physicians and hospitals. This has led policymakers to believe that Medicare and Medicaid have paid more than is necessary for prescription drugs, contributing to excess spending in public programs. Thus, in an effort to reform the payment system and reduce drug expenditures, policymakers have made changes to the benchmarks used by public programs to pay for drugs. Private payers are beginning to follow their lead by changing their own payment methods and benchmarks. However, the drug purchasing and distribution system within the United States is highly complex and involves multiple transactions among myriad stakeholders, including drug manufacturers, distributors, third-party payers, pharmacists, physicians, and patients. Any change in payment methods or benchmarks has significant implications for all stakeholders, affecting the payments and prices to and from each of these groups. Knowledge of the intricate distribution and payment systems for prescription drugs is essential in order to ensure that payment reform results in desired outcomes such as fair and equitable payment to providers while avoiding unintended consequences such as reduced access to drugs. The Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) recognized the need to help stakeholders and policymakers better understand, evaluate and navigate the profound changes occurring in payment for prescription drugs in the United States. This AMCP Guide to Pharmaceutical Payment Methods offers a comprehensive examination of the methodologies and price benchmarks that have been used in the public and private sector to pay for pharmaceuticals in the U.S., the changes that have occurred or are likely to occur in the future, and the forces that are behind these changes. AMCP has made every effort to make the Guide an unbiased presentation of information, issues, and implications.
Similar articles
-
AMCP Guide to Pharmaceutical Payment Methods, 2009 Update (Version 2.0).J Manag Care Pharm. 2009 Aug;15(6 Suppl A):S3-57, quiz S58-61. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2009.15.s6-a.1. J Manag Care Pharm. 2009. PMID: 19678720 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The distributional implications of using relative prices in DRG payment systems.Inquiry. 1987 Spring;24(1):85-95. Inquiry. 1987. PMID: 2951338
-
Medicare program; changes to the hospital inpatient prospective payment systems and fiscal year 2007 rates; fiscal year 2007 occupational mix adjustment to wage index; health care infrastructure improvement program; selection criteria of loan program for qualifying hospitals engaged in cancer-related health care and forgiveness of indebtedness; and exclusion of vendor purchases made under the competitive acquisition program (CAP) for outpatient drugs and biologicals under part B for the purpose of calculating the average sales price (ASP). Final rules and interim final rule with comment period.Fed Regist. 2006 Aug 18;71(160):47869-8351. Fed Regist. 2006. PMID: 16921666
-
Medicare program; hospital inpatient prospective payment systems for acute care hospitals and the long-term care hospital prospective payment system and fiscal year 2015 rates; quality reporting requirements for specific providers; reasonable compensation equivalents for physician services in excluded hospitals and certain teaching hospitals; provider administrative appeals and judicial review; enforcement provisions for organ transplant centers; and electronic health record (EHR) incentive program. Final rule.Fed Regist. 2014 Aug 22;79(163):49853-50536. Fed Regist. 2014. PMID: 25167590
-
Physician payment 2008 for interventionalists: current state of health care policy.Pain Physician. 2007 Sep;10(5):607-26. Pain Physician. 2007. PMID: 17876359 Review.
Cited by
-
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Regorafenib for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.J Clin Oncol. 2015 Nov 10;33(32):3727-32. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.9569. Epub 2015 Aug 24. J Clin Oncol. 2015. PMID: 26304904 Free PMC article.
-
Healthcare Systems across Europe and the US: The Managed Entry Agreements Experience.Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Feb 3;11(3):447. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11030447. Healthcare (Basel). 2023. PMID: 36767022 Free PMC article.
-
Cost-Effectiveness of Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in BRAF Wild-Type Advanced Melanoma.J Clin Oncol. 2017 Apr 10;35(11):1194-1202. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.69.6336. Epub 2017 Feb 21. J Clin Oncol. 2017. PMID: 28221865 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Other Literature Sources
Medical