CLSA Expresses Deep Concerns and Opposition to Administration’s International Pricing Index (IPI) Proposal

By Jenny Nieto 
Feb. 20, 2019

As you may know, last October, the Administration released an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to lower Medicare Part B costs and list prices over 5 years by setting certain Part B drug prices based on an “International Pricing Index” (IPI), against which US prices will be assessed. CLSA is actively engaging with the Administration, Congress, and stakeholder communities to express our deep concerns and opposition to this proposal.

Activities undertaken in opposition include: submitting detailed comments in response to the ANPRM; joining 338 other stakeholders on a letter to bipartisan House & Senate leadership; and most recently, initiating a grassroots advocacy campaign encouraging individual constituents to weigh in with legislators in opposition to the proposal.

Example of CLSA’s Digital Advocacy Campaign on Part B

The planned proposal to transform Part B from a market-based payment formula, to one based on artificially low and government-controlled foreign prices, largely ignores impacts on patient access and the development of new cures as it threatens innovation.

More specifically, instead of encouraging Medicare beneficiaries to work closely with their physicians to select treatments based on evidence and best practices, this proposed “International Pricing Index” model would import foreign access restrictions, regardless of value or innovation.

CLSA’s greatest concern is that this model would impose decisions made in countries such as Greece or Japan on approximately half of all independent physicians and hospital providers, as well as their patients. The experiment also interjects new middlemen between physicians and patients – vendors that would impose requirements dictating treatment for patients with cancer, autoimmune disorders and other complex, life-threatening conditions. The proposal would restrict access in the short-term, and reduce incentives for medical advancement in the long-term. Innovation in California’s life sciences sector will also suffer as the model would disrupt biopharmaceutical investment in research and development.

To share your voice in opposition to the Part B proposal, click here. Questions? Please contact Jenny Nieto (Carey), CLSA’s Vice President of Federal Government Relations and Alliance Development (