Climbing Cost Of Decades-Old Drugs Threatens To Break Medicaid Bank

http://khn.org/news/climbing-cost-of-decades-old-drugs-threatens-to-break-medicaid-bank/

Skyrocketing price tags for new drugs to treat rare diseases have stoked outrage nationwide. But hundreds of old, commonly used drugs cost the Medicaid program billions of extra dollars in 2016 vs. 2015, a Kaiser Health News data analysis shows. Eighty of the drugs — some generic and some still carrying brand names — proved more than two decades old.

Rising costs for 313 brand-name drugs lifted Medicaid’s spending by as much as $3.2 billion in 2016, the analysis shows. Nine of these brand-name drugs have been on the market since before 1970. In addition, the data reveal that Medicaid outlays for 67 generics and other non-branded drugs cost taxpayers an extra $258 million last year.

Even after a medicine has gone generic, the branded version often remains on the market. Medicaid recipients might choose to purchase it because they’re brand loyalists or because state laws prevent pharmacists from automatically substituting generics. Drugs driving Medicaid spending increases ranged from common asthma medicines like Ventolin to over-the-counter painkillers like the generic form of Aleve to generic antidepressants and heartburn medicines.

Among the stark examples:

  • Ventolin, originally approved in 1981, treats and prevents spasms that constrict patients’ airways and make it difficult to breathe. When a gram of it went from $2.58 to $2.90 on average, Medicaid paid out an extra $54.5 million for the drug.
  • Naproxen sodium, a painkiller originally approved in 1994 as brand-name Aleve, went from costing Medicaid an average of $0.72 to $1.70 a pill, an increase of 136 percent. Overall, the change cost the program an extra $10 million in 2016.
  • Generic metformin hydrochloride, an oral Type 2 diabetes drug that’s been around since the 1990s, went from an average 10 cents to 13 cents a pill from 2015 to 2016. Those extra three pennies per pill cost Medicaid a combined $8.3 million in 2016. And cost increases for the extended-release, authorized generic version cost the program another $6.5 million.

“People always thought, ‘They’re generics. They’re cheap,’” said Matt Salo, who runs the National Association of Medicaid Directors. But with drug prices going up “across the board,” generics are far from immune.

Historically, generics tend to drive costs lower over time, and Medicaid’s overall spending on generics dropped $1.6 billion last year because many generics did get cheaper. But the per-unit cost of dozens of generics doubled or even tripled from 2015 to 2016. Manufacturers of branded drugs tend to lower prices once several comparable generics enter a market.

Medicaid tracks drug sales by “units” and a unit can be a milliliter or a gram, or refer to a tablet, vial or kit.

Old drugs that became far more expensive included those used to treat ear infections, psychosis, cancer and other ailments:

  • Fluphenazine hydrochloride, an antipsychotic drug approved in 1988 to treat schizophrenia, cost Medicaid an extra $8.5 million in 2016. Medicaid spent an average $1.39 per unit in 2016, an increase of 347 percent vs. the year before.
  • Depo-Provera was first approved in 1960 as a cancer drug and is often used now as birth control. It cost Medicaid an extra $4.5 million after its cost more than doubled to $37 per unit in 2016.
  • Potassium phosphates — on the market since the 1980s and used for renal failure patients, preemies and patients undergoing chemotherapy — cost Medicaid an extra $1.8 million in 2016. Its average cost to Medicaid jumped 290 percent, to $6.70 per unit.

A shortage of potassium phosphates began in 2015 after manufacturer American Regent closed its facility to address quality concerns, according to Erin Fox, who directs the Drug Information Center at the University of Utah and tracks shortages for the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

When generics enter a market, competition can drive prices lower initially. But when prices sink, some companies inevitably stop making their drugs.

“One manufacturer is left standing … [so] guess who now has a monopoly?” Salo said. “Guess who can bring prices as far up as they want?”

According to a Food and Drug Administration analysis, drug prices decline to about half of their original price with two generic competitors on the market and to about a third of the original price with five generics available. But if there’s only one generic, a drug’s price drops just 6 percentage points.

The increases paid by Medicaid ultimately fall on taxpayers, who pay for the drugs taken by its 68.9 million beneficiaries. And those costs eat “into states’ ability to pay for other stuff that matters to [every] resident,” said economist Rena Conti, a professor at the University of Chicago who co-authored a National Bureau of Economics paper about generic price hikes in July. The manufacturers’ list prices for the drugs named here also rose in 2016, according to Truven Health Analytics, which means customers outside Medicaid also paid more.

Conti said that about 30 percent of generic drugs had price increases of 100 percent or more the past five years.

Medicaid spending per unit doesn’t include rebates, which drug manufacturers return to states after they pay for the drugs upfront. Such rebates are extremely complicated, but generally start at the federally required 23.1 percent for brand-name drugs, plus supplemental rebates that vary by state, Salo said. Final rebate amounts are considered proprietary, he noted. “All rebates are completely opaque … [it’s] “black-box stuff.”

Fox said drug prices could also jump when a pharmaceutical product changes ownership, gets new packaging or just hasn’t had a price increase in a long time.

Recently named FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has made increasing generic competition a core mission. Plans include publishing lists of off-patent drugs made by one manufacturer and preventing brand-name drugmakers from using anti-competitive tactics to stave off competition.

Doctors, pharmacists and patients don’t always receive warning when a price hike is about to occur, Fox said.

“Sometimes, we will get notices. Other times, it’s like a bad surprise,” she said, adding that the amount of wiggle room for alternatives depends on the drug and the patient.

Following some price hikes, doctors can use fewer units of a drug or switch it out entirely, she said.

Ofloxacin otic, long used to treat swimmer’s ear, became so expensive when generic manufacturers exited the market that doctors started using eye drops in patients’ ears, Fox said.

When old drugs get more expensive, hospitals try to eliminate waste by making smaller infusion bags and keeping really expensive drugs in the pharmacy instead of stocked in readily available shelves and drawers. But that’s not always possible.

“These drugs do have a place in daily therapy. Sometimes they’re life-sustaining and sometimes they’re lifesaving,” said Michael O’Neal, a pharmacist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. “In this case, you just need to take it on the chin, and you hope one day for competition.”

47 Hospitals Slashed Their Use Of 2 Key Heart Drugs After Huge Price Hikes

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/08/09/542485307/47-hospitals-slashed-their-use-of-two-key-heart-drugs-after-huge-price-hikes?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%20Weekly%20Roundup:%20Healthcare%20Dive%2008-12-2017&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive%20Weekender

Even before media reports and a congressional hearing vilified Valeant Pharmaceuticals International for raising prices on a pair of lifesaving heart drugs, Dr. Umesh Khot knew something was very wrong.

Khot is a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, which prides itself on its outstanding heart care. The health system’s internal monitoring system had alerted doctors about the skyrocketing cost of the drugs, nitroprusside and isoproterenol. But these two older drugs, frequently used in emergency and intensive care situations, have no direct alternatives.

“If we are having concerns, what is happening nationally?” Khot wondered.

As it turned out, a lot was happening.

Following major price increases, use of the two cardiac medicines has dramatically decreased at 47 hospitals, according to a research letter Khot and two others published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The number of patients in these hospitals getting nitroprusside, which is given intravenously when a patient’s blood pressure is dangerously high, decreased 53 percent from 2012 to 2015, the researchers found. At the same time, the drug’s price per 50 milligrams jumped more than 30-fold — from $27.46 in 2012 to $880.88 in 2015.

The use of isoproterenol, key to monitoring and treating heart-rhythm problems during surgery, decreased 35 percent as the price per milligram rose from $26.20 to $1,790.11.

The two drugs, which are off patent, have long been go-to medicines for doctors.

“This isn’t like a cholesterol medicine; these are really, very specialized drugs,” says Khot, who is lead author on the peer-reviewed research letter. When patients get the drugs, he says, “they are either sick beyond sick in intensive care or they’re under anesthesia [during] a procedure.”

Valeant bought the drugs in early 2015 from Marathon Pharmaceuticals. Last year, Valeant announced a rebate program to lower the price hospitals paid for the drugs.

And Valeant’s Lainie Keller, a vice president of communications, says the company is committed to limiting price increases.

“The current management team is committed to ensuring that past decisions with respect to product pricing are not repeated,” Keller says.

Pharmacist Erin Fox, the director of drug information at University of Utah Health Care, said the findings by Khot and his colleagues reveal “exactly what a lot of pharmacists have been talking about. When prices are unsustainable, you have to stop using the drug whenever you can. You just can’t afford it.”

Fox says her Utah health system has removed isoproterenol from its bright-red crash carts, which are stocked for emergencies like heart attacks. But Nitroprusside is more difficult to replace.

“If you need it, you need it,” Fox says. “That’s exactly why the usage has not gone down to zero, even with the huge price increases.”

Cleveland Clinic leaders spent months investigating each drug’s use and potential alternatives, Khot says.

“We’re not going to ration or restrict this drug in any way that would negatively impact these patients,” Khot says, adding that he hopes to do more research on how the decreased use of both drugs has affected patients.

Dr. Richard Fogel is a cardiologist and electrophysiologist at St. Vincent, an Indiana hospital that’s part of Ascension, a large nonprofit chain with facilities in 22 states and the District of Columbia. He told a Senate committee last year that the cost of the two drugs alone drove a nearly $12 million increase in Ascension’s spending over one year.

“While we understand a steady, rational increase in prices, it is the sudden, unfounded price explosions in select older drugs that hinder us in caring for patients,” Fogel told the committee.

The NEJM letter also analyzed the use of two drugs that remained stable in price over that time period, as a control group — nitroglycerin and dobutamine. The number of patients treated with nitroglycerin, a drug used for chest pain and heart failure, increased by 89 percent. Khot warns that the drugs can’t always be used as substitutes.

Why Are Prescription Drug Prices So High?

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2017/jul/getting-to-root-high-prescription-drug-prices?omnicid=EALERT1240145&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Increased prescription drug prices and spending are among the main drivers of health care costs in the U.S. About one-third of the rise in prescription spending from 2010 to 2014 was a result of either price increases for drugs or a shift toward prescribing higher-price products, with patients caught in the middle.

A new issue brief by former Rep. Henry Waxman and his colleagues at Waxman Strategies summarizes major problems behind high U.S. prescription drug prices, while also offering feasible policy actions. For instance, the authors identify the use of patent protection and market exclusivity laws by brand-name drug manufacturers as one driver of high prices.

Among other potential solutions, the authors suggest introducing price competition sooner for such drugs and making government-purchasing arrangements for medications that protect public health

Wall Street Investor Call Unveils the Secret of High Drug Prices

http://www.businessinsider.com/mallinckrodt-acthar-express-scripts-call-by-wells-fargo-2017-6

Image result for Wall Street Investor Call Unveils the Secret of High Drug Prices

  • Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals is facing scrutiny over the price of its blockbuster drug Acthar, some say it wouldn’t be viable without an opaque distribution system.
  • The company depends on pharmacy-benefit manager (PBM) Express Scripts to distribute the drug, manage co-pays, and provide patients with assistance paying for it.
  • The role of PBMs is under scrutiny from Congress, they fear PBMs pushes prices up, and that could threaten Mallinckrodt’s Achtar franchise.

Earlier this month, Wells Fargo pharma analyst David Maris called a Wall Street huddle.

He held a call for embattled pharmaceutical firm Mallinckrodt, giving its CEO Mark Trudeau an opportunity to explain the uproar surrounding his company’s $36,382 blockbuster drug, Acthar.

You see, a very Wall Street thing has just happened to Acthar. Short sellers are circling, and people are now asking questions about what was once considered business as usual. For months, some in the market, like Citron Research’s Andrew Left, have been daring Mallinckrodt to test Acthar’s efficacy as a treatment for multiple sclerosis. They say it doesn’t work.

Worse yet, other short sellers say they think they know how Acthar gets away with not working. At a Las Vegas hedge fund conference in May, Jim Chanos accused the company of having a “murky alliance” with pharmacy benefits manager Express Scripts.

“This alliance may lead to performance-enhancing drug prices,” Chanos said, “but it could give investors the blues.”

Why? Because lawmakers are starting to realize that drug pricing and distribution is a black box. What happens to the price of a drug from the time it is made to the time it gets to a patient — who gets paid and how much — is something of a mystery. It’s something, it seems, the pharmaceutical industry would rather not share.

Maris’ Wall Street huddle call opened that black box just a crack, and what it revealed is just the tip of everything Washington is worried about.

With Spotlight on Obamacare, Public’s Opinion of Drugmakers Softens

https://morningconsult.com/2017/06/05/spotlight-obamacare-publics-opinion-drugmakers-softens/

Consumer perceptions of several major pharmaceutical companies have softened in recent months amid an industry push to counter public uproar over high drug prices, Morning Consult Brand Intelligence data show.

Large drugmakers this spring have seen a decline in the the percentage of Americans who view them unfavorably, according to weekly national surveys of thousands of U.S. adults.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry’s largest trade group, took action in January to revamp its public image by rolling out a multiyear ad campaign that promotes breakthrough medicines. The drug lobby, which consistently outspends other industries in an effort to exert influence on Capitol Hill, spent $245 million last year, an increase of more than $18 million since 2013, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The shift in public opinion has occurred amid GOP efforts to overhaul the nation’s health insurance system and the high-profile battle over the Affordable Care Act. The White House has prioritized replacing the 2010 ACA over lowering drug prices, though newly installed Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb announced last month that his agency is looking for ways to reduce some costs to consumers.

Since the House GOP health care legislative effort began in earnest in March, some of the most unpopular drugmakers have seen declines in the percentage of Americans who view them unfavorably. Still, favorability rankings for drugmakers have not improved significantly.

Some of the most-liked drugmakers include Johnson & Johnson and Bayer — the most well-known drug manufacturers among U.S. consumers.

Results are based on online surveys, with a nationally representative sample of adults, that ask participants if they have a favorable or unfavorable impression of certain companies.

Pfizer, which last year killed a proposed $160 billion merger with Allergan after the Obama administration announced new rules on tax inversions, had the highest unfavorability percentage among drugmakers tracked in March, at 29 percent. As of June 5, that figure had fallen to 12 percent.

Another drugmaker – Bristol-Myers Squibb – saw its unfavorability decline 13 percentage points during the same time period, from 23 percent in March to 10 percent in June. Merck had its unfavorable views peak at 25 percent in March before falling to 12 percent in June.

Pharmaceutical Product Hopping: A Proposed Framework For Antitrust Analysis

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/06/01/pharmaceutical-product-hopping-a-proposed-framework-for-antitrust-analysis/

Skyrocketing drug prices are in the news. Overnight price increases have riveted the attention of the public, media, and politicians of all stripes. But one reason for high prices has flown under the radar. When drug companies reformulate their product, switching from one version of a drug to another, the price doesn’t dramatically increase. Instead, it stays at a high level for longer than it otherwise would have without the switch. Although more difficult to discern than a price spike, this practice, when undertaken to prevent generic market entry, can result in the unjustified continuation of monopoly pricing, burdening patients, the government, and the health care system as a whole.

Not all reformulations pose competitive concerns. Empirical studies have shown that more than 80 percent can be explained by improvements that are not temporally connected to impending generic entry. But a dangerous subset of such reformulations is undertaken for one, and only one, reason: to delay generic entry. In such cases, reformulation is called “product hopping.”

When generics enter the market, the price can fall dramatically overnight, by as much as 85 percent. For that reason, brand firms have every incentive to delay this moment of reckoning as long as possible. Sure enough, making trivial changes to their drugs has that effect. Every state has a substitution law that requires or allows pharmacists to offer a generic drug when the patient presents a prescription for a brand drug. But such substitution is thwarted if the drug is not the same—in particular, if it is not bioequivalent (able to be absorbed into the body at the same rate) and therapeutically equivalent (having the same active ingredient, form, dosage, strength, and safety and efficacy profile). A minor change to a drug’s formulation can prevent the pharmacist from substituting the generic.

Product hopping raises nuanced issues arising at the intersection of patent law, antitrust law, the federal Hatch-Waxman Act, and state drug product substitution laws. It is even more complex given the uniquely complicated pharmaceutical market, in which the buyer (patient, insurance company) is different from the decision maker (doctor).

Courts applying US antitrust law have struggled to create a robust and defensible legal framework for separating anticompetitive product hops from competitively benign, legitimate product development. In this post, we propose a framework that would help courts defer to legitimate reformulations while targeting anticompetitive switches.

Drug Rebates Reward Industry Players — And Often Hurt Patients

http://khn.org/news/drug-rebates-reward-industry-players-and-often-hurt-patients/

Medicare and its beneficiaries aren’t the winners in the behind-the-scenes rebate game played by drugmakers, health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers, according to a paper published Tuesday in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The paper, which dives into the complex and opaque world of Medicare drug price negotiations, finds that rebates may actually drive up the amount Medicare and its beneficiaries pay for drugs — especially for increasingly common high-priced drugs — and it offers some systemic solutions.

“How these rebates and price concessions happen between the manufacturer of the drug and the PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] and health plans can directly impact patient cost in a big way,” said the paper’s lead author, Stacie Dusetzina of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill’s pharmacy school.

The paper’s findings and proposed solutions come as President Donald Trump’s administration, Congress and state lawmakers grapple with ways to control drug prices and overall health spending. Trump’s administration has said it wants to lower drug prices and hinted at mandating rebates in Medicare. Leaders on Capitol Hill have called for Medicare price negotiations.

In the JAMA paper, Dusetzina cites the EpiPen as one example. Last year, executives at Mylan, the maker of the EpiPen, said the list price of the drug for life-threatening allergic reactions was $600, but the company earned $274 after rebates and other fees.

That savings, though, isn’t necessarily passed on to patients in Medicare’s system. Instead, the money tends to be swallowed up by health insurers and middlemen like pharmacy benefit managers.

And, even though patients don’t pay list prices for their drugs, those high prices (like $600 for the EpiPen) are used to calculate how much Medicare covers for any individual patient — and sometimes what patients pay out-of-pocket, Dusetzina said.

“We’ve heard over the years that the list price doesn’t really matter, that it’s not the real price,” Dusetzina said. “It matters.”

The way it matters is not easily apparent. Here’s what happens: When a Medicare patient picks up a prescription, what they pay toward it is generally based on that higher list price and not the price after rebates, so the amount the beneficiary pays is scaled upward as a result.

And Medicare uses that high-end list price to calculate how rapidly beneficiaries reach the dreaded doughnut hole, where patients pay a bigger share of the price of the drug after their spending hits $3,700, the 2017 benchmark. Once through the doughnut hole, Medicare picks up the bulk of the drug’s cost.

High list prices drive patients into and out of the doughnut hole faster, raising their out-of-pocket costs and Medicare expenditures.

Dusetzina and co-authors Rena Conti, assistant professor of health policy and economics at the University of Chicago, and Dr. Peter Bach, director of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, propose solutions to this problem.

Bach called the current Medicare system “absolutely devastating for people on high-cost specialty drugs.”

Bach’s drug pricing lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering offers an interactive tool for comparing how dollars shift when using the list price and post-rebate price.

The authors recommend that patients should be charged flat-dollar copays rather than coinsurance charges, which are based on a percentage of the drug’s price. The copays could be tiered, depending on the cost of the drug, the paper suggested.

This solution comes, in part, because the number of Medicare enrollees paying coinsurance for their drug, rather than a flat fee, has increased to 58 percent last year from 35 percent in 2014, the paper notes.

Another tactic would be to address the underlying disconnect between rebate negotiations and savings for Medicare and beneficiaries. The authors suggest that incentives for health insurers need to change to require health plans to pay more of the drugs’ costs after beneficiaries pass through the doughnut hole.

In addition, Dusetzina said, using the post-rebate amount in Medicare’s calculations would allow Medicare beneficiaries to move through the doughnut hole more slowly. That would save both patients and Medicare money.

“It really just stops us from accelerating people through the benefit,” Dusetzina said.

Last month, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, launched a “Share the Savings” advertising campaign calling for public education about how the savings from rebates don’t actually get passed on to commercial insurance patients.

In an email, PhRMA’s Holly Campbell said the group’s commissioned research has found that rebates and discounts have nearly doubled from 2013 to 2015. Campbell said PhRMA believes “insurance companies should share more of the rebates and discounts they receive with patients.”

America’s Health Insurance Plans, which represents the insurance industry, calls the assertion that rebates and other discounts aren’t passed along “absolutely inaccurate” and noted the “true issue” is that drug prices continue to skyrocket “with no clear explanation as to how prices are set.” Insurers pass the savings from rebates on in different ways, including lower monthly premiums and co-pays, said AHIP’s Cathryn Donaldson.

Dusetzina said there is one caveat to the Medicare study: It is unclear how many drugs get a rebate and for how much because there is lack of transparency when it comes to rebates.

The paper’s final suggestion is about transparency. It says that federal regulators should require rebate data to be reported for individual drugs and then use that information to change Medicare’s benefit design in a way that “would lead to savings” for Medicare and its enrollees.

HHS delays 340B drug program regulations: 4 things to know

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/hhs-delays-340b-drug-program-regulations-4-things-to-know.html

Image result for 340b drug pricing program

HHS on Thursday delayed a regulation preventing drug companies from overcharging hospitals under the 340B drug discount program.

Here are four things to know.

1. The 340B drug pricing program, enacted in 1992, ensures hospitals treating a large proportion of low-income patients can buy drugs from manufacturers at a discount of 20 to 50 percent, according to the report. About one-third of U.S. hospitals — or 2,000 — participate in the program, purchasing about $12 billion in discounted drugs in 2015, reports The Washington Post.

2. In 2010, Congress instructed HHS to implement program regulations to set price ceilings fordrugs and establish civil monetary penalties on manufacturers that “knowingly and intentionally overcharge 340B covered entities,” according to a statement from HHS. The agency in January issued a final rule for the regulations to take effect March 6.

3. After President Donald Trump initiated a hiring freeze on all federal agencies in early March, HHS pushed back the rule until May 22. The agency also requested comments over a proposal to further delay implementation of the regulations until October. After reviewing the comments, HHS decided to officially push back the regulations to take effect Oct. 1.

4. 340B Health, a lobby group representing hospitals and health systems in the 340B program, shared an emailed statement with Becker’s, saying it was “disappointed with HHS’ decision to further delay … a long-overdue regulation to police the pharmaceutical industry.”

Rising Insulin Prices Have Diabetics Crying Foul

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/insulin-prices-rise-yet-again-causing-diabetics-to-cry-foul/

Image result for Rising Insulin Prices Have Diabetics Crying Foul

Insulin prices are only getting more painful.

Drugmakers Eli Lilly (LLY) and Novo Nordisk recently boosted their insulin list prices by almost 8 percent each, adding to concerns that treating diabetes is unaffordable for some patients. The average price of insulin almost tripled between 2002 and 2013, according to the American Diabetes Association (ADA). Even before the most recent price hike, some diabetics were cutting back or even going without the drug because of its expense.

The price hikes come at a sensitive time for the drugmakers as Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and rival Sanofi-Aventis are facing a class-action lawsuit alleging they conspired to raise their prices in lockstep. Almost one in 10 Americans has diabetes, a group of conditions where the body fails to properly regulate blood sugar. People with Type 1 diabetes, often referred to as juvenile diabetes, need to take insulin daily to stay alive.

“We were really disappointed in this announcement,” said Dr. William Cefalu, the chief scientific, medical and mission officer for the ADA, who noted that his organization has partnerships for research with the drugmakers. “This is really going in the wrong direction.”

 

Healthcare Triage: Orphan Drugs part 4 – Fixing the System

Healthcare Triage: Orphan Drugs part 4 – Fixing the System

Image result for Healthcare Triage: Orphan Drugs part 4 – Fixing the System

Drug companies love the Orphan Drug Act. They say it encourages research into breakthrough therapies for people with rare disease. And sometimes that’s true. Lots of the time, though, the companies would’ve pursued the research anyhow. And those same companies have learned to game the Orphan Drug Act in a bunch of different ways, allowing them to jack up their prices for no good reason.

How could we fix the Orphan Drug Act? That’s the topic of this week’s Healthcare Triage.