Estimated Savings From Using Added Therapeutic Benefit and Therapeutic Reference Pricing in United States Medicare Drug Price Negotiations.

OBJECTIVES: US Medicare will begin negotiating prices for top-selling drugs in 2023. This study describes and estimates potential savings from a therapeutic reference pricing approach, linking comparative effectiveness with the costs of existing therapeutic alternatives, that Medicare could use to adjust the starting point for price negotiations. METHODS: First, we identified target drugs likely to be selected for Medicare negotiation. Second, we identified comparative effectiveness ratings for target drugs based on French Haute Autorité de Santé reports. For target drugs with minor or no added benefit, we identified therapeutic alternatives based on the French reports and US clinical guidelines. For each target drug with minor or no added benefit, we computed the difference between spending based on the drug's estimated statutory ceiling price and spending based on the weighted average cost of therapeutic alternatives or the lowest cost therapeutic alternative. Finally, we calculated potential annual savings from using a starting point in negotiations based on costs of therapeutic alternatives. RESULTS: Potential drug-level savings to Medicare from using a starting point in negotiations based on average spending across therapeutic alternatives, compared with using the statutory ceiling price alone, ranged from $186 541 340 to $2 173 441 197. Potential savings from using a starting point based on the lowest cost alternative ranged from $199 872 163 to $3 605 904 765. CONCLUSIONS: Although we do not expect Medicare to rely on French comparative effectiveness assessments, this study demonstrates the potential for additional savings when using comparative effectiveness and costs of therapeutic alternatives to inform the starting price for negotiations.

Incorporating Added Therapeutic Benefit and Domestic Reference Pricing Into Medicare Payment for Expensive Part B Drugs.

OBJECTIVES: Identify expensive Part B drugs and evidence for each drug's added benefit and model a reimbursement policy for Medicare that integrates added benefit assessment and domestic reference pricing. METHODS: A retrospective analysis using a 20% nationally representative sample of 2015 to 2019 traditional Medicare Part B claims. Expensive drugs were defined as having average annual spending per beneficiary exceeding the average annual social security benefit ($17 532 in 2019). For expensive drugs identified in 2019, added benefit assessments conducted by the French Haute Autorité de Santé were collected. For expensive drugs with a low added benefit rating, comparator drugs were identified in French Haute Autorité de Santé reports. For each comparator, average annual spending per beneficiary in Part B was computed. Potential savings from 2 reference pricing scenarios were calculated: reimbursing expensive Part B drugs with low added benefit at the level of each drug's (1) lowest cost comparator and (2) beneficiary-weighted-average cost of all comparators. RESULTS: The number of expensive Part B drugs grew from 56 in 2015 to 92 in 2019. Of the 92 expensive drugs in 2019, 34 offer low added benefit. Implementing reference pricing for these expensive drugs with low added benefit could have saved an estimated $2.1 billion if prices were set based on spending for their lowest cost comparator, or $1 billion if prices were set based on the weighted average of spending for comparators. CONCLUSION: Reference pricing based on added benefit assessment could be used to address the launch prices for expensive Part B drugs with low added benefit.

Developing Prioritization Criteria to Identify Target Drugs for CalRx, the California Generic Drugs Initiative.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to establish criteria to identify priority drugs for CalRx, a California-sponsored initiative to support the manufacture and distribution of affordable generic drugs. METHODS: A web-based ranking exercise was implemented with key stakeholders in August 2020, using pricing, spending, and public health criteria identified through a review of academic literature and public health agency reports. A total of 39 of 40 invited stakeholders in 4 different categories-patient advocates, healthcare providers, health insurers, and health policy and economic experts-participated in this study (98% response rate). RESULTS: Drugs that treat large populations, drugs that represent high cost to payors, and drugs that represent high cost to consumers were ranked a priority, receiving > 10% of ranking weights. Drugs that treat conditions with high morbidity or mortality, drugs without therapeutic alternatives, and drugs treating vulnerable populations represented criteria of further interest (9%-10% of weights). Shortage risk and curative effect (8%-9% of the weights), high price increases, communicable disease treatments, and high unit prices (< 8% of the weights) represented the bottom of the priority distribution. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that drugs that treat large populations, drugs that represent large costs to payors, and drugs that represent large costs to consumers should be the priority for California's CalRx generic drug initiative. A prioritizing algorithm will assist California in determining top drugs to target from a public health and spending perspective as it plans the rollout of the CalRx initiative and negotiates with drug manufacturers.

Association Between Drug Characteristics and Manufacturer Spending on Direct-to-Consumer Advertising.

Importance: Some drugs are heavily marketed through direct-to-consumer advertising. Objective: To identify drug characteristics associated with a greater share of promotional spending on advertising directly to consumers. Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory cross-sectional analysis of drug characteristics and promotional spending for the 150 top-selling branded prescription drugs in the US in 2020 as identified from IQVIA National Sales Perspectives data. Promotional spending data were provided by IQVIA ChannelDynamics. Exposures: Drug characteristics (total 2020 sales; total 2020 promotional spending; clinical benefit ratings; number of indications, off-label use; molecule type; nature of condition treated; administration type; generic availability; US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] approval year, World Health Organization anatomical therapeutic chemical classification; Medicare annual mean spending per beneficiary; percent sales attributable to the drug; market size; market competitiveness) assessed from health technology assessment agencies (France's Haute Autorité de Santé and Canada's Patented Medicine Prices Review Board) and drug data sources (Drugs@FDA, the FDA Purple Book, Lexicomp, Merative Marketscan Research Databases, and Medicare Spending by Drug data). Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer-advertising for each drug. Results: The 2020 median proportion of promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising was 13.5% (IQR, 1.96%-36.6%); median promotional spending, $20.9 million (IQR, $2.72-$131 million); and median total sales, $1.51 billion (IQR, $0.97-$2.26 billion). Of the 150 best-selling drugs, 16 were missing data and key covariates; therefore, the primary study sample comprised 134 drugs. After adjustment for multiple drug characteristics, the mean proportion of total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising for the remaining 134 drugs was an absolute 14.3% (95% CI, 1.43%-27.2%; P = .03) higher for those with low added clinical benefit than for those with high added clinical benefit and an absolute 1.5% (95% CI, 0.44%-2.56%; P = .005) higher for each 10% increase in total sales. Conclusions and Relevance: Among top-selling US drugs in 2020, a rating of lower added benefit and higher total drug sales were associated with a higher proportion of manufacturer total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising. Further research is needed to understand the implications of these findings.

When States Mandate Hospital Community Benefit Reports, Provision Increases.

GOAL: We examined the variation in community benefit and charity care reporting standards mandated by states to determine whether state-mandated community benefit and charity care reporting is associated with greater provision of these services. METHODS: We used 2011-2019 data from IRS Form 990 Schedule H for 1,423 nonprofit hospitals to create a sample of 12,807 total observations. Random effects regression models were used to examine the association between state reporting requirements and community benefit spending by nonprofit hospitals. Specific reporting requirements were analyzed to determine whether certain requirements were associated with increased spending on these services. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Nonprofit hospitals in states that required reports spent a higher percentage of total hospital expenditures on community benefits (9.1%, SD = 6.2%) compared to states without these requirements (7.2%, SD = 5.7%). A similar association between the percentage of charity care and total hospital expenditures (2.3% and 1.5%) was found. The greater number of reporting requirements was associated with lower levels of charity care provision, as hospitals allocated more resources to other community benefits. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Mandating the reporting of specific services is associated with greater provision of certain specific services, but not all. A concern is that when many services must be reported, the provision of charity care might be reduced as hospitals choose to allocate their community benefit dollars to other categories. As a result, policymakers may want to focus their attention on the services they most want to prioritize.

Participation, Pricing, and Enrollment in a Health Insurance "Public Option": Evidence From Washington State's Cascade Care Program.

Policy Points Policymakers considering introduction of a health insurance "public option" to lower health spending and reduce the number of uninsured can learn from Washington State, which offered the nation's first public option ("Cascade Care") through its state exchange in 2021. This article examines insurer participation, pricing, and enrollment in the Washington public option. The public option was the lowest-premium standard silver plan in 9 of the 19 counties in which it was offered. Cascade Care is available solely through private insurers. Voluntary participation of these insurers and uncertainty about the willingness of providers to participate may have hindered greater premium reductions and enrollment in the public option's first year. CONTEXT: State and federal policymakers considering introduction of a health insurance "public option" can learn from Washington State, which established the nation's first public option, with coverage beginning in January 2021. Public option plans were offered voluntarily by private insurers through the Washington Health Benefit Exchange and were subject to state-mandated plan design and payment requirements. METHODS: We used plan data from the Washington Health Benefit Exchange, linked to data from the US Census Bureau, the American Hospital Association, and InterStudy. We compared geographic availability and premiums of, and enrollment in, public option and non-public option plans, as well as characteristics of counties where the public option was available and counties where the public option was the lowest-premium plan. FINDINGS: At least one public option plan was available in 19 of 39 counties and was the lowest-premium option in 9 of the 19 counties where it was available. Five insurers offered public option plans, including one new entrant to the state and one new entrant to the Exchange. While public option availability was more common in counties where the Exchange was bigger and more competitive, public option plans had the lowest premium in smaller, less competitive counties. In the first year, 1% of enrollees selected the public option, in part due to automatic reenrollment of the majority of returning enrollees in their 2020 plan. CONCLUSIONS: Public option plans offered a low-premium choice in counties that otherwise had fewer affordable plans, but voluntary participation of insurers and providers and accompanying uncertainty about participation hindered widespread and substantial premium reductions. States should consider tying public option participation by insurers and providers to other state programs and using decision support tools to promote active enrollment. Federal policymakers can support state efforts while considering establishment of a national public option.

Assessing the Added Therapeutic Benefit of Ultra-Expensive Drugs.

OBJECTIVES: While the United States does not have a method for assessing the added therapeutic benefit of drugs, France, Canada, and Germany do. We examined the added therapeutic benefit of the most expensive drugs prescribed to Medicare Part D beneficiaries in the United States. METHODS: We identified ultra-expensive drugs with annual Medicare spending that exceeded $62 794 (United States GDP per capita in 2018) using Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Spending and Utilization Data. We used added therapeutic benefit ratings assessed by health technology assessment agencies in France, Canada, and Germany. RESULTS: We identified 122 ultra-expensive drugs in 2018. Sixty-five percent of these drugs (n = 79) were assessed by at least one of the countries. Based on these assessments, approximately 75% received a low added therapeutic benefit rating. CONCLUSIONS: Most ultra-expensive drugs prescribed in the United States and assessed by France, Canada, and Germany provide low added therapeutic benefit. Policy reforms in the United States could use added therapeutic benefit to inform coverage and pricing decisions for ultra-expensive drugs. Similar to Germany, one approach would be to allow the company to set a market price for a limited period of time before requiring a price reduction if the added therapeutic benefit is below a certain threshold. Another approach would be to identify when drug prices are substantially more expensive in the United States and conduct an added therapeutic benefit assessment and price review on these drugs.

Comparative Approaches to Drug Pricing.

The United States relies primarily on market forces to determine prices for drugs, whereas most other industrialized countries use a variety of approaches to determine drug prices. Branded drug companies have patents and market exclusivity periods in most industrialized countries. During this period, pharmaceutical companies are allowed to set their list price as high as they prefer in the United States owing to the absence of government price control mechanisms that exist in other countries. Insured patients often pay a percentage of the list price, and cost sharing creates some pressure to lower the list price. Pharmacy benefit managers negotiate with drug companies for lower prices by offering the drug company favorable formulary placement and fewer utilization controls. However, these approaches appear to be less effective, compared with other countries' approaches to containing branded drug prices, because prices are substantially higher in the United States. Other industrialized countries employ various forms of rate setting and price regulation, such as external reference pricing, therapeutic valuation, and health technology assessment to determine the appropriate price.

Older Americans' Preferences Between Lower Drug Prices and Prescription Drug Plan Choice, 2019.

Objectives. To assess older Americans' willingness to trade off the possibility of choosing or changing their prescription drug plan for lower drug spending.Methods. We used data from the Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking Poll on prescription drugs carried out in February 2019. This nationwide telephone survey oversampled participants aged 65 years and older who, when weighted, were representative of the US older adult population.Results. Older adults were strongly in favor of the government negotiating drug prices in Medicare Part D (82% support); 60% of older adults would trade off the possibility of choosing or switching their drug plan in favor of lower drug prices. All groups preferred lower spending over plan choice, but this preference was stronger among individuals who were in poorer health, had lower education and income, and found it very difficult to afford the drugs they needed.Conclusions. The results suggest that Medicare beneficiaries could support policies that limit plan choice, as long as drug prices actually decrease.

Modifying the Criteria for Granting Orphan Drug Market Exclusivity.

OBJECTIVES: To examine policy options to deny orphan drug exclusivity after drugs exceed a target population of 200 000 across all orphan indications (combined prevalence threshold) or once drugs receive a nonorphan approval (market approval threshold). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of drugs with 2 or more orphan approvals from 1983 to July 01, 2017 examining prevalence of orphan indications and approval years of orphan and nonorphan indications. Characteristics of drugs crossing either threshold are described. A budget impact analysis of Medicare and Marketscan® claims databases estimated potential savings from generic or biosimilar entry as a result of foregone market exclusivity periods determined by these policies. RESULTS: Out of 86 drugs with 2 or more orphan approvals, 21 drugs would be denied orphan drug exclusivity periods under the prevalence threshold and 18 drugs would be denied orphan drug exclusivity periods under the market approval threshold. Drugs with orphan approvals after 2010 were more likely to be denied orphan drug exclusivity. In 2017, Medicare could have saved about $2 billion on 8 drugs under the prevalence threshold policy and $1.3 billion on 12 drugs under the market approval threshold policy). Private insurers could have saved $814 and $919 million, respectively. Over half of the savings would come from 9 drugs that first entered the market for a nonorphan indication. CONCLUSIONS: Modifying the criteria for granting orphan drug exclusivity would affect a small number of orphan drugs but could generate large savings through increased competition. Other incentives such as grants or tax credits for clinical trials could be explored to incentivize research for new orphan indications for drugs that crossed either threshold.

Biosimilar Uptake in Medicare Part B Varied Across Hospital Outpatient Departments and Physician Practices: The Case of Filgrastim.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the uptake of filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio), the first biosimilar to launch in the United States, in the Medicare Part B fee-for-service program from its launch in September 2015 to December 2017 and compare characteristics of patients and facilities that used filgrastim-sndz or originator filgrastim (Neupogen). METHODS: The 20% sample of Medicare Part B fee-for-service administrative claims data was used to extract information on claims for any filgrastim product between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017. RESULTS: The utilization of filgrastim-sndz in Medicare Part B increased sharply between January and August 2016, surpassing filgrastim by November 2017, contributing to a 30% decrease in overall spending on this drug since 2015. Uptake was faster and larger in physician practices compared with hospital outpatient departments. About 77% of patients receiving filgrastim-sndz were new users. Utilization patterns indicated that product selection occurred at the facility level, rather than being at the discretion of the prescribing physician or driven by patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Uptake of biosimilar filgrastim in the Medicare Part B program occurred despite multiple challenges to the adoption of biosimilars in the US market, suggesting that substantial potential savings could be generated by improving biosimilar uptake. Our findings indicated that physician practices and hospital outpatient departments have distinctive biosimilar uptake patterns. Thus policy makers aiming to contain Medicare Part B spending might consider focusing on incentivizing biosimilar uptake among hospital outpatient departments.

Naming Convention, Interchangeability, and Patient Interest in Biosimilars.

Although biosimilars may offer cost savings over their comparable biologics, use of biosimilars in the United States remains relatively low. This study investigates two barriers to uptake of biosimilars in the United States. First, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires that four-letter suffixes be added to the nonproprietary names of all biosimilars, as well as to the nonproprietary names of all biologics approved after March 2020. Second, biosimilars are not interchangeable with their reference biologic product at the pharmacy counter; a new prescription is needed for the biosimilar to be dispensed in place of the biologic. We conducted two behavioral experiments to examine the effects of the naming convention and interchangeability designation on patients' interest in biosimilars. We found that, absent the mention of needing a new prescription, adding four-letter suffixes to biosimilars' nonproprietary names decreased participants' likelihood of using the biosimilars. When participants were told whether a biosimilar required a new prescription, they were more interested in the biosimilar when it did not require a new prescription, and this effect was driven by participants' perceived similarity of the biosimilar to the biologic. The effect of interchangeability dominated the suffix effect. Our results suggest that both biosimilar suffixes and interchangeability issues provide signals to patients regarding the perceived similarity of biosimilars to their reference biologics and influence patient usage of biosimilars.

Economic implications of decreased elective orthopaedic and musculoskeletal surgery volume during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

PURPOSE: In order to reduce viral spread, elective surgery was cancelled in most US hospitals for an extended period during the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study was to estimate national hospital reimbursement and net income losses due to elective orthopaedic surgery cancellation during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) and the Nationwide Ambulatory Surgery Sample (NASS) were used to identify all elective orthopaedic and musculoskeletal (MSK) surgery performed in the inpatient setting and in hospital owned outpatient surgery departments throughout the USA. Total cost, reimbursement, and net income were estimated for all elective orthopaedic surgery and were compared with elective operations from other specialties. RESULTS: Elective MSK surgery accounted for $65.6-$71.1 billion in reimbursement and $15.6-$21.1 billion in net income per year to the US hospital system, equivalent to $5.5-$5.9 billion in reimbursement and $1.3-$1.8 billion in net income per month. When compared with elective surgery from all other specialties, elective MSK surgery accounted for 39% of hospital reimbursement and 35% of hospital net income. Compared with all hospital encounters for all specialties, elective MSK surgery accounted for 13% of reimbursement and 23% of net income. Estimated hospital losses from cancellation of elective MSK surgery during 8 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic were $10.9-$11.9 billion in reimbursement and $2.6-3.5 billion in net income. CONCLUSION: Cancellation of elective MSK surgery for 8 weeks during the COVID-19 pandemic has substantial economic implications on the US hospital system.

Pharmaceutical Industry Support of US Patient Advocacy Organizations: An International Context.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the share of pharmaceutical industry funds allocated to patient advocacy organizations (PAOs) is disproportionately large in the United States relative to other industrialized countries and to compare pharmaceutical companies' disclosure practices across industrialized countries. METHODS: We examined funding of PAOs among the 10 largest pharmaceutical companies in 2016. We compared funding allocated to organizations across 8 large industrialized countries and pharmaceutical companies' disclosure practices in each country. RESULTS: Only 6 of the 10 largest pharmaceutical companies disclosed their financial transactions with PAOs in the United States. All 10 companies disclosed transactions in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, with varying levels of disclosure in other countries. In 2016, the 6 companies that disclosed transactions in the United States allocated 74% of their patient advocacy funding ($88 million) in the United States. CONCLUSIONS: The disproportionate funding of US PAOs in the absence of any disclosure requirements suggests that the United States should consider adoption of regulatory actions to enhance the transparency of relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and PAOs, and to ensure the integrity of public health decision-making.

Nurse practitioners and physician assistants in emergency medical services who billed independently, 2012-2016.

OBJECTIVE: As nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) become an integral part of delivering emergency medical services, we examined the involvement of NPs and PAs who billed independently in emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: We used Medicare provider utilization and payment data from 2012 to 2016 to conduct a retrospective analysis. We examined the changes in the number of each clinician type who billed independently for four common emergency services (CPT codes: 99282-5), the change in their service volume, and the change in their average number of services billed. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2016, the proportion of NPs and PAs billing independently increased from 18% to 22% for ED visits of low severity (99282), 23% to 29% for visits with moderate severity (99283), 21% to 27% for visits with high severity (99284), 18% to 24% for visit with the highest severity (99285), and 23% to 29% across all four services. The proportion of services provided by emergency physicians decreased from 66% to 63% across all four services, and from 11% to 9% for internists and family physicians. The number of NPs, PAs billing independently, and emergency physicians increased by 65%, 35% and 12% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: NPs and PAs are increasingly billing emergency services of all levels of severity, independent of physicians. This trend is driven by a growing number of NPs and PAs independently billing services, despite a relatively stable number of emergency physicians (excepting the decline in rural areas), and diminished involvement of family physicians and internists in EDs.

Financial Eligibility Criteria and Medication Coverage for Independent Charity Patient Assistance Programs.

Importance: Although independent charity patient assistance programs improve patient access to costly prescription drugs, recent federal investigations have raised questions about their potential to increase pharmaceutical spending and to violate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Little is known about the design of the programs, patient eligibility, or drug coverage. Objective: To examine the eligibility criteria of the independent charity patient assistance programs and the drugs covered by them. Design, Setting, and Participants: Descriptive cross-sectional study of the 6 largest independent charities offering patient assistance programs for patients including, but not limited to, Medicare beneficiaries in 2018. These charities offered 274 different disease-specific patient assistance programs. Drugs were identified for subgroup analysis that had any use reported on the Medicare Part D spending dashboard and any off-patent brand-name drugs that incurred more than $10 000 in Medicare spending per beneficiary in 2016. Exposures: Support by independent charity patient assistance programs. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the characteristics of patient assistance programs, including assistance type, insurance coverage (vs uninsured), and income eligibility. The secondary outcomes were the cost of the drugs covered by the patient assistance programs and the coverage of expensive off-patent brand-name drugs vs substitutable generic drugs. Results: Among the 6 independent charity foundations included in the analysis, their total revenue in 2017 ranged from $24 million to $532 million, and expenditures on patient assistance programs ranged from $24 million to $353 million, representing on average, 86% of their revenue. Of the 274 patient assistance programs offered by these organizations, 168 (61%) provided only co-payment assistance, and the most common therapeutic area covered was cancer or cancer treatment-related symptoms (113 patient assistance programs; 41%). A total of 267 programs (97%) required insurance coverage as an eligibility criterion (ie, excluded uninsured patients). The most common income eligibility limit was 500% of the federal poverty level. The median annual cost of the drugs per beneficiary covered by the programs was $1157 (interquartile range, $247-$5609) compared with $367 (interquartile range, $100-$1500) for the noncovered drugs. Off-patent brand-name drugs (cost: >$10 000) were covered by a mean of 3.1 (SD, 2.0) patient assistance programs, whereas their generic equivalents were covered by a mean of 1.2 (SD, 1.0) patient assistance programs. Conclusions and Relevance: In 2018, among 274 patient assistance programs operated by the 6 independent charity foundations, the majority did not provide coverage for uninsured patients. Medications that were covered by the patient assistance programs were generally more expensive than those that were not covered.

Global Production of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients for US Generic Drugs Experiencing Shortages.

This study evaluates the characteristics of generic active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) used to manufacture drugs with shortages in the US and facilities producing APIs worldwide.

Spending on Dual Over-the-Counter and Prescription Drugs in the Medicare Part D Program.

This study compares Medicare and patient spending for dual over-the-counter and prescription drugs with their over-the-counter cash prices.

Targeting High-Need Beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage: Opportunities to Address Medical and Social Needs.

Issue: Serving Medicare beneficiaries with complex health care needs requires understanding both the medical and social factors that may affect their health. Goal: Describe the prevalence and characteristics of high-need individuals enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program. Methods: Analysis of the 2015 Medicare Health Outcomes Survey. Key Findings: Thirty-seven percent of enrollees in large Medicare Advantage plans have high needs, requiring both medical and social services. Individuals with high needs are more likely to report having limited financial resources, low levels of education, social isolation, and poor health. Conclusion: Federal policymakers should consider allowing Medicare Advantage plans to identify high-need beneficiaries based on their medical and social risk factors, rather than just medical diagnoses. Doing so would enable plans to deliver better-targeted services that meet their members' needs and facilitate implementation of the CHRONIC Care Act provision that allows plans to offer nonhealth supplemental benefits.