Five-Year Sales for Newly Marketed Prescription Drugs With and Without Initial Orphan Drug Act Designation

This study evaluates sales revenue earned in the first 5 years for newly marketed brand-name drugs with and without an initial orphan drug designation.

Added Therapeutic Benefit of Top-Selling Brand-name Drugs in Medicare

Importance

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 authorizes Medicare to negotiate prices of top-selling drugs based on several factors, including therapeutic benefit compared with existing treatment options.

Objective

To determine the added therapeutic benefit of the 50 top-selling brand-name drugs in Medicare in 2020, as assessed by health technology assessment (HTA) organizations in Canada, France, and Germany.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, publicly available therapeutic benefit ratings, US Food and Drug Administration documents, and the Medicare Part B and Part D prescription drug spending dashboards were used to determine the 50 top-selling single-source drugs used in Medicare in 2020 and to assess their added therapeutic benefit ratings through 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Ratings from HTA bodies in Canada, France, and Germany were categorized as high (moderate or greater) or low (minor or no) added benefit. Each drug was rated based on its most favorable rating across countries, indications, subpopulations, and dosage forms. We compared the use and prerebate and postrebate (ie, net) Medicare spending between drugs with high vs low added benefit.

Results

Forty-nine drugs (98%) received an HTA rating by at least 1 country; 22 of 36 drugs (61%) received a low added benefit rating in Canada, 34 of 47 in France (72%), and 17 of 29 in Germany (59%). Across countries, 27 drugs (55%) had a low added therapeutic rating, accounting for $19.3 billion in annual estimated net spending, or 35% of Medicare net spending on the 50 top-selling single-source drugs and 11% of total Medicare net prescription drug spending in 2020. Compared with those with high added benefit, drugs with a low added therapeutic rating were used by more Medicare beneficiaries (median 387 149 vs 44 869) and had lower net spending per beneficiary (median $992 vs $32 287).

Conclusions and Relevance

Many top-selling Medicare drugs received low added benefit ratings by the national HTA organizations of Canada, France, and Germany. When negotiating prices for these drugs, Medicare should ensure they are not priced higher than reasonable therapeutic alternatives.

Medicaid Spending on Antiretrovirals From 2007 Through 2019

BACKGROUND

Antiretroviral (ARV) medications to treat human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are a major contributor to Medicaid prescription drug spending. Despite having been used for over 3 decades, the first generic ARVs only recently became available, and many newer versions continue to be sold at high prices despite within-class competition. We estimated Medicaid spending on ARVs from 2007 through 2019.

METHODS

Using public Medicaid State Drug Utilization data, we identified trends in ARV spending and use from 2007 through 2019. We estimated net spending and average prices (spending per 30-day supply), accounting for statutory Medicaid rebates, including a 15%-23% base rebate plus additional rebates if a drug's price increased faster than inflation.

RESULTS

Among 48 ARVs, estimated net Medicaid spending from 2007 through 2019 was $25 billion for 17 million 30-day supplies. Annual use increased 118%, from 0.7 million 30-day supplies in 2007 to 1.6 million in 2019. During this time, estimated annual net spending increased 178%, from $1.1 billion to $3.0 billion, and average net prices increased 28%, from $1432 to $1830 per 30-day supply.

CONCLUSIONS

Annual Medicaid net spending on ARVs nearly tripled from 2007 to 2019, due to a combination of expanded use and rising prices. Medicaid did not extract expected benefits from its mandatory inflationary rebates because they were offset by use of newer, more expensive ARVs. To better control spending related to products with incremental innovation, the US government should be authorized to assure that launch prices for new drugs are aligned with the added benefit they offer over existing therapies.

Using Multiple Authorized Generics to Maintain High Prices: The Example of Entacapone

OBJECTIVES

Brand-name drug manufacturers can market or license authorized generics (AGs), which are the same product sold under a generic name. By contrast, independent generics (IGs) are made by other manufacturers. The brand-name manufacturer of entacapone, a treatment for Parkinson's disease, established 4 AGs before IGs emerged. We used this case study to understand how AGs can affect the length of brand-name exclusivity and robustness of generic competition.

METHODS

Using public Food and Drug Administration and court records, we identified the regulatory and legal history for generic entacapone products marketed through 2021. We used Medicare Part D data to estimate trends in use, prices, and spending on entacapone products from 2011 to 2020, comparing actual spending with projected spending if IG competition had begun after expiration of the key patent protecting entacapone (October 2013) and prices had fallen consistent with levels observed for other generic drugs.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2014, 3 potential entacapone IG manufacturers instead launched AG versions after settlement agreements with the brand-name manufacturer; the brand-name manufacturer additionally introduced its own AG. Four different IG versions were marketed beginning in 2015. From 2011 to 2020, average Medicare prices declined by 62%, less than the projected 74% to 92% price decline expected for a drug with 8 generics. Over this period, Medicare spent $1.1 billion on entacapone products, which could have been reduced by an estimated $137 to $449 million through typical IG competition.

CONCLUSIONS

The case of entacapone demonstrates how licensing multiple AGs in place of IG competition can increase spending. Government regulators should more rigorously monitor AGs to prevent such strategies.

Estimated Medicaid Spending on Original and Citrate-Free Adalimumab From 2014 Through 2021

This cross-sectional study assesses Medicaid spending associated with citrate-free vs original adalimumab.

US public investment in development of mRNA covid-19 vaccines: retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate US public investment in the development of mRNA covid-19 vaccines.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Publicly funded science from January 1985 to March 2022.

DATA SOURCES

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Report Portfolio Online Reporting Tool Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) and other public databases. Government funded grants were scored as directly, indirectly, or not likely related to four key innovations underlying mRNA covid-19 vaccines-lipid nanoparticle, mRNA synthesis or modification, prefusion spike protein structure, and mRNA vaccine biotechnology-on the basis of principal investigator, project title, and abstract.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Direct public investment in research and vaccine development, stratified by the rationale, government funding agency, and pre-pandemic (1985-2019) versus pandemic (1 January 2020 to 31 March 2022).

RESULTS

34 NIH funded research grants that were directly related to mRNA covid-19 vaccines were identified. These grants combined with other identified US government grants and contracts totaled $31.9bn (£26.3bn; €29.7bn), of which $337m was invested pre-pandemic. Pre-pandemic, the NIH invested $116m (35%) in basic and translational science related to mRNA vaccine technology, and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) ($148m; 44%) and the Department of Defense ($72m; 21%) invested in vaccine development. After the pandemic started, $29.2bn (92%) of US public funds purchased vaccines, $2.2bn (7%) supported clinical trials, and $108m (<1%) supported manufacturing plus basic and translational science.

CONCLUSIONS

The US government invested at least $31.9bn to develop, produce, and purchase mRNA covid-19 vaccines, including sizeable investments in the three decades before the pandemic through March 2022. These public investments translated into millions of lives saved and were crucial in developing the mRNA vaccine technology that also has the potential to tackle future pandemics and to treat diseases beyond covid-19. To maximize overall health impact, policy makers should ensure equitable global access to publicly funded health technologies.

Market dynamics of authorized generics in Medicaid from 2014 to 2020

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the use and timing of market introduction of authorized generics (AGs), which unlike independent generics are sold by the brand-name drug manufacturer under a generic label.

DATA SOURCES

This study used public Medicaid prescription drug use data from 2014 to 2020.

STUDY DESIGN

This cross-sectional study measured the percentage of filled prescriptions for AGs, compared with brand-name and independent generic versions. We also identified the frequency and characteristics of AGs marketed at least 1 year before independent generics.

DATA EXTRACTION METHODS

Drugs were classified based on manufacturer-reported data to Medicaid.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

From 2014 to 2020, 1023 AGs accounted for 175 million filled Medicaid prescriptions. These represented 4% of Medicaid prescription drug use, and 16% of medication use among products with AGs available. Among 393 AGs for drugs without generic competition before 2014, 139 (35%) were marketed at least 1 year before independent generics or had no independent generic competition through December 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

AGs represented a small share of Medicaid prescription drug use from 2014 to 2020, but when AGs were available, they accounted for sizeable market share. Among the minority of cases in which AGs were marketed a year or more before independent generics, manufacturers may be using AGs to bolster brand-name drug prices or to undermine independent generic competition, meriting further attention by regulators.

Simulated Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022

Importance

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 gives Medicare the authority to negotiate prices for certain prescription drugs. Which drugs will be selected and how prices will be negotiated remain unclear.

Objective

To simulate drug selection and the minimum savings that would have been achieved at statutory ceiling prices if Medicare drug price negotiation had been implemented from 2018 to 2020.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, a policy simulation analysis of high-spending prescription drugs in Medicare Part B and Part D that were eligible for negotiation from January 2018 to December 2020 was performed from August 5 to November 20, 2022.

Exposures

Eligibility criteria for selection and discounts afforded by the statutory ceiling prices for negotiation.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were characteristics of drugs subject to negotiation and estimated Medicare savings from 2018 to 2020 that would have been achieved through spending at ceiling prices compared with existing net prices accounting for price concessions.

Results

Among the 40 selected drugs, 35 were primarily reimbursed through Medicare Part D and 5 through Part B and 10 were biologics. The most common therapeutic classes were endocrine (11), neurologic or psychiatric (5), pulmonary (4), rheumatologic or immunologic (4), and cardiovascular (4). Median time from US Food and Drug Administration approval to selection was 12 years (IQR, 10-14 years). Three drugs faced generic competition in the 2 years between selection and price negotiation. For the remaining 37 drugs, estimated net Medicare spending from 2018 to 2020 was $55.3 billion; spending at ceiling prices would have been reduced by an estimated $26.5 billion, which represented 5% of estimated net Medicare drug spending during those 3 years.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study, simulating the drug price negotiation provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 revealed important limitations, including strict selection criteria and the potential for drugs to become ineligible for negotiation during the 2 years between selection and prices taking effect. Despite these limitations, the policy still delivered substantial savings because ceiling prices offered steep discounts, in part, by erasing excess spending from price increases faster than inflation.

Estimated Medicare Part B Savings From Inflationary Rebates

This study uses annual Medicare Part B spending data to examine the potential savings from the drug pricing reforms in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

Frequency of Approval and Marketing of Biosimilars With a Skinny Label and Associated Medicare Savings

This cohort study assesses the frequency of approval and marketing of skinny-label biosimilars and their savings to Medicare.

Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs Following the Availability of Biosimilar Versions of Infliximab

After market exclusivity ends for biologic drugs, biosimilars-follow-on versions made by other manufacturers-can compete with lower prices. Biosimilars have modestly reduced prescription drug spending for US payers, but it is unclear whether patients have directly experienced any savings. In this study we assessed whether availability of biosimilar infliximab was associated with lower out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, using claims from a national data set of commercially insured patients from 2014 to 2018. We used two-part models, adjusting for patient demographics, clinical characteristics, insurance plan type, and calendar month. Compared with the reference biologic, there was no difference in the percentage of biosimilar claims with OOP costs (30.1% vs. 30.8%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84-1.15, P = 0.84) or the average nonzero OOP cost (median $378 vs. $538, adjusted mean ratio (aMR) 0.97, 95% CI, 0.80-1.18, P = 0.77). The percentage of claims with OOP costs was lower after biosimilar competition (30.7% vs. 35.0%, aOR 0.96, 95% CI, 0.94-0.99, P = 0.003), but average nonzero costs increased (median $534 vs. $520, aMR 1.04, 95% CI, 1.01-1.07, P = 0.004). Thus, early biosimilar infliximab competition did not improve affordability for patients. Policymakers need to better assure that competition in the biosimilar market translates to lower costs for patients using these medications.

State Laws and Generic Substitution in the Year After New Generic Competition

OBJECTIVES

Substitution of brand-name drugs with less expensive, equally effective interchangeable generics is an important strategy for promoting adherence and controlling prescription drug spending. US state laws govern generic substitution, but there is variability among states in how these laws are designed. We aimed to determine how different features of state laws regulating generic substitution are associated with use of generic drugs.

METHODS

Using national claims databases, we studied individuals with commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage plans who newly initiated one of 34 prescription drugs during the year after new generic competition (2017-2018) to determine any association between generic use and 3 different features of state laws. We used multivariable logistic regression to adjust for demographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 502 763 individuals who initiated one of the drugs, 409 856 (81.6%) received a generic version. Those in states requiring patient consent or notification had lower use of generics (81.1% vs 82.9%; adjusted odds ratio 0.89; 95% confidence interval 0.87-0.91; P &lt; .001). By contrast, mandating versus permitting generic substitution and protecting pharmacists from liability did not appear to have significant effects.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage patients, patients in states requiring consent or notification for pharmacists to substitute Food and Drug Administration-certified interchangeable generics had lower use of generics. Laws in 39 states plus the District of Columbia could be amended to improve use of inexpensive and equally effective generic drugs.

New Reforms to Prescription Drug Pricing in the US: Opportunities and Challenges

This Viewpoint describes the provisions and limitations of prescription drug pricing reforms enacted by US Congress as part of the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022.

Sex-Based Role Misidentification and Burnout of Resident Physicians: An Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

This cross-sectional study characterized associations between sex, role misidentification, and burnout among surgical and nonsurgical residents.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Limited evidence suggests that female resident physicians are more likely to be misidentified as nonphysician team members, with potential negative implications for wellbeing. The prevalence and impact of role misidentification on the trainee experience in surgical as compared to nonsurgical specialties is unknown.

METHODS

An anonymous electronic survey was distributed to fourteen different residency programs at 2 academic medical centers in August 2018. The survey included questions about demographics, symptoms of burnout, the frequency of misidentification as another member of the care team, and the effect of misidentification on respondents' well-being. Results: Two-hundred sixty out of 419 (62.1% response rate) resident physicians completed the survey, of whom 184 (77.3%) reported being misidentified as a nonphysician at least weekly. Female sex was associated with a significantly increased odds of being misidentified at least weekly (adjusted OR 23.7, 95% CI 10.9-51.5; P < 0.001), as was training in a surgical program (adjusted OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.7-8.0; P = 0.001). Frequent role misidentification was associated with burnout (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.2-5.5; P = 0.01). In free-text responses, residents reported that being misidentified invoked a sense of not belonging, caused emotional exhaustion, and interfered with patient communication.

CONCLUSIONS

Role misidentification is more prevalent among female residents and surgical residents, compared to male residents and nonsurgical residents, respectively. Physician role misidentification is associated with burnout and has negative implications for resident wellbeing; interventions to reduce role misidentification are needed.

Association of Perceived Role Misidentification With Use of Role Identity Badges Among Resident Physicians

IMPORTANCE

Role misidentification of resident physicians occurs frequently and is associated with decreased well-being.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role misidentification and burnout rates among resident physicians after disbursement of role identity badges.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This quality improvement study was conducted during the 2018 to 2019 academic year. Residents in 13 surgical and nonsurgical residency programs at 2 large academic medical centers (Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital) were eligible to receive the intervention and complete 2 surveys (before and after the intervention). Data were analyzed from December 4, 2021, to February 7, 2022.

INTERVENTION

Role identity badges that displayed "Doctor" and could be attached to mandatory hospital identification badges were distributed to residents in August 2018 at Massachusetts General Hospital and in March 2019 at Brigham and Women's Hospital. Residents were not required to wear the badge.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was self-reported role misidentification at least once per week during the previous 3 months. The change from pre- to post-badge distribution surveys was assessed with McNemar's test. A secondary outcome was any reduction in the frequency of role misidentification after badge distribution. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between reduced frequency of role misidentification and demographic characteristics. A separate analysis evaluated the change in self-reported burnout after badge distribution.

RESULTS

A total of 161 residents (39%) completed both surveys, which included 79 men (49%), 72 (45%) who were younger than 30 years, 20 (12%) with an underrepresented in medicine status, and 74 (46%) who were in surgical specialties. The proportion of residents reporting at least weekly role misidentification decreased from 50% (n = 81 of 161) before badge distribution to 35% (n = 57 of 161; P < .001) after badge distribution. Female residents were more likely to report reduced role misidentification frequency after receiving a badge compared with male residents (adjusted odds ratio, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.18-4.63; P = .01). Residents who wore badges demonstrated no change in burnout before vs after badge distribution (39% [n = 33 of 85] vs 34% [29 of 85]; P = .87) compared with an increase among residents who did not wear a badge (27% [n = 15 of 55] vs 45% [n = 25 of 55]; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that the distribution of role identity badges was associated with less frequent perception of role misidentification among resident physicians across specialties, particularly among female residents. Role identity badges were a well-received, low-cost intervention that could be used to reduce role misidentification and address burnout among residents.

Trends in Prescription Drug Launch Prices, 2008-2021

This study uses SSR Health data on drug list prices and estimated net prices after manufacturer discounts to evaluate trends in prices for newly marketed brand-name prescription drugs in the US from 2008 to 2021.

Indication-Specific Generic Uptake of Imatinib Demonstrates the Impact of Skinny Labeling

PURPOSE

Generic competition can be delayed if brand-name manufacturers obtain additional patents on supplemental uses. The US Food and Drug Administration allows generic drug manufacturers to market versions with skinny labels that exclude patent-protected indications. This study assessed whether use of generic versions of imatinib varied between indications included and excluded from the skinny labels.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we identified adult patients covered by commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage plans who initiated imatinib from February 2016 (first generic availability) to September 2020. Generic versions were introduced with skinny labels that included indications covering treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) but excluded treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) because of remaining patent protections. Logistic regression was used to determine whether use of generic versus brand-name imatinib differed between patients with a diagnosis of CML or GIST, adjusting for demographics, insurance type, prior use of brand-name drugs, and calendar month.

RESULTS

Among 2,000 initiators, 934 (47%) had CML and 686 (34%) had GIST. Within 3 years after generics entered the market, more than 90% of initiators in both groups used generic imatinib. Initiation of generic imatinib was slightly lower among patients with GIST than among patients with CML (85% v 88%; adjusted odds ratio 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.80; P ≤ .001).

CONCLUSION

Generic versions of imatinib were dispensed frequently for indications both included (CML) and excluded (GIST) from the skinny labeling, although patients with GIST were slightly less likely to receive a generic version. The skinny labeling pathway allowed generics to enter the market before patent protection for treating patients with GIST expired, facilitating lower drug prices.

Medicaid Spending on Drugs Marketed Without US Food and Drug Administration Approval in 2020

This cross-sectional study examines the proportion of Medicaid prescription and spending on drugs marketed in the United States without Food and Drug Administration approval.