Price Increases of Protected-Class Drugs in Medicare Part D, Relative to Inflation, 2012-2017

Time trends and regional variations in prices of anticancer medicines in China

Introduction

High prices, as a main factor, contributed to the lack of adequate access to essential anticancer medicines, especially for patients in developing countries. The Chinese Government has introduced a series of policies to control the prices of medicines during the last decade, but the effect on anticancer medicine is not yet clear.

Methods

To evaluate the time trends and regional variation in the price of essential anticancer medicines in China, we used the procurement data of anticancer medicines from 2015 to 2022. We selected 29 anticancer medicines from the 2018 Chinese National Essential Medicines List. To measure the cost of a medicine, we used defined daily dose cost -the cost per defined daily doses. At national level, we focused on the price changes over time and compared the price between medicine categories. At provincial level, we assessed price variation among provinces over time.

Results

For prices at the national level, all 6 targeted medicines exhibited a continuous decrease trend in price. Out of 23 non-targeted medicines, 4 (17·39%) experienced continuous increases in prices, and 9 (39·13%) showed price decreases from 2015 to 2019 and then an upward trend during 2019-2022; Of the remaining non-targeted medicines, 7 (30·43%) had continuous price decreases and 3 (13.04%) had price increases followed by decreases. For prices at the provincial level, provincial price variation became smaller for almost all targeted medicines, except rituximab; for 11 out of 23 non-targeted medicines, provincial price variations became larger. During the study period, the proportion of price-increased medicines in each province was geographically correlated, and no significant relationship between prices and GDP per capita was observed for both targeted and non-targeted anticancer medicines.

Conclusion

The prices and regional disparity of most targeted anticancer medicines were decreasing, while for nearly half of the non-targeted anticancer medicines, the prices were increasing and the regional disparity became wider, which may lead to compromised access to these essential anticancer medicines and raise inequity health outcome among regions.

Trends in antineoplastic drug use, cost and prescribing patterns among patients with lung cancer in nine major cities of China, 2016-2020: a retrospective observational study based on inpatient and outpatient hospital data

OBJECTIVES

It is unclear whether the use of antineoplastic drugs for patients with lung cancer in China has changed after the implementation of the national drug price negotiation in 2016 and continual update of clinical guidelines. This study aims to evaluate the trends in antineoplastic drug use, cost and prescribing patterns among patients with lung cancer in major cities of China.

DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective observational study using data from January 2016 to December 2020.

SETTING

This study used prescription records based on inpatient and outpatient hospital data from 97 hospitals in 9 major cities of China.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 218 325 antineoplastic drug prescriptions in patients with lung cancer were retrospectively collected from the Hospital Prescription Analysis Cooperative Project during the study period.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Trends in antineoplastic drug use, cost and prescribing patterns among patients with lung cancer.

RESULTS

The yearly antineoplastic prescriptions increased by 85.6% from 28 594 in 2016 to 53 063 in 2020 (Z=1.71, p=0.086). Significant increases were seen in the prescriptions for protein kinase inhibitors (PKIs) and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), whereas significant decreases were observed in antimetabolites, plant alkaloids and platinum compounds. The yearly cost increased progressively by 145.0% from ¥113.6 million in 2016 to ¥278.3 million in 2020 (Z=2.20, p=0.027). The top three anticancer drug classes in terms of total cost were PKIs, antimetabolites and mAbs. In prescribing patterns of antineoplastic agents for lung cancer, monotherapy, and triple or more drug combinations gradually increased, while dual combinations decreased significantly from 30.8% to 19.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescription practices among patients with lung cancer in China underwent major changes during the study period. The observed trends can aid in understanding the present medication use status of patients with lung cancer in China and provide information for future drug management.

Effects of Medicare Part D coverage gap closure on utilization of branded and generic drugs

The Affordable Care Act included a provision to gradually eliminate the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap between 2011 and 2020, which substantially lower medication costs in the gap. Using 2007-2016 Medicare claims data, we estimate how filling the gap affects individuals' out-of-pocket spending and medication use, separately for branded and generic drugs. One important difficulty in estimating the policy impact is that around the same time, many blockbuster drugs commonly used by the Medicare population experienced patent expiration and began to see generic entry. Because generic entries affected different therapeutic classes at different times, we run difference-in-differences models by therapeutic category at the beneficiary-month level to isolate the effect of the gap closure from that of generic entry. Overall, we find that filling the gap substantially reduced out-of-pocket spending and increased the use of branded drugs, which had larger discount rates during the analysis period. Beneficiaries reaching the gap, at older ages, or with comorbidities experienced larger reduction in out-of-pocket spending. We show that without accounting for generic entry, the effect of filling the coverage gap on medication use is underestimated for branded drugs and overestimated for 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.

The impact of national centralized drug procurement on health expenditures for lung cancer inpatients: A difference-in-differences analysis in a large tertiary hospital in China

The availability and affordability of medicines remain major health challenges around the world. In March 2019, the Chinese government introduced a pilot National Centralized Drug Procurement (NCDP) program in order to reduce drug prices and improve the affordability of effective and safe medicines. This study aimed to assess the impact of NCDP policy on health expenditures of cancer patients. Using inpatient discharge records from a large hospital in the pilot city, we performed a difference-in-differences design to estimate the change in health expenditures before and after the policy. We found that the implementation of NCDP was associated with a significant decrease in total expenditures (14.13%) and drug expenditures (20.75%) per inpatient admission. There were also significant reductions in non-drug-related expenditures, including a 7.65% decrease in health service expenditures, a 38.28% decrease in diagnosis expenditures, and a 25.31% decrease in consumable material expenditures per inpatient admission. However, the NCDP implementation was associated with a 107.97% increase in the traditional Chinese medicine expenditures. Overall, the study provided evidence that the NCDP policy has achieved its goals of high-quality and affordable healthcare. The drug expenditures of lung cancer patients revealed a continuous decline, and the policy may have spillover effects on other healthcare expenditures. Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term effects of NCDP on policy-related expenditures and health outcomes.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare resource utilization across selected disease areas in the USA

Aim:

To analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on US healthcare resource utilization.

Methods:

Optum claims data were used to compare all-cause healthcare visits and healthcare spending for selected diseases between the prepandemic and pandemic periods. Telemedicine use was only assessed for the pandemic period owing to data availability.

Results:

During the first wave of the pandemic, all-cause healthcare visits across all selected disease areas displayed a rapid decline compared with the prepandemic period, followed by a period of recovery. A reduction in outpatient and home healthcare spending was observed, whereas inpatient and prescription spending increased.

Conclusion:

Changes in healthcare resource utilization trends were observed during the pandemic. The magnitude of these changes can inform subsequent studies that utilize COVID-19-era data.

Strategies to Manage Drugs and Devices Approved Based on Limited Evidence: Results of a Modified Delphi Panel

Prescription drugs and medical devices are increasingly coming to market through expedited US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pathways that require only limited evidence of safety and efficacy, such as nonrandomized, unblinded trial data in small numbers of patients, or the use of surrogate end points. Reliance on more limited evidence means that there is often greater uncertainty about risks and benefits. Using a modified Delphi process, we sought to identify promising policy approaches that address physician-patient decision-making needs about the use of such drugs and medical devices. We convened 13 national leaders from academia, government, nonprofits, payors, and industry who had expertise in medical product regulation, payor policymaking, bioethics, physician practice, patient advocacy, public health expertise/advocacy, clinical trials, the pharmaceutical and device industry, institutional review board oversight, and real-world evidence. Through multiple rounds of voting and meetings focused on evaluating the feasibility and impact of various interventions, the 13 participants reached the broadest consensus on 4 interventions: strengthening FDA post-approval study requirements to ensure postmarket evidence is generated in a timely manner, better informing patients about the risks and benefits and level of evidence supporting therapies via simplified and patient-centered product information "boxes" modeled on nutrition labels, limiting prices for drugs and medical devices approved based on surrogate end point data until confirmatory clinical evidence is generated, and improving health professional education about FDA regulation to better support clinician use of drugs and devices as well as communication with patients.

Spending by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Before and After Confirmation of Benefit for Drugs Granted US Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval, 2012 to 2017

Question

Findings

Meaning

Importance

Objective

Design and Setting

Main Outcomes and Measures

Results

Conclusions and Relevance

Coverage of New Drugs in Medicare Part D

Policy Points Only a small minority of new drugs in "nonprotected" classes are widely covered by Part D plans nationwide in the year after US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Part D plans frequently apply utilization management restrictions such as prior authorizations to newly approved drugs in both protected and nonprotected classes. Drug price influences both formulary inclusion (in nonprotected classes) and coverage restrictions (in both protected and nonprotected classes), while other drug characteristics such as therapeutic benefits are not consistently associated with formulary design. Plans do not seem to favor the minority of drugs that are determined to offer added therapeutic benefit over existing alternatives.

CONTEXT

Medicare Part D is an outpatient prescription drug benefit for older Americans covering more than 46 million beneficiaries. Except for mandatory coverage for essentially all drugs in six protected classes, plans have substantial flexibility in how they design their formularies: which drugs are covered, which drugs are subject to restrictions, and what factors determine formulary placement. Our objective in this paper was to document the extent to which Part D plans limit coverage of newly approved drugs.

METHODS

We examined the formulary design of 4,582 Part D plans from 2014 through 2018 and measured (1) the decision to cover newly approved drugs in nonprotected classes, (2) use of utilization management tools in protected and nonprotected classes, and (3) the association between plan design and drug-level characteristics such as 30-day cost, therapeutic benefit, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expedited regulatory pathway.

FINDINGS

The FDA approved 109 new drugs predominantly used in outpatient settings between 2013 and 2017. Of these, 75 fell outside of the six protected drug classes. One-fifth of drugs in nonprotected classes (15 out of 75) were covered by more than half of plans during the first year after approval. Coverage was often conditional on utilization management strategies in both protected and nonprotected classes: only seven drugs (6%) were covered without prior authorization requirements in more than half of plans. Higher 30-day drug costs were associated with more widespread coverage in nonprotected classes: drugs that cost less than $150 for a 30-day course were covered by fewer than 20% of plans while those that cost more than $30,000 per 30 days were covered by more than 50% of plans. Plans were also more likely to implement utilization management tools on high-cost drugs in both protected and nonprotected classes. A higher proportion of plans implemented utilization management strategies on covered drugs with first-in-class status than drugs that were not first in class. Other drug characteristics, including availability of added therapeutic benefit and inclusion in FDA expedited regulatory approval, were not consistently associated with plan coverage or formulary restrictions.

CONCLUSIONS

Newly approved drugs are frequently subject to formulary exclusions and restrictions in Medicare Part D. Ensuring that formulary design in Part D is linked closely to the therapeutic value of newly approved drugs would improve patients' welfare.

Analysis of Launch and Postapproval Cancer Drug Pricing, Clinical Benefit, and Policy Implications in the US and Europe

Importance

The high cost of cancer medicines is a public health challenge. Policy makers in the US and Europe are debating reforms to drug pricing that would cover both the prices of new medicines when entering the market and price increases after they are launched.

Objective

To assess launch prices, postlaunch price changes, and clinical benefit of cancer drugs in the US compared with 3 European countries (England, Germany, and Switzerland).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This economic evaluation identified all new drugs that were approved for use in the US, England, Germany, and Switzerland with initial indications for treatment of adult solid tumor and hematologic cancers. Analysis included drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2019, and by the European Medicines Agency and Swissmedic until December 31, 2019. Prices were adjusted for currency and inflation. Clinical benefit of drugs indicated for solid tumors was assessed using the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale. Using Spearman rank correlation coefficients, correlations between clinical benefit and launch prices and postlaunch price changes for each country were evaluated.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Launch prices, postlaunch price changes, and clinical benefit of cancer drugs.

Results

The cohort included 65 drugs: 47 (72%) approved for solid tumors and 18 (28%) for hematologic cancers. In all countries, the lowest median monthly treatment costs at launch were greater in 2018-2019 vs 2009-2010: $14 580 vs $5790 in the US, $5888 vs $4289 in Germany, $6593 vs $5784 in Switzerland, and $6867 vs $3939 in England. Between 2009 and 2019, 48 of 65 (74%) cancer drugs had price increases in the US that were greater than inflation. Only 1 of 62 (2%) drugs in England, 0 of 60 drugs in Germany, and 7 of 56 drugs (13%) in Switzerland had a median price increase greater than inflation. There were no associations between launch prices or postlaunch price changes and clinical benefit in any assessed country.

Conclusions and Relevance

During this economic evaluation study period, launch prices of cancer drugs were substantially higher in the US than in the assessed similar high-income European countries, a gap that increased in the years after approval. Cancer drug prices frequently increased faster than inflation in the US but decreased on inflation-adjusted terms in Europe. Price changes were not associated with clinical benefit in any country.

Why France Spends Less Than the United States on Drugs: A Comparative Study of Drug Pricing and Pricing Regulation

Policy Points  Spending on prescription drugs is much higher per capita in the United States than in most other industrialized nations, including France.  Lower prescription drug spending in France is due to different approaches to managing drug prices, volume of prescribing, and global health budgets.  Linking a drug's price to value both at the launch of the drug and over its lifetime is key to controlling spending. Regulations on prescription volume and global spending complement the interventions on prices.  If the United States adopted the French approach to regulating drug pricing, Medicare could potentially save billions of dollars annually on prescription drug spending.

CONTEXT

Prescription drug spending per capita in the United States is higher than in most other industrialized countries. Policymakers seeking to lower drug spending often suggest benchmarking prices against other countries, including France, which spends half as much as the United States per capita on prescription drugs. Because differences in drug prices may result from how markets are organized in each nation, we sought to directly compare drug prices and pricing regulations between the United States and France.

METHODS

For the six brand-name drugs with the highest gross expenditures in Medicare Part D in 2017, we compared the price dynamics in France and the United States between 2010 and 2018 and analyzed associations between price changes in each country and key regulatory events. We also comprehensively reviewed US and French laws and regulations related to drug pricing.

FINDINGS

Prices for the six drugs studied were higher in the United States than in France. In 2018, if Medicare had paid French prices for the brand-name drugs in our cohort, the agency would have saved $5.1 billion. We identified 12 factors that explain why the United States spends more than France on drugs, including variations in unit prices and the volume of prescriptions, driven by use of health technology assessment and value-based pricing in France.

CONCLUSIONS

Key drivers of lower drug spending in France compared to the United States are that the French government regulates drug prices when products are launched and prohibits substantial price increases after launch. The regulation of prescription drugs in France is governed by rules that can inform discussions of US prescription drug policy and potential Medicare price negotiations.

Prices and clinical benefit of cancer drugs in the USA and Europe: a cost-benefit analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing cancer drug prices are a challenge for patients and health systems in the USA and Europe. By contrast with the USA, national authorities in European countries often directly negotiate drug prices with manufacturers. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) developed frameworks to evaluate the clinical value of cancer therapies: the ASCO-Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). We aimed to assess the association between the clinical benefit of approved cancer drugs based on these frameworks and their drug prices in the USA and four European countries (England, Switzerland, Germany, and France).

METHODS

For this cost-benefit analysis, we identified all new drugs with initial indications for adult cancers that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between Jan 1, 2009, and Dec 31, 2017, and by the European Medicines Agency up until Sept 1, 2019. For drugs indicated for solid tumours, we assessed clinical benefit using ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS. We compared monthly drug treatment costs between benefit levels using hierarchical linear regression models, and calculated Spearman's correlation coefficients between costs and benefit levels for individual countries.

FINDINGS

Our cohort included 65 drugs: 47 (72%) drugs were approved for solid tumours and 18 (28%) were approved for haematological malignancies. The monthly drug treatment costs in the USA were a median of 2·31 times (IQR 1·79-3·17) as high as in the assessed European countries. There were no significant associations between monthly treatment costs for solid tumours and clinical benefit in all assessed countries, using the ESMO-MCBS (p=0·16 for the USA, p=0·98 for England, p=0·54 for Switzerland, p=0·52 for Germany, and p=0·40 for France), and for all assessed countries except France using ASCO-VF (p=0·56 for the USA, p=0·47 for England, p=0·26 for Switzerland, p=0·23 for Germany, and p=0·037 for France).

INTERPRETATION

Cancer drugs with low or uncertain clinical benefit might be prioritised for price negotiations. Value frameworks could help identify therapies providing high clinical benefit that should be made rapidly available across countries.

FUNDING

Swiss Cancer Research Foundation (Krebsforschung Schweiz).

Medicare Part D and Cost-Sharing for Antiretroviral Therapy and Preexposure Prophylaxis

IMPORTANCE

The 2019 federal Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative requires a vast expansion of access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) and preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV treatment and prevention. However, high prices for ART and PrEP can reduce their affordability and use. Medicare covers 1 in 4 persons living with HIV, and the Medicare Part D drug benefit imposes complicated cost-sharing between patients and other stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how the Medicare Part D design distributes the cost burden for ART and PrEP between patients, insurance plans, manufacturers, and Medicare.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Nationwide cross-sectional analyses of first quarter 2019 Medicare formulary and pricing files for 3326 Part D plans were performed. These files contain drug benefit data, including prices and cost-sharing requirements.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

For 18 ART and 2 PrEP regimens, the out-of-pocket costs for patients and the cost borne by plans, manufacturers, and Medicare were projected for 1 year of treatment or prevention under a 2019 standard Medicare Part D insurance plan. Analyses assumed that patients used the ART or PrEP regimen and no other medications.

RESULTS

In 2019, ART prices ranged from $24 010 to $46 770 annually (median price, $35 780), with patients projected to pay 9% to 14% of the cost ($3270-$4350), insurance plans 18% to 24% ($5340-$8450), manufacturers 6% to 11% ($2370-$2750), and Medicare 53% to 67% ($12 770-$31 270). The price of PrEP was $20 570 annually, with patients contributing 15% ($2990), insurance plans 22% ($4570), manufacturers 13% ($2750), and Medicare 50% ($10 260). For beneficiaries with low-income subsidies that cover all patient cost-sharing, Medicare would assume 67% to 76% of ART costs and 65% of PrEP costs.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Medicare Part D mandates universal ART and PrEP coverage, but high prices (>$35 000 annually for ART and>$20 000 annually for PrEP) and the design of Part D can jeopardize affordability for patients and place most of the cost burden on taxpayers. Under a standard Medicare Part D benefit, patients pay $3000 to $4000 out-of-pocket yearly, unless they qualify for low-income subsidies, and half to two-thirds of the cost of ART and PrEP is borne by Medicare rather than insurance plans or manufacturers. To end the HIV epidemic by 2030, it appears that policies must address both high drug prices and revamp Medicare Part D cost-sharing.

Changes in List Prices, Net Prices, and Discounts for Branded Drugs in the US, 2007-2018

IMPORTANCE

Most studies that have examined drug prices have focused on list prices, without accounting for manufacturer rebates and other discounts, which have substantially increased in the last decade.

OBJECTIVE

To describe changes in list prices, net prices, and discounts for branded pharmaceutical products for which US sales are reported by publicly traded companies, and to determine the extent to which list price increases were offset by increases in discounts.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective descriptive study using 2007-2018 pricing data from the investment firm SSR Health for branded products available before January 2007 with US sales reported by publicly traded companies (n = 602 drugs). Net prices were estimated by compiling company-reported sales for each product and number of units sold in the US.

EXPOSURES

Calendar year.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Outcomes included list and net prices and discounts in Medicaid and other payers. List prices represent manufacturers' price to wholesalers or direct purchasers but do not account for discounts. Net prices represent revenue per unit of the product after all manufacturer concessions are accounted for (including rebates, coupon cards, and any other discount). Means of outcomes were calculated each year for the overall sample and 6 therapeutic classes, weighting each product by utilization and adjusting for inflation.

RESULTS

From 2007 to 2018, list prices increased by 159% (95% CI, 137%-181%), or 9.1% per year, while net prices increased by 60% (95% CI, 36%-84%), or 4.5% per year, with stable net prices between 2015 and 2018. Discounts increased from 40% to 76% in Medicaid and from 23% to 51% for other payers. Increases in discounts offset 62% of list price increases. There was large variability across classes. Multiple sclerosis treatments (n = 4) had the greatest increases in list (439%) and net (157%) prices. List prices of lipid-lowering agents (n = 11) increased by 278% and net prices by 95%. List prices of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (n = 3) increased by 166% and net prices by 73%. List prices of insulins (n = 7) increased by 262%, and net prices by 51%. List prices of noninsulin antidiabetic agents (n = 10) increased by 165%, and net prices decreased by 1%. List price increases were lowest (59%) for antineoplastic agents (n = 44), but discounts only offset 41% of list price increases, leading to 35% increase in net prices.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this analysis of branded drugs in the US from 2007 to 2018, mean increases in list and net prices were substantial, although discounts offset an estimated 62% of list price increases with substantial variation across classes.