Estimation of Medicare Part D Spending on Insulin for Patients With Diabetes Using Negotiated Prices and a Defined Formulary

Medicare Patients Face High Out-of-Pocket Costs for Specialty Inflammatory Bowel Disease Medications

INTRODUCTION

Medicare patients in the United States may face high out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for specialty inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) medications.

METHODS

We conducted a study of Medicare OOP costs for specialty IBD medications between 2020 and 2022 and compared them to incomes of typical Medicare beneficiaries.

RESULTS

In 2022, median OOP costs ranged from 6.4% to 59.2% of annual income for a Medicare patient with approximately median income. Inflation-adjusted OOP costs for most medications increased between 2020 and 2022 though decreased for infliximab and its biosimilars.

DISCUSSION

OOP costs may limit many Medicare beneficiaries' access to specialty IBD medications.

Health Care for Our Nation's Veterans: A Policy Paper From the American College of Physicians

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the United States' largest integrated health care delivery system, serving over 9 million enrollees at nearly 1300 health care facilities. In addition to providing health care to the nation's military veterans, the VHA has a research and development program, trains thousands of medical residents and other health care professionals, and conducts emergency preparedness and response activities. The VHA has been celebrated for delivering high-quality care to veterans, early adoption of electronic medical records, and high patient satisfaction. However, the system faces challenges, including implementation of an expanded community care program, modernization of its electronic medical records system, and providing care to a population with complex needs. The position paper offers policy recommendations on VHA funding, the community care program, medical and health care professions training, and research and development.

Branded Price Variation in the United States Drug Market, 2010 to 2019

The transaction price for branded drugs in the United States often varies widely by the eventual payer, a fact that can complicate research and policy discussions surrounding drug pricing. We combine publicly-available data on branded drug prices from a host of sources-prices paid by Medicare (Parts B and D), the Veterans Affairs Administration (VA), those included in the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), invoice prices paid by pharmacies described in National Average Drug Acquisition Costs (NADAC), list prices, and payments ultimately received by drug makers-to illustrate how prices vary across the U.S. market and how these relationships changed from 2010 to 2019. We document large variation across payers and find VA prices are generally the lowest, averaging nearly 50% below list prices during our study period, which is meaningfully lower than the average prices manufacturers ultimately receive. Some net prices, like those in Part D and average payments received by manufacturers, have diverged substantially from list prices in the last decade and are now much closer to the published VA and FSS prices. In part, this reflects unexpected net price increases among published VA and FSS prices that is worthy of future study.

Severe Hypoglycemia Risk With Long-Acting Insulin Analogs vs Neutral Protamine Hagedorn Insulin

IMPORTANCE

Previous studies have found that the risk of severe hypoglycemia does not differ between long-acting insulin analogs and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, these studies did not focus on patients 65 years or older, who are at an increased risk for hypoglycemia, or did not include patients with concomitant prandial insulin use.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the risk of emergency department (ED) visits or hospitalizations for hypoglycemia among older community-residing patients with type 2 diabetes who initiated long-acting insulin or NPH insulin in real-world settings.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective, new-user cohort study assessed Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older who initiated insulin glargine (n = 407 018), insulin detemir (n = 141 588), or NPH insulin (n = 26 402) from January 1, 2007, to July 31, 2019.

EXPOSURES

Insulin glargine, insulin detemir, and NPH insulin.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was time to first ED visit or hospitalization for hypoglycemia, defined using a modified validated algorithm. Propensity score-weighted Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. The risk of recurring hypoglycemia events was estimated using the Andersen-Gill model. Post hoc analyses were conducted investigating possible effect modification by age.

RESULTS

Of the 575 008 patients initiating use of insulin (mean [SD] age 74.9 [6.7] years; 53% female), 407 018 used glargine, 141 588 used detemir, and 26 402 used NPH insulin. The study included 7347 ED visits or hospitalizations for hypoglycemia (5194 for glargine, 1693 for detemir, and 460 for NPH insulin, with a median follow-up across the 3 cohorts of 0.37 years (interquartile range, 0.20-0.76 years). Initiation of glargine and detemir use was associated with a reduced risk of hypoglycemia compared with NPH insulin use (HR for glargine vs NPH insulin, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.80; HR, detemir vs NPH insulin, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.63-0.82). The HRs were similar for the recurrent event analysis. The protective association of long-acting insulin analogs varied by age and was not seen with concomitant prandial insulin use.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, initiation of long-acting analogs was associated with a lower risk of ED visits or hospitalizations for hypoglycemia compared with NPH insulin in older patients with type 2 diabetes in Medicare. However, this association was not seen with concomitant prandial insulin use.

Estimates of insulin needs and dispensation given wastage, alternative glycemic targets, and non-insulin therapies in US populations with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A microsimulation study

AIMS

Registries and health plans estimate insulin need for population health metrics. We sought to identify how such estimates affect population- and individual-level estimates of over- and under-treatment.

METHODS

We developed a microsimulation comparing estimated insulin need to dispensation using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 2005-2016, N= 2832) and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS, 2005-2016, N = 29,615).

RESULTS

From NHANES, ~21.6% of people with type 2 diabetes would require insulin to achieve a HbA1c target of 7% after maximum titration of two non-insulins (60.7 IU/person/day, or 84,629,833 vials of 1000 IU in the US). From MEPS, we observed 57.4 IU/person/day of insulin dispensed (81,585,842 vials). About 29% of people were dispensed at least two standard deviations less than their estimated need, and 22% at least two standard deviations more than estimated need. Population-level need estimates reduced 39.4% if liberalizing HbA1c targets to 8% for people ≥75 years old.

CONCLUSIONS

Estimated insulin needs of people with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. are consistent with their dispensed insulin at the population level, but are sensitive to HbA1c targets for older adults, and conceal under- and over-treated subpopulations.

Trends in list prices, net prices, and discounts of self-administered injectable tumor necrosis factor inhibitors

BACKGROUND: List prices of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors drastically increased during the last decade, but previous research has shown that half of these increases were offset by rising manufacturer discounts. It remains unclear to what extent manufacturers' discounts have offset increases in list prices of each self-administered injectable TNF inhibitor. Evaluating trends in net prices and discounts at the product level will be paramount in understanding the role of competition in the biologic market. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe product-level changes in net prices of each self-administered injectable TNF inhibitor available in 2007-2019 and (b) quantify to what extent manufacturer discounts have offset increases in list prices. METHODS: We obtained 2007-2019 pricing data for etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, and golimumab from the investment firm SSR Health, which uses company-reported sales to estimate net prices and discounts for brand products manufactured by publicly traded companies. For each drug and year, we calculated annual costs of treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis based on list and net prices and discounts in Medicaid and other payers. RESULTS: From 2007-2019, list prices of etanercept and adalimumab increased by 293% and 295%, respectively; however, discounts offset 47% and 45% of these increases, leading to net price increases of 171% and 203%. List prices of golimumab and certolizumab increased by 183% and 182%, respectively, but with discounts offsetting 58% and 59% of these increases, net prices increased by 103% and 109%. Net prices of golimumab started to decrease after 2016, while net prices of adalimumab and certolizumab experienced their first drop in 2019. Across the study period, discounts in Medicaid and in other payers increased, respectively, from 21% to 85% and 6% to 32% for etanercept; from 26% to 88% and 19% to 35% for adalimumab; from 28% to 63% and 22% to 46% for golimumab; and from 29% to 83% and 27% to 47% for certolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Despite growing manufacturer discounts, net prices of self-administered injectable TNF inhibitors still increased at a mean annual rate of 9.6% in 2007-2019. This led to net prices tripling for adalimumab and more than doubling for etanercept, golimumab, and certolizumab. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by the Myers Family Foundation. Hernandez is funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (grant number K01HL142847). Funding sources had no role in design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Hernandez has served on Pfizer's scientific advisory board. The other authors have nothing to disclose.