Payer-Specific Negotiated Prices for Prescription Drugs at Top-Performing US Hospitals

Commercial markups on pediatric oncology drugs at 340B pediatric hospitals

Eligible pediatric hospitals can purchase clinician-administered drugs at discounted rates through the 340B Drug Pricing Program and charge payers prices exceeding drug acquisition costs, but the magnitude of these markups is not known. In a study of newly approved oncology drugs at pediatric 340B hospitals, median negotiated prices ranged from 102% (interquartile range [IQR]: 91%-156%) of average sales price (ASP) at Phoenix Children's Hospital to 630% (IQR: 526%-630%) at Driscoll Children's Hospital. Pediatric hospitals participating in the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program can extract steep payments on new drugs from commercial insurers, though with wide variation between and within hospitals.

Commercial Versus Medicaid Insurance and Use of High-Priced Anticancer Treatments

BACKGROUND

Because the markups on cancer drugs vary by payor, providers' financial incentive to use high-price drugs is differential according to each patient's insurance type. We evaluated the association between patient insurer (commercial vs Medicaid) and the use of high-priced cancer treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We linked cancer registry, administrative claims, and demographic data for individuals diagnosed with cancer in North Carolina from 2004 to 2011, with either commercial or Medicaid insurance. We selected cancers with multiple FDA-approved, guideline-recommended chemotherapy options and large price differences between treatment options: advanced colorectal, lung, and head and neck cancer. The outcome was a receipt of a higher-priced option, and the exposure was insurer: commercial versus Medicaid. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for the association between insurer and higher-priced treatment using log-binomial models with inverse probability of exposure weights.

RESULTS

Of 812 patients, 209 (26%) had Medicaid. The unadjusted risk of receiving higher-priced treatment was 36% (215/603) for commercially insured and 27% (57/209) for Medicaid insured (RR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.02-1.67). After adjustment for confounders the association was attenuated (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.81-1.65). Exploratory subgroup analysis suggested that commercial insurance was associated with increased receipt of higher-priced treatment among patients treated by non-NCI-designated providers (RR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.14-2.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with Medicaid and commercial insurance received high-priced treatments in similar proportion, after accounting for differences in case mix. However, modification by provider characteristics suggests that insurance type may influence treatment selection for some patient groups. Further work is needed to determine the relationship between insurance status and newer, high-price drugs such as immune-oncology agents.

Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs for Biologic Drugs After Biosimilar Competition

Importance

Biologic drugs account for a growing share of US pharmaceutical spending. Competition from follow-on biosimilar products (subsequent versions that have no clinically meaningful differences from the original biologic) has led to modest reductions in US health care spending, but these savings may not translate to lower out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for patients.

Objective

To investigate whether biosimilar competition is associated with lower OOP spending for patients using biologics.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used a national commercial claims database (Optum Clinformatics Data Mart) to identify outpatient claims for 1 of 7 clinician-administered biologics (filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, epoetin alfa, bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab) from January 2009 through March 2022. Claims by commercially insured patients younger than 65 years were included.

Exposure

Year relative to first biosimilar availability and use of original or biosimilar version.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patients' annual OOP spending on biologics for each calendar year was determined, and OOP spending per claim between reference biologic and biosimilar versions was compared. Two-part regression models assessed for differences in OOP spending, adjusting for patient and clinical characteristics (age, sex, US Census region, health plan type, diagnosis, and place of service) and year relative to initial biosimilar entry.

Results

Over 1.7 million claims from 190 364 individuals (median [IQR] age, 53 [42-59] years; 58.3% females) who used at least 1 of the 7 biologics between 2009 and 2022 were included in the analysis. Over 251 566 patient-years of observation, annual OOP costs increased before and after biosimilar availability. Two years after the start of biosimilar competition, the adjusted odds ratio of nonzero annual OOP spending was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.12; P < .001) and average nonzero annual spending was 12% higher (95% CI, 10%-14%; P < .001) compared with the year before biosimilar competition. After biosimilars became available, claims for biosimilars were more likely than reference biologics to have nonzero OOP costs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.11-1.16]; P < .001) but had 8% lower mean nonzero OOP costs (adjusted mean ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.93; P < .001). Findings varied by drug.

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings of this cohort study suggest that biosimilar competition was not consistently associated with lower OOP costs for commercially insured outpatients, highlighting the need for targeted policy interventions to ensure that the savings generated from biosimilar competition translate into increased affordability for patients who need biologics.

Costs to Medicare of Nonrecommended Bone-Modifying Agent Use for Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) do not prevent skeletal-related events among patients with castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC), but many patients receive BMAs unnecessarily. The costs to Medicare from overuse have not been assessed.

METHODS

We used linked SEER-Medicare data 2011-2015 to measure the frequency and number of doses of zoledronic acid (ZA) and denosumab received during CSPC (between diagnosis and initiation of metastatic, castration resistant prostate cancer therapy). We estimated excess BMA among patients who received BMA therapy for CSPC and did not have an indication for osteoporosis fracture prevention. We used the Medicare fee schedule for drug prices and peer-reviewed sources to estimate adverse event frequencies and costs.

RESULTS

Median CSPC duration was 387 days (IQR, 253-573), during which time 42% of patients received ≥one dose of denosumab (mean doses, 7) and 18% received ≥one dose of ZA (mean doses, 7). Thirty-eight percent of those receiving denosumab and 47% of those receiving ZA had a history of osteoporosis, osteopenia, spine or hip fracture, or hypercalcemia. The estimated, annual excess BMA cost to Medicare was $44,105,041 in US dollars (USD), composed of $43,303,078 USD and $45,512 USD in drug costs for denosumab and ZA, respectively, and $682,865 USD and $75,585 USD in adverse event costs, respectively. In one-way sensitivity analysis, the estimate was most sensitive to denosumab dosing frequency (estimate range, $28,469,237 USD-$98,830,351 USD) and duration of CSPC (estimate range, $36,823,311 USD-$99,015,908 USD).

CONCLUSION

BMA overuse in CSPC incurs substantial cost to Medicare, largely because of denosumab drug costs. Excess costs may be reduced by greater adherence to guideline-concordant BMA use.

Assessment of Price Variation in Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery at US Hospitals

BACKGROUND

Little is known about hospital pricing for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Using new price transparency data, we assessed variation in CABG prices across US hospitals and the association between higher prices and hospital characteristics, including quality of care.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Prices for diagnosis related group code 236 were obtained from the Turquoise database and linked by Medicare Facility ID to publicly available hospital characteristics. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to assess factors predictive of higher prices. Across 544 hospitals, median commercial and self-pay rates were 2.01 and 2.64 times the Medicare rate ($57 240 and $75 047, respectively, versus $28 398). Within hospitals, the 90th percentile insurer-negotiated price was 1.83 times the 10th percentile price. Across hospitals, the 90th percentile commercial rate was 2.91 times the 10th percentile hospital rate. Regional median hospital prices ranged from $35 624 in the East South Central to $84 080 in the Pacific. In univariate analysis, higher inpatient revenue, greater annual discharges, and major teaching status were significantly associated with higher prices. In multivariable analysis, major teaching and investor-owned status were associated with significantly higher prices (+$8653 and +$12 200, respectively). CABG prices were not related to death, readmissions, patient ratings, or overall Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services hospital rating.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variation in CABG pricing, with certain characteristics associated with higher rates, including major teaching status and investor ownership. Notably, higher CABG prices were not associated with better-quality care, suggesting a need for further investigation into drivers of pricing variation and the implications for health care spending and access.

Association between changes in prices and out-of-pocket costs for brand-name clinician-administered drugs

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether annual changes in prices for clinician-administered drugs are associated with changes in patient out-of-pocket costs.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

National commercial claims database, 2009 to 2018.

STUDY DESIGN

In a serial, cross-sectional study, we calculated the annual percent change in manufacturer list prices and net prices after rebates. We used two-part generalized linear models to assess the relationship between annual changes in price with (1) the percentage of individuals incurring any out-of-pocket costs and (2) the percent change in median non-zero out-of-pocket costs.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We created annual cohorts of privately insured individuals who used one of 52 brand-name clinician-administered drugs.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

List prices increased 4.4%/yr (interquartile range [IQR], 1.1% to 6.0%) and net prices 3.3%/yr (IQR, 0.3% to 5.5%). The median percentage of patients with any out-of-pocket costs increased from 38% in 2009 to 48% in 2018, and median non-zero annual out-of-pocket costs increased by 9.6%/yr (IQR, 4.1% to 15.4%). There was no association between changes in prices and out-of-pocket costs for individual drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

From 2009 to 2018, prices and out-of-pocket costs for brand-name clinician-administered drugs increased, but these were not directly related for individual drugs. This may be due to changes to insurance benefit design and private insurer drug reimbursement rates.

Private Payer-Negotiated Rates for FDA-Approved Head and Neck Cancer Immunotherapy and Chemotherapy Agents

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the price that private payers pay hospitals for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) treatments and identify hospital-level factors associated with price variation.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Price transparency files.

METHODS

Files from the top 50 hospitals in otolaryngology according to the US News and World Report were analyzed between December 2021 and June 2022. This study analyzed the following Food and Drug Administration-approved HNSCC therapies: pembrolizumab, nivolumab, cetuximab, cisplatin, carboplatin, and paclitaxel.

RESULTS

Twenty-four (48%) hospitals reported prices for at least 1 medication in our sample. Newer biologics were significantly more expensive than traditional chemotherapeutic agents. Given approved medication regimens, all biologics in our sample have similar annual costs. Price markups over acquisition costs ranged between 109% (pembrolizumab, nivolumab) and 530% for carboplatin. Across hospitals, prices varied the most for paclitaxel, the cheapest medication in our sample, and prices varied the least for pembrolizumab the most expensive medication in our sample. Hospital 340B status and geographic location in the northeast/west are associated with lower price markups.

CONCLUSION

Price nondisclosure remains a significant problem among hospitals. Newer biological medications are more expensive when compared to traditional chemotherapeutic agents. Prices vary significantly across hospitals, with lower price markups observed in 340B hospitals as well as hospitals located in the geographic northeast and west. It remains to be seen if price transparency will lead to more uniform pricing or lower costs of treatments.

High Cost of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cells: Challenges and Solutions

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells are a cellular immunotherapy with remarkable efficacy in treating multiple hematologic malignancies but they are associated with extremely high prices that are, for many countries, prohibitively expensive. As their use increases both for hematologic malignancies and other indications, and large numbers of new cellular therapies are developed, novel approaches will be needed both to reduce the cost of therapy, and to pay for them. We review the many factors that lead to the high cost of CAR T-cells and offer proposals for reform.

"Comprehensive Healthcare for America": Using the Insights of Behavioral Economics to Transform the U. S. Healthcare System

"Comprehensive Healthcare for America" is a largely single-payer reform proposal that, by applying the insights of behavioral economics, may be able to rally patients and clinicians sufficiently to overcome the opposition of politicians and vested interests to providing all Americans with less complicated and less costly access to needed healthcare.

Hospital-Administered Cancer Therapy Prices for Patients With Private Health Insurance

Importance

The federal Hospital Price Transparency final rule, which became effective in 2021, requires hospitals to publicly disclose payer-specific prices for drugs. However, little is known about hospital markup prices for parenterally administered therapies.

Objective

To assess the extent of price markup by hospitals on parenterally administered cancer therapies and price variation among hospitals and between payers at each hospital.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A cross-sectional analysis was conducted of private payer-specific negotiated prices for the top 25 parenteral (eg, injectable or infusible) cancer therapies by Medicare Part B spending in 2019 using publicly available hospital price transparency files. Sixty-one National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers providing clinical care to adults with cancer were included. The study was conducted from April 1 to October 15, 2021.

Exposures

Estimated hospital acquisition costs for each cancer therapy using participation data from the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was hospital price markup for each cancer therapy in excess of estimated acquisition costs. Secondary outcomes were the extent of across-center price ratios, defined as the ratio between the 90th percentile and 10th percentile median prices across centers, and within-center price ratios, defined as the ratio between the 90th percentile and 10th percentile prices between payers at each center.

Results

Of 61 NCI-designated cancer centers, 27 (44.3%) disclosed private payer-specific prices for at least 1 top-selling cancer therapy as required by federal regulations. Median drug price markups across all centers and payers ranged between 118.4% (sipuleucel-T) and 633.6% (leuprolide). Across-center price ratios ranged between 2.2 (pertuzumab) and 15.8 (leuprolide). Negotiated prices also varied considerably between payers at the same center; median within-center price ratios for cancer therapies ranged from 1.8 (brentuximab) to 2.5 (bevacizumab).

Conclusions and Relevance

Most NCI-designated cancer centers did not publicly disclose payer-specific prices for cancer therapies as required by federal regulation. The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that, to reduce the financial burden of cancer treatment for patients, institution of public policies to discourage or prevent excessive hospital price markups on parenteral chemotherapeutics might be beneficial.