Correlation Between Changes in Brand-Name Drug Prices and Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs

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.

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.

Launch and Post-Launch Prices of Injectable Cancer Drugs in the US: Clinical Benefit, Innovation, Epidemiology, and Competition

BACKGROUND

Rising cancer drug prices adversely affect patients' adherence and survival.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to identify and quantify factors associated with launch prices and post-launch price changes of injectable cancer drugs in the US from 2005 to 2023.

DATA AND METHODS

All anticancer drugs with US FDA approval between 2000 and 2022 were identified in the Drugs@FDA database. The sample was then restricted to cancer drugs covered under Medicare Part B (injectable drugs). Data characterizing each drug's clinical benefits, disease epidemiology, approved indications, competition, and price were obtained from FDA labels, the Global Burden of Disease study, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The association between launch/post-launch prices and collected variables was assessed in random-effects regressions.

RESULTS

Of 170 cancer drugs with FDA approval between 2000 and 2022, we identified 66 (39%) injectable cancer drugs with quarterly price data from 2005 to 2023. In 2023, mean prices amounted to $27,688 per month, with an average price increase of 94% from 2005 to 2023. Launch and post-launch price changes were significantly associated with the treated disease epidemiology. A 1% decline in disease incidence was associated with a 0.2511% (p = 0.008) increase in launch prices and a 0.0086% (p = 0.032) annual increase in post-launch prices. Accordingly, launch prices were 120% (p = 0.051) higher for orphan than non-orphan drugs, with 3% (p = 0.008) greater annual post-launch price increases. Post-launch prices declined by up to -2% annually as new supplemental indications were approved for the same drug. We found no consistent association between launch/post-launch prices and the drugs' clinical benefit in terms of overall survival, progression-free survival, and tumor response. The market entry of new competitors was not associated with price reductions. 28 of 33 drug pairs within the same class had positive correlation coefficients. Pearson correlation coefficients were high (>0.80) for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, CD38 antibodies, CD20 antibodies, HER2 antibodies, and mTOR inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer drug prices regularly increase faster than inflation; however, there is no evidence that launch prices and post-launch price changes are aligned with the clinical benefit a drug offers to patients. In particular, patients with rare diseases experience greater price increases for their orphan drugs. There is no evidence that brand-brand competition results in drug price reductions.

Pharmacy and neighborhood-level variation in cash price of diabetes medications in the United States

BACKGROUND

Diabetes medications place significant financial burden on patients but less is known about factors affecting cost variation.

OBJECTIVE

To examine pharmacy and neighborhood factors associated with cost variation for diabetes drugs in the US.

RESEARCH DESIGN, SUBJECTS AND MEASURES

We used all-payer US pharmacy data from 45,874 chain and independent pharmacies reflecting 7,073,909 deidentified claims. We divided diabetes drugs into insulins, non-insulin generic medications, and brand name medications. Generalized linear models, stratified by pharmacy type, identified pharmacy and neighborhood factors associated with higher or lower cash price-per-unit (PPU) for each set of drugs.

RESULTS

Cash PPU was highest for brand name therapies ($149.4±203.2), followed by insulins ($42.4±25.0), and generic therapies ($1.3±4.4). Pharmacy-level price variation was greater for non-insulin generic therapies than insulins or brand name therapies. Chain pharmacies had both lower prices and lesser variation compared with independent pharmacies.

CONCLUSIONS

Cash prices for diabetes medications in the US can vary considerably and that the greatest degree of price variation occurs in non-insulin generic therapies.

Investing in Ex Ante Regulation: Evidence from Pharmaceutical Patent Examination

We explore how the Patent Office may improve the quality of issued patents on "secondary" drug features by giving examiners more time to review drug-patent applications. Our findings suggest that current time allocations are causing examiners to issue low quality secondary patents on the margin. To assess the merits of expanding ex ante scrutiny of drug-patent applications at the agency, we set forth estimates of the various gains and losses associated with giving examiners more time, including reduced downstream litigation costs and added personnel expenses, along with both the static gains and dynamic innovation losses associated with earlier generic entry.

Assessment of medication adherence after enrollment in a health system funded medication assistance program for patients with diabetes

BACKGROUND

High costs for patients' medications decrease medication access and adherence which contributes to poor clinical outcomes. Numerous medication assistance programs exist, but many patients needing assistance, particularly insured patients, do not receive assistance due to eligibility criteria.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if there is an association between medication adherence to antihyperglycemic therapy and patient access to Nebraska Medicine Charity Care (NMCC).

PRACTICE DESCRIPTION

NMCC covers up to 100% of medication out-of-pocket costs for patients in financial need who do not qualify for other programs.

PRACTICE INNOVATION

There is no published information about a long-term health system-led financial medication assistance program being utilized to improve patient medication adherence and clinical outcomes.

EVALUATION METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted to assess adherence in patients who initiated NMCC between July 1, 2018 and June 30, 2020, with a focus on diabetes for feasibility. Adherence was assessed using a modified medication possession ratio (mMPR) for 6 months after initiating NMCC based on health system dispensing data. Overall population adherence analyses were conducted in all available data, while pre-post analyses were conducted in those with antihyperglycemic medication fills during the prior 6 months.

RESULTS

Of 2758 unique patients receiving NMCC support, 656 patients with diabetes medication use were included. Of these, 71% had prescription insurance and 28% had prescription fills in the baseline period. Mean (SD) adherence to noninsulin antihyperglycemic medications in the follow-up period was 0.80 (0.25) with 63% adherent per mMPR ≥0.80. In the prepost analysis, mMPR was significantly higher during the follow-up period at 0.83 (0.23) than during the preindex period at 0.34 (0.17), as was the proportion who were adherent (66% vs. 2%) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This practice innovation observed an improvement in adherence and A1C outcomes in patients with diabetes who received medication financial assistance through a health system.

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.

The Impact of Sharing Drug Rebates at the Point of Sale on Out-of-Pocket Payments for Enrollees in Employer-Sponsored Insurance

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to estimate the impact of sharing drug rebates at the point of sale on out-of-pocket spending by linking estimated rebates to administrative claims data for employer-sponsored insurance enrollees in 2018.

METHODS

We applied the drug rebate rate to the retail price of each brand name drug fill, allocated the reductions to out-of-pocket spending based on cost-sharing provisions, and aggregated each individual's out-of-pocket spending across drug fills. We assumed that generic drugs have no rebates for employer-sponsored insurance. We assessed the impact of sharing rebates at the point of sale on out-of-pocket spending overall, for the therapeutic classes and specific drugs with the highest average out-of-pocket spending per user, and by health plan type.

RESULTS

Across 4 simulations with different assumptions about the degree of cross-fill effects, we found that 10.4% to 12.2% of enrollees in our sample would have realized savings on out-of-pocket spending if rebates were shared to the point of sale. Among those with savings, approximately half would save $50 or less, and 10% would save > $500 annually. We calculated that a premium increase of $1.06 to $1.41 per member per month among the continuously enrolled, insured population would be sufficient to finance the out-of-pocket savings in our sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that, for a small percentage of enrollees, sharing drug rebates at the point of sale would likely improve the affordability of high-priced brand name drugs, especially drugs that face significant competition.

Impact of list price changes on out-of-pocket costs and adherence in four high-rebate specialty drugs

BACKGROUND

Insurers manage the cost of specialty medicines via rebates, however it is unclear if the savings are passed on to patients, and whether reducing rebates may lead to changes in patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and medication adherence. This study examined two drug classes to understand the impact of reducing list prices to net prices, via lower-priced national drug codes (NDCs) or authorized generics, on patient OOP costs and adherence.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis assessed IQVIA PharMetrics ® Plus adjudicated medical and pharmacy claims for commercially insured patients. Patient OOP costs per prescription and payer drug costs were assessed for evolocumab or alirocumab (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors [PCSK9is]) or velpatasvir/sofosbuvir or ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (hepatitis C virus [HCV] medications). For PCSK9is and HCV medications, the original and lower-priced versions were compared. Adherence was estimated based on proportion of days covered (PDC) (PCSK9is) and receipt of full treatment regimen (HCV medications).

RESULTS

In total, 10,640 patients were included (evolocumab, 5,042; alirocumab, 1,438; velpatasvir/sofosbuvir, 2,952; ledipasvir/sofosbuvir,1,208). After list price reductions, mean payer drug costs decreased by over 60%, while patient OOP cost reductions ranged from 14% to 55% (evolocumab: 55%, p < 0.01; alirocumab: 51%, p < 0.01; velpatasvir/sofosbuvir: 30%, p < 0.01; ledipasvir/sofosbuvir: 14%, p = 0.03). Patients with coinsurance as the largest contributor to their OOP costs had the largest reductions in OOP costs, ranging from adjusted, mean values of US$135 to US$379 (>60% reductions). Six-month PDC for PCSK9is and proportion receiving full HCV treatment regimen were high with the original versions and did not substantially differ with the new, lower-priced versions.

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing list prices to approximate net prices (as a proxy for reducing rebates) resulted in lower patient OOP costs, particularly for those with coinsurance. Our findings suggest that future reduction of rebates may assist in patient affordability, although additional transparency is needed.

Effects of Real-time Prescription Benefit Recommendations on Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Rising drug costs contribute to medication nonadherence and adverse health outcomes. Real-time prescription benefit (RTPB) systems present prescribers with patient-specific out-of-pocket cost estimates and recommend lower-cost, clinically appropriate alternatives at the point of prescribing.

Objective

To investigate whether RTPB recommendations lead to reduced patient out-of-pocket costs for medications.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cluster randomized trial, medical practices in a large, urban academic health system were randomly assigned to RTPB recommendations from January 13 to July 31, 2021. Participants were adult patients receiving outpatient prescriptions during the study period. The analysis was limited to prescriptions for which RTPB could recommend an available alternative. Electronic health record data were used to analyze the intervention's effects on prescribing. Data analyses were performed from August 20, 2021, to June 8, 2022.

Interventions

When a prescription was initiated in the electronic health record, the RTPB system recommended available lower-cost, clinically appropriate alternatives for a different medication, length of prescription, and/or choice of pharmacy. The prescriber could select either the initiated order or one of the recommended options.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patient out-of-pocket cost for a prescription. Secondary outcomes were whether a mail-order prescription and a 90-day supply were ordered.

Results

Of 867 757 outpatient prescriptions at randomized practices, 36 419 (4.2%) met the inclusion criteria of having an available alternative. Out-of-pocket costs were $39.90 for a 30-day supply in the intervention group and $67.80 for a 30-day supply in the control group. The intervention led to an adjusted 11.2%; (95% CI, -15.7% to -6.4%) reduction in out-of-pocket costs. Mail-order pharmacy use was 9.6% and 7.6% in the intervention and control groups, respectively (adjusted 1.9 percentage point increase; 95% CI, 0.9 to 3.0). Rates of 90-day supply were not different. In high-cost drug classes, the intervention reduced out-of-pocket costs by 38.9%; 95% CI, -47.6% to -28.7%.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cluster randomized clinical trial showed that RTPB recommendations led to lower patient out-of-pocket costs, with the largest savings occurring for high-cost medications. However, RTPB recommendations were made for only a small percentage of prescriptions.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04940988; American Economic Association Registry: AEARCTR-0006909.

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.

Antifungal drug price increases in the United States, 2000-2019

BACKGROUND

Antifungal drugs treat a variety of conditions, ranging from localised dermatologic disease to life-threatening systemic infections. Some common antifungal drugs experienced large price increases in recent years, however, factors contributing to these price increases are poorly understood. We sought to examine trends in antifungal drug prices and determine underlying drivers of price changes.

METHODS

Antifungal drug products in the United States were identified using the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Label database. For each product, we determined the wholesale acquisition cost per unit over time between 2000 and 2019, adjusting for inflation, and examined variables that could impact price: route of administration, number of FDA indications, the quantity of professional guideline recommendations, use for prophylaxis, number of FDA-approved manufacturers, and whether it was compounded. Price trajectories were clustered into four groups: (1) stable, 2) moderate, (3) high, and (4) extreme price increases.

RESULTS

Of 139 identified drug products, one outlier was removed due to exorbitant price increases. Cluster 1 (n = 31) demonstrated the most stable prices with a 25% mean price increase. Clusters 2 (n = 97), 3 (n = 7), and 4 (n = 3) demonstrated moderate, high, and extreme price increases with 52%, 318%, and 900% mean price increases, respectively. Atypical routes of administration and compounding were over-represented in clusters 3 and 4. There was no correlation between the number of manufacturers and price changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Antifungal drugs exhibited large, inflation-adjusted price increases. Atypical routes of administration and compounding were over-represented within clusters exhibiting extraordinary price increases. Our data support policies aiming to curb large price increases for medically important drugs.

Economic Cost and Sustainability of Oral Therapies in Precision Oncology

PURPOSE:

Precision oncology promises improved outcomes but the cost-effectiveness and accessibility of targeted therapies is debatable. We report price change patterns from 2015 to 2019 for several oral anticancer medications for common solid tumor malignancies.

METHODS:

We collected provider utilization and payment data from the public Medicare Part D database and extracted drug price information for commonly prescribed targeted oral anticancer agents for lung, breast, and prostate cancer. We then calculated median Pearson correlation coefficient values for various drugs (containing more than two data points) within each therapeutic class. We also calculated compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) for medication costs within each class and compared them with the consumer price index (CPI).

RESULTS:

Our study included six epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRi; one generic), five anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors (ALKi), two B-Raf inhibitors (BRAFi), three hormonal agents (one generic), three cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i), two poly-ADP-ribose inhibitors (PARPi), and seven antiandrogen agents (two generic). The median (range) Pearson correlation coefficient values for cost of drugs within each therapeutic class were 0.967 (0.915-0.978) for EGFRi, 0.981 (0.966-0.989) for ALKi, 0.996 for BRAFi, 0.994 (0.992-0.999) for CDK4/6i, 0.855 for PARPi, and 0.442 (–0.522 to 0.962) for antiandrogens. Therapies with two or fewer data points (generic erlotinib, dacomitinib, abiraterone, apalutamide, and darolutamide) were excluded. The median CAGRs in costs over the 5-year period were 4.56% (EGFRi), 6.40% (ALKi), 2.58% (BRAFi), 5.48% (hormonal agents), 5.21% (CDK4/6i), 27.29% (PARPi), and 34.8% (antiandrogens). The CPI over 5 years was 2.26%/year, and the average inflation rate was 1.90%/year.

CONCLUSION:

The median CAGR in costs for modern oral precision-driven cancer therapeutic classes mostly outpaced CPI and the average inflation. Increase in cost within the same class should be weighed against incremental clinical benefit for the patients to ensure that rising costs do not limit access to targeted therapies.

Trends in Prices of Drugs Used to Treat Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the US From 2015 to 2020

IMPORTANCE

Oncology drug prices are a determinant of health disparities in the US and worldwide. Several new therapeutic agents for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have become available on the US market over the past decade. Although increased competition typically produces lower prices, competition among brand-name oncology drugs has not resulted in lower prices.

OBJECTIVE

To assess price changes in class-specific brand-name medications used to treat metastatic NSCLC in the US from 2015 to 2020.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study, conducted from August 13, 2015, to August 13, 2020, used data from the Micromedex Red Book and Medi-Span Price Rx databases. The study sample was limited to 17 brand-name medications used to treat metastatic NSCLC that were available for purchase before January 1, 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes were trends over time in average wholesale prices and wholesale acquisition cost unit prices and the correlation in price among the multiple brand-name medications within each therapeutic class (immune checkpoint inhibitors, epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors, ROS1 inhibitors, BRAF inhibitors, and MEK inhibitors), measured using the Pearson correlation coefficient. The compounded annual growth rates of different medication costs were compared with the annual inflation rate and the consumer price index for prescription drugs.

RESULTS

For all drug classes, the Pearson correlation coefficient approached 1.0, indicating an increase in drug list prices despite within-class drug competition. The median Pearson correlation coefficient values were 0.964 (range, 0.951-0.994) for immune checkpoint inhibitors, 0.898 (range, 0.665-0.950) for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, 0.999 (range, 0.982-0.999) for anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors, and 0.999 for BRAF and MEK inhibitors. The median compounded annual growth rates for most drug costs were higher than the annual inflation rate and consumer price index for prescription drugs: 1.81% (range, 1.29%-2.13%) for immune checkpoint inhibitors, 2.56% (range, 2.38%-5.26%) for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, 2.46% (range, 1.75%-4.66%) for anaplastic lymphoma kinase and ROS1 inhibitors, and 3.06% (range, 0%-3.06%) for BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, prices of brand-name medications for treatment of NSCLC increased in the US from 2015 to 2020 without evidence of price competition, raising concern about the affordability of promising oncology drugs. These findings suggest that drug pricing reform is needed.