Disclosing Prescription-Drug Prices in Advertisements - Legal and Public Health Issues

Integrating Cost into Shared Decision-Making for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (POCKET-COST-HF): A Trial Providing Out-of-Pocket Costs for Heart Failure Medications during Clinical Encounters

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) often entails substantial out-of-pocket costs that can vary appreciably between patients. This has raised concerns regarding financial toxicity, equity, and adherence to medical therapy. In spite of these concerns, cost discussions in the HFrEF population appear to be rare, partly because out-of-pocket costs are generally unavailable during clinical encounters. In this trial, out-of-pocket cost information is given to patients and clinicians during outpatient encounters with the aim to assess the impact of providing this information on medication discussions and decisions.

HYPOTHESIS

Cost-informed decision-making will be facilitated by providing access to patient-specific out-of-pocket cost estimates at the time of clinical encounter.

DESIGN

Integrating Cost into Shared Decision-Making for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (POCKET-COST-HF) is a multicenter trial based at Emory Healthcare and University of Colorado Health. Adapting an existing patient activation tool from the EPIC-HF trial, patients and clinicians are presented a checklist with medications approved for treatment of HFrEF with or without patient-specific out-of-pocket costs (obtained from a financial navigation firm). Clinical encounters are audio-recorded, and patients are surveyed about their experience. The trial utilizes a stepped-wedge cluster randomized design, allowing for each site to enroll control and intervention group patients while minimizing contamination of the control arm.

DISCUSSION

This trial will elucidate the potential impact of robust cost disclosure efforts and key information regarding patient and clinician perspectives related to cost and cost communication. It also will reveal important challenges associated with providing out-of-pocket costs for medications during clinical encounters. Acquiring medication costs for this trial requires an involved process and outsourcing of work. In addition, costs may change throughout the year, raising questions regarding what specific information is most valuable. These data will represent an important step towards understanding the role of integrating cost discussions into heart failure care.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT04793880.

Patient and Payer Incentives to Use Patented Brand-Name Drugs vs Authorized Generic Drugs in Medicare Part D

IMPORTANCE

In response to scrutiny over high drug prices, manufacturers of insulin and direct-acting antiviral agents for treating hepatitis C have recently introduced authorized generic alternatives to their patented brand-name products. These authorized generic drugs have list prices at least 50% lower than the list price of the brand-name drugs, which should result in savings to patients. However, it is unclear whether these authorized generic drugs are offered on Medicare Part D formularies because they may not provide savings to plans or Medicare.

OBJECTIVE

To assess Medicare Part D formulary coverage for 4 brand-name formulations of insulin and direct-acting antiviral agents and their authorized generic formulations.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study used Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Formulary and Pricing Information Files from quarter 3 of 2020 and Medicare Part D plan enrollment for September 2020. Four patented brand-name drugs (sofosbuvir and velpatasvir fixed-dose combination tablets [Epclusa], ledipasvir and sofosbuvir tablets [Harvoni], insulin lispro [Humalog], and insulin aspart [Novolog]) and their authorized generic formulations for all Part D stand-alone prescription drug plans (n = 959) and Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans (n = 3148) were studied.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Beneficiary-weighted formulary coverage of brand-name and authorized generic products; beneficiary out-of-pocket costs; and prerebate plan, manufacturer, and Medicare spending on brand-name and authorized generic products.

RESULTS

In quarter 3 of 2020, 97% of beneficiaries were in plans that covered brand-name drugs only or both brand-name and authorized generic drugs; approximately 3% were in plans that covered authorized generic drugs only. Observed authorized generic drug list prices were 67%, 62%, and 50% lower than list prices for Epclusa, Harvoni, and each brand-name insulin product, respectively. Medicare beneficiaries using authorized generic drugs could save $270 per year for 12 vials of Humalog and $2974 for a full course of Harvoni. Plans, however, have limited incentives to encourage authorized generic drug use because rebates for brands likely exceed savings available with authorized generic drugs, particularly for beneficiaries with spending that reaches the Medicare Part D coverage gap.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that authorized generic drugs for insulin and direct-acting antiviral agents may lower out-of-pocket spending for patients but are unlikely to provide savings for Part D plans or Medicare. Instead, these drugs allow manufacturers to offer products at a lower list price without materially lowering net prices or profits.

Attention to price disclosures in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising and the impact on drug perceptions

BACKGROUND

Mandatory disclosure of the price of prescription drugs within direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertisements (DTCA) has been proposed as a potential means of curbing rising drug costs in the United States. While price transparency in DTCA has widespread public support, empirical evidence regarding the effects of such drug prices disclosures remains limited.

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the degree to which a price disclosure was noticed, the individual characteristics associated with price disclosure recognition, and the impact on perceived drug affordability, effectiveness, and safety.

METHODS

A randomized experiment was conducted among 2,138 members of the Amerispeak online panel. Participants were shown a television commercial for a drug treating either type II diabetes, deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (DVT/PE), or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that disclosed the list price, disclosed the list price plus the average out-of-pocket cost, or had no price disclosure.

RESULTS

Roughly forty percent of participants noticed when a price was disclosed while 20-24% noticed information about individual costs varying (the higher of these percentages occurred when the average out-of-pocket cost was provided). Attention did not vary systematically with the cost amount. Recognition of the different elements of the price disclosure were most predicted by sociodemographic variables such as race, education, and income as well as health characteristics. Price disclosure altered perceived affordability of the advertised medication in a manner consistent with the costs provided, but such consistent significant effects were not found for perceived drug effectiveness and safety.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeated exposure to price disclosure in television DTCA or supplementary sources of price information may be necessary to increase attention to drug price information, especially among those who are most vulnerable to the burden of drug costs. Price transparency appears useful for adjusting affordability perceptions, but additional research needs to examine how such perceptions factor into healthcare decision-making and drug pricing.

Heart Failure and Shared Decision-Making: Patients Open to Medication-Related Cost Discussions

BACKGROUND

Discussions of medication costs between patients and clinicians are infrequent and often suboptimal. In the context of recently introduced drugs that are effective but expensive, patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction provide an ideal population to understand the perspectives of patients with chronic illness on medication cost and cost discussions.

METHODS

To explore patients' perspectives on discussing out-of-pocket medication costs with clinicians, 49 adults, aged 44 to 70 years, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were recruited from outpatient heart failure clinics. Descriptive qualitative analysis was performed on open-ended text data.

RESULTS

Participants who had prior medication-related cost discussions described their experience as generally positive, but about half of the participants had never had a cost discussion with their clinician. Most participants were open to cost discussions with clinicians and preferred that the clinician initiate discussions regarding medication cost. Importantly, these preferences held constant across reported levels of financial burden.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest a substantial willingness on the part of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction to incorporate cost discussions into their care and identify important aspects of these discussions for clinicians to consider when engaging in conversations where cost is relevant. Improving understanding about how to integrate patient preferences regarding cost discussions into clinical encounters is an important priority for advancing patient-centered care.

Potential Unintended Consequences Of Recent Shared Decision Making Policy Initiatives

Shared decision making (SDM)-when clinicians and patients make medical decisions together-is moving swiftly from an ethical ideal toward widespread clinical implementation affecting millions of patients through recent policy initiatives. We argue that policy initiatives to promote SDM implementation in clinical practice carry the risk of several unintended negative consequences if limitations in defining and measuring SDM are not addressed. We urge policy makers to include prespecified definitions of desired outcomes, offer guidance on the tools used to measure SDM in the multitude of contexts in which it occurs, evaluate the impact of SDM policy initiatives over time, review that impact at regular intervals, and revise SDM measurement tools as needed.