Lost cost savings to the NHS in England due to the delayed entry of multiple generic low-dose transdermal buprenorphine: a case scenario analysis

The Impact of Suboxone's Market Exclusivity on Cost of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment

BACKGROUND

Buprenorphine-naloxone is an essential part of the response to opioid poisoning rates in North America. Manipulating market exclusivity is a strategy manufacturers use to increase profitability, as evidenced by Suboxone in the USA.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate excess costs of buprenorphine-naloxone due to unmerited market exclusivity (no legal patent or data protection) in Canada.

METHODS

Using controlled interrupted time-series, this study examined changes in the cost of buprenorphine-naloxone before and after the first generics were listed on public formularies. Methadone cost was the control. Public data from the Canadian Institute of Health Information in British Columbia, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan were used. All buprenorphine-naloxone and methadone claims (2010-2019) accepted for payment by the provincial drug plan/programme were collected. Primary outcome was mean cost per mg of buprenorphine-naloxone after the first listing of generics.

RESULTS

Mean cost per mg of buprenorphine-naloxone before the first listing of generics was $1.21 CAD in British Columbia, $1.27 CAD in Manitoba, and $0.85 CAD in Saskatchewan. Following the introduction of generics, the cost per mg decreased by $0.22 CAD (95% CI - 0.33 to - 0.10; p = 0.0014) in British Columbia, $0.36 CAD (95% CI - 0.58 to - 0.13; p = 0.004) in Manitoba, and $0.27 CAD (95% CI - 0.50 to - 0.05; p = 0.03) in Saskatchewan. Mean cost per mg decreased by $0.26 CAD (95% CI - 0.38 to - 0.13; p = 0.0004) after a third generic was introduced in British Columbia. Excess costs to public formularies during the 4- to 5-year period prior to the listing of generics were $1,992,558 CAD in British Columbia, $80,876 CAD in Manitoba, and $4130 CAD in Saskatchewan. If buprenorphine-naloxone cost $0.61 CAD (mean cost after the third generic entered) instead of $1.21 CAD per mg during the pre-generics period, public payers in British Columbia could have saved $5,016,220 CAD between 2011 and 2015.

CONCLUSIONS

Unmerited 6 years of market exclusivity for brand-name buprenorphine-naloxone in Canada resulted in substantial excess costs. There is an urgent need to implement policies that can help reduce costs for high-priority drugs in Canada.

Effects of Volume-Price Contracts on Pharmaceutical Prices: A Retrospective Comparative Study of Public Hospitals in Hubei of China

Background: Pharmaceutical expenditure has been increasing worldwide. Many countries have attempted to contain the increase through collective bargaining, including in China. In 2015, the Chinese government introduced a new policy to empower regional governments to reduce pharmaceutical prices through its existing tendering system which enables a lower price for products with higher procurement volumes. Xiangyang municipality in Hubei province took a lead in piloting this initiative. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the volume-price contract initiative on pharmaceutical price procured by the public hospitals in Xiangyang. Methods: A retrospective comparative design was adopted. The price of cardiovascular medicines (349 products under 164 International Nonproprietary Names) procured by the public hospitals in Xiangyang was compared with those procured in Yichang municipality in Hubei. A total of 15,921 procurement records over the period from January 2017 to December 2018 were examined (Xiangyang started the volume-price contract initiative in January 2018). Generalized linear regression models with a difference-in-differences approach which could reflect the differences between the two cities between January 2018 and December 2018 were established to test the effects of the volume-price contract initiative on pharmaceutical prices. Results: On average, the procurement price for cardiovascular medicines adjusted by defined daily dosage in Xiangyang dropped by 41.51%, compared with a 0.22% decrease in Yichang. The difference-in-differences results showed that the volume-price contract initiative resulted in a 36.24% drop (p = 0.006) in the price (30.23% for the original brands, p = 0.008), in addition to the therapeutic competition effect (31.61% reduction in the price, p = 0.002). The top 100 domestic suppliers were highly responsive to the initiative (82.80% drop in the price, p = 0.001). Conclusion: The volume-price contract initiative has the potential to bring down the price of pharmaceutical supplies. Higher responses from the domestic suppliers are evident.

Factors Affecting Buprenorphine Utilization and Spending in Medicaid, 2002-2018

OBJECTIVE

Buprenorphine is an essential medication for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD), but studies show it has been underused over the last 2 decades. We sought to evaluate utilization of and spending on buprenorphine formulations in Medicaid and to evaluate the impact of key market and regulatory factors affecting availability of different formulations and generic versions.

METHODS

We first identified all buprenorphine formulations approved by the Food and Drug Administration for OUD using Drugs@FDA. We then used National Drug Codes to identify each drug in the Medicaid State Drug Utilization Data and extracted annual utilization rates and spending between 2002 and 2018 by drug and according to whether a brand-name or generic version was dispensed. We compared these trends to market and regulatory factors that affected competition, which we identified through searching the Federal Register, Westlaw, PubMed, and Google News.

RESULTS

Brand-name buprenorphine-naloxone sublingual tablet and film formulations (Suboxone) were dispensed 2.7 times more (n = 634 213 140) and reimbursed 4.4 times more (n = $4 440 556 473) than all other formulations combined (n = 237 769 689; $1 018 988 133). We identified numerous market and regulatory factors that contributed to an estimated 9-year delay in generic versions of the tablet formulation and 6-year delay for generic versions of the film formulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Brand-name buprenorphine formulations have been widely used in Medicaid, leading to substantial costs, in part because generic versions were delayed by multiple years owing to market and regulatory factors. Timely availability of low-cost generics could have helped encourage OUD treatment with buprenorphine during the height of the opioid crisis.