Global Production of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients for US Generic Drugs Experiencing Shortages

This study evaluates the characteristics of generic active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) used to manufacture drugs with shortages in the US and facilities producing APIs worldwide.

Adjusting starting points for initial price offers: the example of ibrutinib

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) allows the Medicare program to negotiate drug prices beginning in 2024. Based on the guidance in the statute, CMS has selected specific data items to use to adjust initial price offers for 10 drugs in the decision-making process. Although much of the data are publicly available, some of these data items will need to be collected directly from drug companies. A 2019 US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Accountability investigative report collected a wide range of data from manufacturers of 12 high-revenue drugs that show what is available from the drug companies, including development costs, marketing, pricing, competition, and patent status. This article focuses on the data obtained for ibrutinib, an oral medication for treating hematologic malignancies, which is one of the only drugs reviewed by the committee that also has been selected for Medicare price negotiation. We examine data that can be obtained only from the drug manufacturer that the IRA has explicitly identified as being used to determine the price and suggest potential negotiation strategies for CMS in response.

Sociodemographic and spending characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries taking prescription drugs subject to price negotiations

BACKGROUND

The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act authorizes Medicare to negotiate the prices of 10 drugs in 2026 and additional drugs thereafter. Understanding the sociodemographic and spending characteristics of beneficiaries taking these specific drugs could be important describing the impact of the legislation.

OBJECTIVE

To describe sociodemographic and spending characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries who use the 10 prescription drugs ("negotiated drugs") that will face Medicare drug price negotiations in 2026.

METHODS

A 20% sample of Medicare Part D beneficiaries from 2020 (n = 10,224,642) was used. Sociodemographic and spending characteristics were descriptively reported for beneficiaries taking the negotiated drugs, including subgroups by low-income subsidy (LIS) status and by drug, and for Part D beneficiaries not taking negotiated drugs.

RESULTS

Part D beneficiaries taking a negotiated drug compared with Part D beneficiaries not taking a negotiated drug overall had similar sociodemographic characteristics, more comorbidities (3.9 vs 2.2) and higher mean [median] Medicare ($33,882 [$18,251] vs $12,366 [$3,429]) and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending ($813 [$307] vs $441 [$160]). There was variation in characteristics by LIS status. The mean age was highest among non-LIS beneficiaries taking a negotiated drug compared with LIS beneficiaries taking a negotiated drug and beneficiaries not taking a negotiated drug (76.2 vs 69.9 vs 71.4). Among beneficiaries using negotiated drugs, a higher percentage of LIS beneficiaries compared with non-LIS was female (59.7% vs 48.0%), was Black (20.9% vs 6.6%), and resided in lower-income areas (39.1% vs 20.3%). Mean [median] annual Part D OOP spending for negotiated drugs was $115 [$59] for beneficiaries with LIS and $1,475 [$1,204] for beneficiaries without LIS. There were also differences depending on which negotiated drug was used. Drugs for cancer and blood clots had the highest proportions of White users, whereas type 2 diabetes and heart failure drugs had the highest proportions of Black users and beneficiaries residing in lower-income areas. Annual Part D OOP costs were lowest for sitagliptin (LIS: $104 [$60], non-LIS: $1,391 [$1,153]) and highest for ibrutinib (LIS: $649 [$649], non-LIS: $6,449 [$6,867]). Among non-LIS beneficiaries, 24% (22% to 76%) had more than $2,000 in OOP costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Inflation Reduction Act OOP spending caps and LIS expansion will lower prescription drug costs for beneficiaries with OOP costs exceeding $2,000 who are mostly White and live in higher-income areas, insulin users who are disproportionately Black with multiple chronic conditions, and beneficiaries with low incomes. However, these provisions will not impact the 76% of non-LIS beneficiaries using negotiated drugs who have OOP costs that are still substantial but below $2,000. Negotiations could reduce OOP costs through reduced coinsurance payments for this group, which is older and has more chronic conditions compared with beneficiaries not taking negotiated drugs. Part D plan design, spending, and utilization changes should be monitored after negotiation to determine if further solutions are needed to lower OOP costs for this group.

Spending on Dual Over-the-Counter and Prescription Drugs in the Medicare Part D Program

This study compares Medicare and patient spending for dual over-the-counter and prescription drugs with their over-the-counter cash prices.

Estimated Savings From Using Added Therapeutic Benefit and Therapeutic Reference Pricing in United States Medicare Drug Price Negotiations

OBJECTIVES

US Medicare will begin negotiating prices for top-selling drugs in 2023. This study describes and estimates potential savings from a therapeutic reference pricing approach, linking comparative effectiveness with the costs of existing therapeutic alternatives, that Medicare could use to adjust the starting point for price negotiations.

METHODS

First, we identified target drugs likely to be selected for Medicare negotiation. Second, we identified comparative effectiveness ratings for target drugs based on French Haute Autorité de Santé reports. For target drugs with minor or no added benefit, we identified therapeutic alternatives based on the French reports and US clinical guidelines. For each target drug with minor or no added benefit, we computed the difference between spending based on the drug's estimated statutory ceiling price and spending based on the weighted average cost of therapeutic alternatives or the lowest cost therapeutic alternative. Finally, we calculated potential annual savings from using a starting point in negotiations based on costs of therapeutic alternatives.

RESULTS

Potential drug-level savings to Medicare from using a starting point in negotiations based on average spending across therapeutic alternatives, compared with using the statutory ceiling price alone, ranged from $186 541 340 to $2 173 441 197. Potential savings from using a starting point based on the lowest cost alternative ranged from $199 872 163 to $3 605 904 765.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we do not expect Medicare to rely on French comparative effectiveness assessments, this study demonstrates the potential for additional savings when using comparative effectiveness and costs of therapeutic alternatives to inform the starting price for negotiations.

Role of Registries in Medicare Coverage of New Alzheimer Disease Drugs

This Viewpoint discusses how the design of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) registry could impact Medicare’s ability to evaluate whether monoclonal antibodies are reasonable and necessary for patients with Alzheimer disease and help physicians understand when the drug is most beneficial.

Pharmacy Benefit Manager Pricing and Spread Pricing for High-Utilization Generic Drugs

This cross-sectional study uses Medicare Part D claims for high-utilization generic drugs to analyze gross profits accumulated by pharmacy benefit managers, pharmacies, wholesalers, and manufacturers in the pharmaceutical supply chain.

Incorporating Added Therapeutic Benefit and Domestic Reference Pricing Into Medicare Payment for Expensive Part B Drugs

OBJECTIVES

Identify expensive Part B drugs and evidence for each drug's added benefit and model a reimbursement policy for Medicare that integrates added benefit assessment and domestic reference pricing.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis using a 20% nationally representative sample of 2015 to 2019 traditional Medicare Part B claims. Expensive drugs were defined as having average annual spending per beneficiary exceeding the average annual social security benefit ($17 532 in 2019). For expensive drugs identified in 2019, added benefit assessments conducted by the French Haute Autorité de Santé were collected. For expensive drugs with a low added benefit rating, comparator drugs were identified in French Haute Autorité de Santé reports. For each comparator, average annual spending per beneficiary in Part B was computed. Potential savings from 2 reference pricing scenarios were calculated: reimbursing expensive Part B drugs with low added benefit at the level of each drug's (1) lowest cost comparator and (2) beneficiary-weighted-average cost of all comparators.

RESULTS

The number of expensive Part B drugs grew from 56 in 2015 to 92 in 2019. Of the 92 expensive drugs in 2019, 34 offer low added benefit. Implementing reference pricing for these expensive drugs with low added benefit could have saved an estimated $2.1 billion if prices were set based on spending for their lowest cost comparator, or $1 billion if prices were set based on the weighted average of spending for comparators.

CONCLUSION

Reference pricing based on added benefit assessment could be used to address the launch prices for expensive Part B drugs with low added benefit.

Hospital Prices For Commercial Plans Are Twice Those For Medicare Advantage Plans When Negotiated By The Same Insurer

Most major insurers operate in both the commercial health insurance and Medicare Advantage (MA) markets. We investigated the ratio of commercial-to-MA prices negotiated by the same insurer, in the same hospital and for the same services, using 2022 price information disclosed by hospitals in compliance with the hospital price transparency rule. Insurers negotiated median hospital prices for commercial plans that were two to three times higher than their MA prices in the same hospital for the same service. The median commercial-to-MA price ratio in the same hospital varied, from 1.8 for surgery and medicine services to 2.2 for laboratory tests and emergency department visits and 2.4 for imaging services. In multivariable Poisson regression analysis, higher ratios were associated with system-affiliated, nonprofit, and teaching hospitals, as well as with large national insurers. These findings reflect the differences in financial incentives and regulatory policies in the commercial and MA markets. Because insurers respond to differing incentives by obtaining different negotiated prices across markets, policy and practice efforts that alter incentives for insurers may have the potential to lower commercial prices.

Comparison of Price Index Methods and Drug Price Inflation Estimates for Hepatitis C Virus Medications

Importance

Measuring drug price inflation is challenging because new drugs continually enter the market, some drugs transition from branded to generic, and current inflation indexes do not account for these market basket changes. Instead, they measure the price increases after new drugs have been launched. Therefore, the public pays the higher costs of newer and usually more expensive drugs, but the inflation indexes do not reflect the increases over existing drugs previously used to treat the same conditions.

Objective

To assess how price index methods can affect estimates of drug price inflation using a case study of hepatitis C virus (HCV) medication and to explore other approaches for constructing a price index.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used data from outpatient pharmacies to compile a list of all HCV medications that were ever on the market (brand and generic) from 2013 to 2020. Using National Drug Codes of HCV drugs, a 20% nationally representative sample of Medicare Part D claims from 2013 to 2020 was queried. Alternative drug price indexes, including product-level vs class-level product and quantity definitions were developed in which gross vs net price definitions were used and an adjustment was created and applied to capture treatment duration because newer drugs often required a shorter duration.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Price index value and rate of inflation from 2013 to 2020 for each methodologic approach to constructing a drug pricing index.

Results

In all, 27 different HCV drug regimens were identified in Medicare Part D claims in 2013 to 2020. A product-level approach for measuring inflation estimated a 10% gross drug price increase from 2013 to 2020 for HCV drugs, whereas a class-level approach including the higher prices of the new drugs showed a 31% gross price increase. After adjusting for manufacturer rebates to estimate net prices, the findings showed that HCV drug prices fell by 31% from 2013 to 2020.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cross-sectional study indicate that the current product-level methods to estimate drug price inflation underestimated price increases for HCV drugs by failing to include the high launch prices of new market entrants. Using a class-level approach, the index captured higher spending on new products at launch. Prescription-level analyses, which did not consider shorter durations of treatment, overestimated price increases.

Estimating Changes in Medicare Part D and Commercial Insurer Insulin Spending Amid Planned State-Led Biosimilar Insulin Production in California

This cross-sectional study evaluates the cost savings of state-led manufacturing and selling of biosimilar insulin.

Comparison of Out-of-Pocket Spending on Ultra-Expensive Drugs in Medicare Part D vs Commercial Insurance

Importance

Little is known about how out-of-pocket burden differs between Medicare and commercial insurance for ultra-expensive drugs.

Objective

To investigate out-of-pocket spending for ultra-expensive drugs in the Medicare Part D program vs commercial insurance.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a retrospective, population-based cohort study of individuals using ultra-expensive drugs included in a 20% nationally random sample of prescription drug claims from Medicare Part D and individuals aged 45 to 64 years using ultra-expensive drugs included in a large national convenience sample of outpatient pharmaceutical claims from commercial insurance plans. Claims data from 2013 through 2019 were used, and data were analyzed in February 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Claims-weighted mean out-of-pocket spending per beneficiary per drug by insurance type, plan, and age.

Results

In 2019, 37 324 and 24 159 individuals using ultra-expensive drugs were identified in the 20% Part D and commercial samples, respectively (mean [SD] age, 66.2 [11.7] years; 54.9% female). A statistically significant higher share of commercial enrollees vs Part D beneficiaries were female (61.0% vs 51.0%; P < .001), and a statistically significantly lower share were using 3 or more branded medications (28.7% vs 42.6%; P < .001). Mean out-of-pocket spending per beneficiary per drug in 2019 was $4478 in Part D (median [IQR], $4169 [$3369-$5947]) compared with $1821 for commercial (median [IQR], $1272 [$703-$1924]); these differences were statistically significant every year. Differences in out-of-pocket spending comparing commercial enrollees aged 60 to 64 years and Part D beneficiaries aged 65 to 69 years exhibited similar magnitudes and trends. By plan, mean out-of-pocket spending per beneficiary per drug in 2019 was $4301 (median [IQR], $4131 [$3000-$6048]) in Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MAPD) plans, $4575 (median [IQR], $4190 [$3305-$5799]) in stand-alone prescription drug plans (PDPs), $1208 (median [IQR], $752 [$317-$1240]) in health maintenance organization plans, $1569 (median [IQR], $838 [$481-$1472]) in preferred provider organization plans, and $4077 (median [IQR], $2882 [$1075-$4226]) in high-deductible health plans. There were no statistically significant differences between MAPD plans and stand-alone PDPs in any study year. Mean out-of-pocket spending was statistically significantly higher in MAPD plans compared with health maintenance organization plans and in stand-alone PDPs compared with preferred provider organization plans in each study year.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study demonstrated that the $2000 out-of-pocket cap included in the Inflation Reduction Act may substantially moderate the potential increase in spending faced by individuals who use ultra-expensive drugs when moving from commercial insurance to Part D coverage.

Developing Prioritization Criteria to Identify Target Drugs for CalRx, the California Generic Drugs Initiative

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to establish criteria to identify priority drugs for CalRx, a California-sponsored initiative to support the manufacture and distribution of affordable generic drugs.

METHODS

A web-based ranking exercise was implemented with key stakeholders in August 2020, using pricing, spending, and public health criteria identified through a review of academic literature and public health agency reports. A total of 39 of 40 invited stakeholders in 4 different categories-patient advocates, healthcare providers, health insurers, and health policy and economic experts-participated in this study (98% response rate).

RESULTS

Drugs that treat large populations, drugs that represent high cost to payors, and drugs that represent high cost to consumers were ranked a priority, receiving > 10% of ranking weights. Drugs that treat conditions with high morbidity or mortality, drugs without therapeutic alternatives, and drugs treating vulnerable populations represented criteria of further interest (9%-10% of weights). Shortage risk and curative effect (8%-9% of the weights), high price increases, communicable disease treatments, and high unit prices (< 8% of the weights) represented the bottom of the priority distribution.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that drugs that treat large populations, drugs that represent large costs to payors, and drugs that represent large costs to consumers should be the priority for California's CalRx generic drug initiative. A prioritizing algorithm will assist California in determining top drugs to target from a public health and spending perspective as it plans the rollout of the CalRx initiative and negotiates with drug manufacturers.

The Relationships Among Cash Prices, Negotiated Rates, And Chargemaster Prices For Shoppable Hospital Services

Hospitals must disclose their cash prices, commercial negotiated rates, and chargemaster prices for seventy common, shoppable services under the hospital price transparency rule. Examining prices reported by 2,379 hospitals as of September 9, 2022, we found that a given hospital's cash prices and commercial negotiated rates both tended to reflect a predetermined and consistent percentage discount from its chargemaster prices. On average, cash prices and commercial negotiated rates were 64 percent and 58 percent of the corresponding chargemaster prices for the same procedures at the same hospital and in the same service setting, respectively. Cash prices were lower than the median commercial negotiated rates in 47 percent of instances, and most likely so at hospitals with government or nonprofit ownership, located outside of metropolitan areas, or located in counties with relatively high uninsurance rates or low median household incomes. Hospitals with stronger market power were most likely to offer cash prices below their median negotiated rates, whereas hospitals in areas where insurers had stronger market power were less likely to do so.

Trustee Compensation And Charity Care Provision In US Nonprofit Hospitals

In 2019 more than one-third of US nonprofit hospitals compensated their trustees. These hospitals provided less charity care than nonprofit hospitals that did not compensate their trustees. We found that trustee compensation was negatively associated with hospitals' charity care provision and that it may affect the self-selection of trustees and their fulfillment of their fiduciary duties.

When States Mandate Hospital Community Benefit Reports, Provision Increases

GOAL

We examined the variation in community benefit and charity care reporting standards mandated by states to determine whether state-mandated community benefit and charity care reporting is associated with greater provision of these services.

METHODS

We used 2011-2019 data from IRS Form 990 Schedule H for 1,423 nonprofit hospitals to create a sample of 12,807 total observations. Random effects regression models were used to examine the association between state reporting requirements and community benefit spending by nonprofit hospitals. Specific reporting requirements were analyzed to determine whether certain requirements were associated with increased spending on these services.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Nonprofit hospitals in states that required reports spent a higher percentage of total hospital expenditures on community benefits (9.1%, SD = 6.2%) compared to states without these requirements (7.2%, SD = 5.7%). A similar association between the percentage of charity care and total hospital expenditures (2.3% and 1.5%) was found. The greater number of reporting requirements was associated with lower levels of charity care provision, as hospitals allocated more resources to other community benefits.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Mandating the reporting of specific services is associated with greater provision of certain specific services, but not all. A concern is that when many services must be reported, the provision of charity care might be reduced as hospitals choose to allocate their community benefit dollars to other categories. As a result, policymakers may want to focus their attention on the services they most want to prioritize.

Competition And Vulnerabilities In The Global Supply Chain For US Generic Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients

The US supply of generic drugs is heavily dependent on the global supply chain for sources of generic active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for the US pharmaceutical market. Data from Clarivate Analytics' Cortellis Generics Intelligence database were analyzed to perform a systematic examination of generic APIs produced globally for the US market during 2020-21. We identified a total of 565 facilities producing 1,379 unique generic APIs across forty-two countries. India, China, and Italy were the top producers; 14 percent of APIs were manufactured in the US. About a third of APIs were manufactured by a single facility, and another third were manufactured by two or three facilities. More than one in every five APIs reflected markets in which current Food and Drug Administration standards would have failed to detect low competition because there were three or fewer API manufacturers despite there being four or more manufacturers of finished generic drugs. Monitoring the API supply is crucial to identifying vulnerabilities in the US pharmaceutical supply chain and identifying drugs that could represent potential priorities for domestic production. Incentives in the US may be needed to support API production to safeguard against supply-chain disruptions.

Association Between Drug Characteristics and Manufacturer Spending on Direct-to-Consumer Advertising

Importance

Some drugs are heavily marketed through direct-to-consumer advertising.

Objective

To identify drug characteristics associated with a greater share of promotional spending on advertising directly to consumers.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Exploratory cross-sectional analysis of drug characteristics and promotional spending for the 150 top-selling branded prescription drugs in the US in 2020 as identified from IQVIA National Sales Perspectives data. Promotional spending data were provided by IQVIA ChannelDynamics.

Exposures

Drug characteristics (total 2020 sales; total 2020 promotional spending; clinical benefit ratings; number of indications, off-label use; molecule type; nature of condition treated; administration type; generic availability; US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] approval year, World Health Organization anatomical therapeutic chemical classification; Medicare annual mean spending per beneficiary; percent sales attributable to the drug; market size; market competitiveness) assessed from health technology assessment agencies (France's Haute Autorité de Santé and Canada's Patented Medicine Prices Review Board) and drug data sources (Drugs@FDA, the FDA Purple Book, Lexicomp, Merative Marketscan Research Databases, and Medicare Spending by Drug data).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportion of total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer-advertising for each drug.

Results

The 2020 median proportion of promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising was 13.5% (IQR, 1.96%-36.6%); median promotional spending, $20.9 million (IQR, $2.72-$131 million); and median total sales, $1.51 billion (IQR, $0.97-$2.26 billion). Of the 150 best-selling drugs, 16 were missing data and key covariates; therefore, the primary study sample comprised 134 drugs. After adjustment for multiple drug characteristics, the mean proportion of total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising for the remaining 134 drugs was an absolute 14.3% (95% CI, 1.43%-27.2%; P = .03) higher for those with low added clinical benefit than for those with high added clinical benefit and an absolute 1.5% (95% CI, 0.44%-2.56%; P = .005) higher for each 10% increase in total sales.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among top-selling US drugs in 2020, a rating of lower added benefit and higher total drug sales were associated with a higher proportion of manufacturer total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising. Further research is needed to understand the implications of these findings.

Estimating Savings Opportunities From Therapeutic Substitutions of High-Cost Generic Medications

IMPORTANCE

Use of generics is generally understood as a cost-saving practice. However, pharmacy benefit managers have an incentive to place higher-priced generic drugs on insurers' drug formularies to profit by creating a large difference between the price negotiated with pharmacies and the price paid by insurers (what is known as spread pricing).

OBJECTIVE

To examine price differentials and savings potential between high-cost generics and corresponding therapeutic alternatives of same clinical value and lower cost.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional analysis examined the top 1000 generics in Colorado's all-payer claims database (CO-APCD) in 2019. High-cost generics and lower-cost generic therapeutic alternatives of same clinical value constituted the study sample. Data were analyzed from January 2019 to December 2019.

EXPOSURES

Generic drug prices measured by transaction prices, average wholesale price (AWP), and national drug acquisition average cost (NADAC).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Price differentials between the high-cost generics and the corresponding therapeutic alternatives. Levels of discounts and savings that could be achieved if the high-cost generics had been substituted by their therapeutic alternatives.

RESULTS

This cross-sectional study of the top 1000 CO-APCD generics identified 45 high-cost products that had lower-cost therapeutic alternatives of same clinical value. Overall, high-cost generics were 15.6 times more expensive than their therapeutic alternatives (median values). If the lower-cost alternatives had been used, total spending would have been reduced from $7.5 million to $873 711, resulting in 88.3% savings. Most substitutions (28 of 45 [62.2]%) involved different dosage forms or different strengths of the same drug and provided mean (SD) discounts of 94.9% (3.8%) and 77.1% (19.9%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, replacing high-cost generics with lower-cost alternatives of same clinical value would produce savings of nearly 90%. Plan sponsors should be aware that some generics are associated with higher spending and should periodically review the specific products driving their generic drug spending. Substitution of high-cost generics may provide a simple pathway to offer the same therapeutic benefit at lower cost to patients and insurers.

Site-based payment differentials for ambulatory services among individuals with commercial insurance

OBJECTIVE

To compare prices paid by commercial insurers for ambulatory services in physician office and hospital outpatient settings.

DATA SOURCES

MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database obtained from Truven Health Analytics.

STUDY DESIGN

We examined ambulatory service claims for a sample of privately insured individuals who were continuously enrolled in a health maintenance organization plan, preferred provider organization plan, high-deductible/consumer-driven health plan, or exclusive provider organization plan in 2018. We categorized services into five categories: Evaluation & Management, Medical Services & Procedures, Pathology/Lab, Radiology, and Surgical. We identified services commonly provided in both outpatient and office settings and computed the price differential between outpatient and office services overall and for each service category, controlling for observable patient characteristics and geography.

DATA COLLECTION

We examined 89 services (defined by Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code) that were provided in both office and outpatient settings in our sample (102.7 million claims, 8.3 million individuals).

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Adjusting for patient and geographic characteristics and across all services, total payment for an ambulatory service was, on average, 145% higher in a hospital outpatient department than the same service in a physician office. Out-of-pocket spending was 109% higher. Price differences between outpatient and office services were highest for pathology/laboratory services. Patients receiving services in outpatient departments had higher mean risk scores and received more services on the date of their visit (in addition to the index CPT being studied) than patients receiving the same index CPT in a physician's office.

CONCLUSIONS

Payments in hospital outpatient departments were significantly higher than payments for the same services in physician offices among commercially insured patients. Policies such as site-neutral payment would lower costs and could reduce incentives for further consolidation in health care markets. Care must be given to adjusting for patient severity across settings.

Public opinion regarding U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of aducanumab and potential policy responses: A nationally representative survey

Background

Despite controversy among experts regarding aducanumab's approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, little is known about public opinion on this matter.

Methods

We conducted a representative survey of U.S. adults ages 35 and older to (1) determine opinions regarding aducanumab's approval, (2) identify any evidence of reputational injury to the Food and Drug Administration, and (3) explore opinions regarding policy responses available to policymakers, such as those relating to a national coverage determination by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The survey was administered online and in English and Spanish using a probability‐based sample derived from the National Opinion Research Center's AmeriSpeak® panel. Selection probabilities in the panel and survey design account for differences in population distribution and expected response rates by demographic. The survey was analyzed using survey weights to adjust for selection probabilities and non‐response.

Results

A total of 1025 respondents completed the survey. While approximately three‐quarters of respondents were initially unfamiliar with aducanumab, respondents were less supportive of the drug's approval once given information about the drug's potential clinical and economic impact. Sixty‐three percent of respondents support restricting aducanumab access to patients most likely to benefit. Seventy‐one percent indicated a willingness to enroll a family member with mild Alzheimer's disease in a “waitlist”‐style trial to further study aducanumab; sixty percent indicated a willingness to enroll a family member in a randomized placebo‐controlled trial. Eighty‐one percent agree aducanumab should be withdrawn from the market if confirmatory trials fail. The median respondent was willing to pay $1–5 in higher Part B premiums to cover aducanumab.

Conclusion

These findings demonstrate support for a range of proposed policies in response to aducanumab's approval. The opinions of an informed public ought to be considered when developing policies in response to aducanumab's approval.

Effects of an out-of-pocket maximum in Medicare Part D

OBJECTIVES

Three different out-of-pocket (OOP) maximums in Medicare Part D have been proposed: $2000 by the House of Representatives, $3100 by the Senate Finance Committee, and the beginning of catastrophic coverage by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. However, little is known about how beneficiaries would be affected.

STUDY DESIGN

We estimated multivariate linear regression models to determine which beneficiary characteristics were associated with the greatest savings under each proposed OOP maximum and simulated a potential behavioral response by beneficiaries.

METHODS

Using Part D 2017 claims data for beneficiaries in stand-alone prescription drug plans (PDPs) and Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MA-PD) plans, we estimated the number of beneficiaries affected, their demographic characteristics, and their drug utilization patterns. We then simulated a potential behavioral response by beneficiaries.

RESULTS

Under the $2000 OOP proposed threshold, only 7% of PDP and 4% of MA-PD plan beneficiaries would have spending high enough to reach the OOP maximum. Annual mean (SD) savings would be $1301 ($1849) for PDP beneficiaries and $1363 ($1888) for MA-PD plan beneficiaries, concentrated among beneficiaries taking specialty drugs. As the threshold increases, fewer beneficiaries would accrue savings, but savings would increase. For the highest proposed OOP maximum, mean (SD) savings would be $2720 ($3465) and $2473 ($2805) for PDP and MA-PD plan beneficiaries, respectively. In our simulations, we estimated that the number of beneficiaries affected by an OOP maximum could increase by 2% to 11%, depending on the magnitude of response, but changes in savings would be minimal.

CONCLUSIONS

As currently drafted, proposed OOP maximums would reduce OOP spending for a small population of Part D beneficiaries, with savings concentrated among beneficiaries with the very highest costs who are taking specialty medications.

Reduced Risk of Sepsis and Related Mortality in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients on Xanthine Oxidase Inhibitors: A National Cohort Study

Background

Advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients are at higher risk of sepsis-related mortality following infection and bacteremia. Interestingly, the urate-lowering febuxostat and allopurinol, both xanthine oxidase inhibitors (XOis), have been suggested to influence the sepsis course in animal studies. In this study, we aim to investigate the relationship between XOis and infection/sepsis risk in pre-dialysis population.

Methods

Pre-dialysis stage 5 CKD patients with gout were identified through the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) in Taiwan from 2012 to 2016. Outcomes were also compared with national data.

Results

In our nationwide, population-based cohort study, 12,786 eligible pre-dialysis stage 5 CKD patients were enrolled. Compared to non-users, febuxostat users and allopurinol users were associated with reduced sepsis/infection risk [hazard ratio (HR), 0.93; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.87–0.99; P = 0.0324 vs. HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86–0.99; P = 0.0163]. Significant sepsis/infection-related mortality risk reduction was associated with febuxostat use (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52–0.87). Subgroup analysis demonstrated preference of febuxostat over allopurinol in sepsis/infection-related mortality among patients younger than 65 years of age, stain users, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug non-users, and non-diabetics. There was no significant difference in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) risk between users and non-users while reduced risk of all-cause mortality was observed for XOi users.

Conclusions

Use of XOi in pre-dialysis stage 5 CKD patients may be associated with reduced risk of sepsis/infection and their related mortality without increased MACCE and overall mortality.

Association Between Waste-Free Formularies and Prescription Drug Spending Among Self-insured Employers

This quality improvement study evaluates the association between waste-free formularies and prescription drug spending for 2 large self-insured employers.

Comparison of Trends in Nonprofit Hospitals' Charity Care Eligibility Policies Between Medicaid Expansion States and Medicaid Nonexpansion States

Nonprofit hospitals provide charity care to financially disadvantaged patients according to their self-designed eligibility policies. The Affordable Care Act may have prompted nonprofit hospitals to adopt more generous eligibility policies, but no prior research has examined the longitudinal trend. The expansion of Medicaid coverage in many states has been found to reduce charity care provision, but it is unclear whether the change in charity care eligibility policies differed between Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states. Using mandatory tax filings, we found that both hospitals in Medicaid expansion states and hospital in nonexpansion states adopted more generous eligibility policies in 2018 than in 2010, but the change was greater in the former for discounted charity care; while the former provided less charity care regardless of their policy changes, the latter provided more when their policies became more generous. This study has implications for policy discussions on the justification of nonprofit hospitals' tax-exempt status.

Factors Associated With Manufacturer Drug Coupon Use at US Pharmacies

Question

Why do manufacturers choose to offer coupons for some prescription drugs and not for others?

Findings

In this cohort analysis of 2501 unique brand-name prescription drug products, drug companies offered a coupon for approximately half of the drugs; coupons were likely to be used for later-in-class-entrant products with high total costs in settings where direct competitors also offered coupons. Coupon use was not associated with a given product’s mean out-of-pocket cost.

Meaning

Manufacturer-sponsored coupons were more likely to be used for high-cost later-in-class-entrant products facing within-class competition where coupon use is prevalent.

Importance

Drug companies offer coupons to lower the out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, yet little is known about why they do so for some drugs but not for others.

Objective

To examine whether the following factors are associated with manufacturer drug coupon use: (1) patient-cost characteristics (mean per-patient cost per drug, mean patient copay); (2) drug characteristics (generics availability or “later-in-class-entrant” drugs); (3) drug-class characteristics (in-class coupon use among competitors; in-class generic competition; in-class mean cost and copay).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a retrospective cohort analysis of anonymized transactional pharmacy claims sourced from retail US pharmacies from October 2017 to September 2019, supplemented with information derived from Medi-Span, Red Book, and FDA.gov. Data were analyzed from September 2020 to February 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was availability of a manufacturer’s coupon. The secondary outcome was the mean proportion of transactions in which a coupon was used for each product.

Results

The sample of 2501 unique brand-name prescription drugs accounted for a total of 8 995 141 claims. Manufacturers offered a coupon for 1267 (50.7%) of these drugs. When the manufacturer offered a coupon, it was used in a mean (SD) 16.3% (20.3%) of the transactions. Within a drug class, higher mean total cost per patient was positively associated with the likelihood of coupon use (odds ratio [OR], 1.03 per 10% increase; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04), but higher mean patient copay was inversely associated (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99). For drug characteristics, single-source later-in-class-entrant products were associated with a greater likelihood of coupon use compared with first entrants and multisource brands (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.09-1.89). The intensity of coupon use was associated with later-in-class-entrant products and the class mean per-patient cost (4.16-percentage-point increase; 95% CI, 1.20-7.13; 0.27 per 10% increase; 95% CI, 0.09-0.44). Drugs with a new in-class brand-name competitor had greater mean coupon use compared with drugs without a new competitor (10.2% of claims with a coupon vs 5.9%).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of transactional pharmacy claims, higher mean per-patient total cost within a class was significantly associated with the likelihood of coupon use, but not patient out-of-pocket cost. Manufacturers’ coupons were more likely to be used for expensive later-in-class-entrant products facing within-class competition where coupon use was prevalent.

Ultra-Expensive Drugs And Medicare Part D: Spending And Beneficiary Use Up Sharply

The proliferation of "ultra-expensive" drugs has sparked debate on their sustainability and affordability. Medicare Part D's share of annual spending on these drugs increased by 1,170 percent between 2012 and 2018, largely because the number of beneficiaries receiving them increased during this period.

Analysis Suggests Government And Nonprofit Hospitals' Charity Care Is Not Aligned With Their Favorable Tax Treatment

The different tax treatment of government, nonprofit, and for-profit hospitals implies different charity care obligations, with the greatest obligation for government hospitals and the least for for-profit hospitals. Prior research has not examined charity care provision among all three ownership types at the national level. Using 2018 Medicare Hospital Cost Reports, we compared charity care provision across 1,024 government, 2,709 nonprofit, and 930 for-profit hospitals. In aggregate, nonprofit hospitals spent $2.3 of every $100 in total expenses incurred on charity care, which was less than government ($4.1) or for-profit ($3.8) hospitals. No hospital ownership type outperformed the other two types with respect to charity care provision in a majority of hospital service areas containing all three types. Using different kinds of analyses, we also found wide variation in charity care provision within ownership types and a lack of a consistent pattern across ownership types. These results suggest that many government and nonprofit hospitals' charity care provision was not aligned with their charity care obligations arising from their favorable tax treatment. Policy makers may consider initiatives to enhance hospitals' charity care provision, particularly hospitals with government and nonprofit ownership.

Frequency and Costs of Out-of-Network Bills for Outpatient Laboratory Services Among Privately Insured Patients

IMPORTANCE

Patients may be unaware of which laboratory is processing their clinical tests, limiting their ability to choose an in-network laboratory. Out-of-network laboratory services could increase patients' out-of-pocket costs and their reluctance to obtain necessary tests.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the frequency and cost of out-of-network bills for outpatient laboratory services compared with other services.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study of claims data from the Truven MarketScan Commercial Claims database evaluated claims from 3 946 210 individuals (30.5% of the total) in the MarketScan database who were continually enrolled in health maintenance organization plans, preferred provider organization plans, exclusive provider organization plans, or consumer-driven health plans/high-deductible health plans with at least 1 outpatient clinical laboratory service in 2018. Outpatient laboratory services occurred in independent laboratories, physician offices, and outpatient centers. Laboratory bills from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018, were studied.

EXPOSURES

Receipt and cost of outpatient laboratory service.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the proportion of outpatient laboratory services billed as out of network. The secondary outcome was the total potential out-of-pocket cost associated with the out-of-network bill, the sum of observed cost sharing, and the potential balance bill.

RESULTS

Of the 12 958 130 in the total sample, 30.5% (3 946 210) had a laboratory test, of whom 5.9% received an out-of-network laboratory test. In comparison, 7.1% of the total sample had an emergency department visit, of whom 4.9% had a service billed as out of network, and 1.6% had an inpatient anesthesiology service, of whom 3.4% had an out-of-network service. Observed out-of-pocket spending was $24.59 higher for an out-of-network laboratory service than an in-network laboratory service. In addition, patients with an out-of-network laboratory service may receive an additional balance bill from the laboratory service; the estimated mean balance bill was $80.63. For the most common laboratory services, the total potential out-of-pocket cost associated with an out-of-network bill ranged from $15.68 for venipuncture to $88.09 for lipid panel but was as high as $303.18 for a drug screening test.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, out-of-network laboratory services were 5 times more common than out-of-network emergency department visits and 34 times more common than out-of-network anesthesiology services. It is important for patients that consumer protections against out-of-network bills apply to laboratory services.

Varying Trends In The Financial Viability Of US Rural Hospitals, 2011-17

The financial viability of rural hospitals has been a matter of serious concern, with ongoing closures affecting rural residents' access to medical services. We examined the financial viability of 1,004 US rural hospitals that had consistent rural status in 2011-17. The median overall profit margin improved for nonprofit critical access hospitals (from 2.5 percent to 3.2 percent) but declined for other hospitals (from 3.0 percent to 2.6 percent for nonprofit non-critical access hospitals, from 3.2 percent to 0.4 percent for for-profit critical access hospitals, and from 5.7 percent to 1.6 percent for for-profit non-critical access hospitals). Occupancy rate and charge markup were positively associated with overall margins: In 2017 hospitals with low versus high occupancy rates had median overall profit margins of 0.1 percent versus 4.7 percent, and hospitals with low versus high charge markups had median overall margins of 1.8 percent versus 3.5 percent. Rural hospital financial viability deteriorated in states that did not expand eligibility for Medicaid and was lower in the South. Rural hospitals that closed during the study period had a median overall profit margin of -3.2 percent in their final year before closure. Policy makers should compare the incremental cost of providing essential services between hospitals and other settings to balance access and efficiency.

Labor Market Concentration and Worker Contributions to Health Insurance Premiums

In concentrated labor markets, where workers have fewer employers to choose from, employers may exploit their monopsony power by contributing less to workers' health benefits. This study examined if labor market concentration was associated with higher worker contributions to health plan premiums. We combined publicly available data from the Census to calculate labor market concentration and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Insurance/Employer Component to determine premium contributions from 2010 to 2016 for metropolitan areas. After controlling for year fixed-effects and market characteristics, we found that higher labor market concentration was associated with higher worker contributions to health plan premiums, lower take-home income, and no change in employer contributions to premiums, consistent with the hypothesis that greater labor market concentration is associated with less generous health benefits. When evaluating the effects of mergers and acquisitions on labor markets, regulatory agencies should critically assess worker contributions to health insurance premiums.

Cost-effectiveness of total state coverage for hepatitis C medications

OBJECTIVES

Most Medicaid beneficiaries with hepatitis C virus (HCV) are not treated with direct-acting agents because of budget constraints, but they experience costly complications after becoming Medicare eligible. Maryland's "total coverage" proposal could receive a credit from Medicare to offset Medicaid investments in treatments that could lead to Medicare savings. This study analyzes the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of total coverage for HCV treatments sponsored by state Medicare and Medicaid.

STUDY DESIGN

A Markov model simulated patients going through the care continuum of HCV. The model simulated 3 pathways: standard coverage with a 50% probability of screening for HCV and 20% probability of treatment; risk-stratified total coverage with assumed 80% probability of screening and 60% treatment rate; and total coverage with assumed 80% probability of screening and 100% treatment rate.

METHODS

The model calculated US$ and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to produce an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio evaluated at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. The budget impact for the state of Maryland was calculated in terms of per member per year.

RESULTS

Total coverage and risk-stratified coverage saved $158 per patient and $178 per patient, respectively, compared with standard care at an increased effectiveness of 0.05 and 0.02 QALYs over 25 years. Total coverage and risk-stratified total coverage would save $1.0 billion and $1.1 billion, respectively, after 25 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare-Medicaid partnerships to pay for all HCV treatments today represent good value and a low budget impact. States with trouble covering HCV treatments should consider using this model to plan coverage decisions.

Factors Associated With Prescriptions for Branded Medications in the Medicare Part D Program

IMPORTANCE

Branded products of multisource drugs are frequently dispensed in the Medicare Part D program, increasing costs for the program and patients.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the reasons for dispensing branded multisource drugs in Medicare Part D.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study examined claims for multisource drugs with more than 1000 branded claims dispensed in Medicare Part D using Medicare Prescription Drug Event data from a 2017 nationwide random sample of 20% of Medicare beneficiaries. Data were analyzed between January and October 2020.

EXPOSURES

Justification for branded dispensing as indicated by each claim's dispense-as-written code.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Mean Medicare Part D program spending and patient out-of-pocket spending for branded and generic products, and generic vs branded spending discounts in program and patient out-of-pocket spending for each multisource drug.

RESULTS

Among 169 million claims for 224 multisource drugs, 8.3 million claims (4.9%) were dispensed with a branded product. Among these claims, 4.9 million claims (59.2%) did not have a recorded reason for branded dispensing; 1.4 million claims (16.9%) occurred because of prescriber requests; and 1.1 million claims (13.5%) occurred because of patient requests. If all branded dispensing requested by prescribers had been substituted by the corresponding generics, the projected savings to the Medicare Part D program and Medicare patients were $997 million (56.0%) and $161 million (64.4%), respectively. If all branded dispensing requested by patients had been substituted by generics, the projected savings to the Medicare Part D program and Medicare patient were $673 million (53.4%) and $109 million (55.1%), respectively. Drugs with the highest proportion of branded dispensing by physician or patient request were typically high cost (eg, drugs with above-median frequencies of branded dispensing: mean [SD] discount on generic vs branded, 73.9% [26.9%] for prescriber requests).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Prescribers and patients motivated 30.4% of all branded dispensing of multisource drugs in the Medicare Part D program. Branded dispensing requested by prescribers or patients incurred an incremental annual cost of $1.67 billion to the Medicare program and $270 million to patients when compared with switching to generics. Policy makers should consider ways to discourage prescribers and patients from requesting branded dispensing of multisource drugs because of the higher cost.

Assessing the Added Therapeutic Benefit of Ultra-Expensive Drugs

OBJECTIVES

While the United States does not have a method for assessing the added therapeutic benefit of drugs, France, Canada, and Germany do. We examined the added therapeutic benefit of the most expensive drugs prescribed to Medicare Part D beneficiaries in the United States.

METHODS

We identified ultra-expensive drugs with annual Medicare spending that exceeded $62 794 (United States GDP per capita in 2018) using Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Spending and Utilization Data. We used added therapeutic benefit ratings assessed by health technology assessment agencies in France, Canada, and Germany.

RESULTS

We identified 122 ultra-expensive drugs in 2018. Sixty-five percent of these drugs (n = 79) were assessed by at least one of the countries. Based on these assessments, approximately 75% received a low added therapeutic benefit rating.

CONCLUSIONS

Most ultra-expensive drugs prescribed in the United States and assessed by France, Canada, and Germany provide low added therapeutic benefit. Policy reforms in the United States could use added therapeutic benefit to inform coverage and pricing decisions for ultra-expensive drugs. Similar to Germany, one approach would be to allow the company to set a market price for a limited period of time before requiring a price reduction if the added therapeutic benefit is below a certain threshold. Another approach would be to identify when drug prices are substantially more expensive in the United States and conduct an added therapeutic benefit assessment and price review on these drugs.

Biosimilar formulary placement in Medicare Part D prescription drug plans: A case study of infliximab

PURPOSE

Biosimilars can generate competition and provide cost savings over reference biologics for the Medicare program and beneficiaries. The extent to which these benefits can be realized in the Medicare Part D program depends on how biosimilars and biologics are placed in the formulary. We conducted a study to examine Medicare formulary placement of the first biologic to have 2 biosimilars on the market-infliximab and its biosimilars infliximab-dyyb and infliximab-abda.

METHODS

All standalone and Medicare Advantage (MA) prescription drug plans (PDPs) offered in Medicare Part D were examined between September 2016 (ie, at the end of the last quarter before the launch of the first infliximab biosimilar) and September 2018, at which time a second biosimilar had been on the market for about 14 months. When PDPs covered both the reference biologic and a biosimilar, we compared the cost-sharing tier and the frequency of prior authorization and step therapy requirements for each drug.

RESULTS

Nearly all PDPs covered infliximab throughout the study period. By September 2018, 31.7% of MA plans and 14.9% of standalone PDPs were covering a biosimilar on the market. Nearly all plans that covered a biosimilar also covered the reference product. Most plans (98% of standalone PDPs and 89% of MA plans) had placed prior authorization restrictions on both the biologic and the biosimilar. All plans covering both products placed them in the same cost-sharing tier. No plan required step therapy for either product.

CONCLUSION

Formulary placement of infliximab biologic and biosimilars in Medicare Part D is not optimized to generate cost savings for the Medicare program and beneficiaries, whose cost sharing is often based on the drug's list price. The Medicare program should provide incentives for PDPs to expand biosimilar coverage.

Allocation of National Institutes of Health Funding by Disease Category in 2008 and 2019

IMPORTANCE

Prior research suggests an association between burden of disease and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. The allocation of NIH funding should reflect, to some extent, the health needs of the population, along with other factors.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the factors associated with NIH funding in 2019 for 46 diseases.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study used disability-adjusted life-years to measure the 2008 and 2019 US burden of disease and compared them with NIH categoric funding for 46 diseases.

EXPOSURES

Disability-adjusted life-years to measure the 2008 and 2019 US burden of disease, 2016 health spending, and 2008 NIH funding levels for 46 diseases.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

2019 NIH funding levels for 46 diseases.

RESULTS

The 46 diseases accounted for 62 392 713 of 94 399 784 disability-adjusted life-years (66.1%) in 2008 and 75 706 718 of 111 074 472 disability-adjusted life-years (68.2%) in 2019, representing more than 66% of all disability-adjusted life-years in both years. By dollar volume, Alzheimer and dementia increased the most, with approximately $1.8 billion more funding in 2019 than 2008 (from $530 million in 2008 to $2398 million in 2019, a 352% increase), whereas interpersonal violence had the greatest decrease, $95 million, in 2019 NIH funding (from $236 million in 2008 to $141 million in 2019, a 40% decrease). For the 46 diseases in this study, the variable with the greatest association with NIH funding in 2019 was the level of NIH funding in 2008, with a simple correlation of 0.88. Burden of disease and changes in burden of disease were not statistically significantly associated with NIH funding levels once the prior level of funding was included in the model. The models suggested that a 1% higher level of NIH funding in 2008 was associated with a 0.91% higher level of NIH funding in 2019.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, NIH spending for most diseases seemed to be based primarily on the level of NIH spending more than 10 years earlier, despite changes in burden of disease. Congress and the NIH should examine the allocation process to ensure NIH investments are responsive to changes in the health of the population.

A Non-Profit Approach to Address Foreign Dependence of Generic Drugs

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the vulnerability of the US generic drug supply chain to foreign production. Many policies have been proposed to mitigate this vulnerability. In this article, we argue that nonprofit drug manufacturers have the potential to make important contributions.