The Inflation Reduction Act and Patient Costs for Drugs to Treat Heart Failure

Erin Trish,Karen Van Nuys,Joanne Wu,Nihar R. Desai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.41915

2024-10-30

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:This cross-sectional study examines the pre–Inflation Reduction Act out-of-pocket burden on Medicare patients taking dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and sacubitril/valsartan.

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Out-of-Pocket Prescription Drug Savings for Medicare Beneficiaries with Asthma and COPD Under the Inflation Reduction Act

Stephen A. Mein,Archana Tale,Mary B. Rice,Prihatha R. Narasimmaraj,Rishi K. Wadhera

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-09063-4

IF: 5.7

2024-10-06

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract:High and rising prescription drug costs for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) contribute to medication nonadherence and poor clinical outcomes. The recently enacted Inflation Reduction Act includes provisions that will cap out-of-pocket prescription drug spending at $2,000 per year and expand low-income subsidies. However, little is known about how these provisions will impact out-of-pocket drug spending for Medicare beneficiaries with asthma and COPD.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services
Dapagliflozin versus sacubitril–valsartan for heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction

Ronen Arbel,Abed N. Azab,Mansi Oberoi,Enis Aboalhasan,Artyom Star,Khaled Elhaj,Fouad Khalil,Hilmi Alnsasra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2024.1357673

IF: 5.6

2024-03-19

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:Background and aim: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is associated with an increased risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and cardiovascular death (CVD). Both dapagliflozin and sacubitril–valsartan have recently shown convincing reductions in the combined risk of CVD and HF hospitalizations in patients with HF and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or HFpEF. We aimed to investigate the cost-per-outcome implications of dapagliflozin vs sacubitril–valsartan in the treatment of HFmrEF or HFpEF patients. Methods: We compared the annualized cost needed to treat (CNT) to prevent the composite outcome of total HF hospitalizations and CVD with dapagliflozin or sacubitril–valsartan. The CNT was estimated by multiplying the annualized number needed to treat (aNNT) by the annual cost of therapy. The aNNT was calculated based on data collected from the DELIVER trial for dapagliflozin and a pooled analysis of the PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF trials for sacubitril–valsartan. Costs were based on 2022 US prices. Scenario analyses were performed to attenuate the differences in the studies' populations. Results: The aNNT with dapagliflozin in DELIVER was 30 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 21-62) versus 44 (95% CI: 25-311) with sacubitril–valsartan in a pooled analysis of PARAGLIDE-HF and PARAGON-HF, with an annual cost of 5,576, respectively. The corresponding CNTs were 103,982.99– 245,346.77 (95% CI: 1,128,958.15 [CI: 2,185,816.71 [CI: $607,790.87–∞]. Conclusion: Dapagliflozin provides a better monetary value than sacubitril–valsartan in preventing the composite outcome of total HF hospitalizations and CVD among patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Impact Of Cost Evaluation On Prescriptions Of Heart Failure Therapies

Anand Shah,Robert Mentz,Cody A. Carson,Monique Conway,Sara Black,Carolina Tennyson,Brooke Moyer,Stephen Greene,Chetan Patel,Marat Fudim,Cara L. O'Brien,Vishal Rao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2023.10.343

IF: 6.592

2024-01-01

Journal of Cardiac Failure

Abstract:Background Despite the proven benefits of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), utilization in clinical practice remains suboptimal. Medication costs may serve as barriers to optimizing GDMT, particularly with angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) being patent-protected. Methods Non-cardiology inpatient clinical teams treating patients with HFrEF at Duke Health were randomized to usual care or an automatic quality improvement-based virtual consultation that provided GDMT recommendations with estimated out-of-pocket costs for ARNI and SGLT2i. In the present analysis of patients randomized to the intervention arm, the change in composite optimal medical therapy (OMT) score at discharge, based on GDMT use and target dosing, was analyzed by insurance status and estimated out-of-pocket medication cost. Results Among 52 patients, 12 (23%) had private insurance, 23 (44%) had Medicare, 8 (15%) had North Carolina (NC) Medicaid, and 9 (17%) were self-pay. When grouped by insurance type, estimated median monthly costs for ARNI were $75 for private, $47 for Medicare, and $3 for Medicaid (p = 0.01) and for SGLT2i were $15 for private, $47 for Medicare, and $3 for Medicaid (p = 0.02). Overall changes in OMT score were nominally higher for those with lower monthly costs of ARNI and SGLT2i: +1.92 for <$50, +2.25 for $50-100, and -0.26 for >$100 (p = 0.20). There was a statistically significant inverse relationship between monthly drug costs and change in OMT score by bivariate regression analysis slope of -0.05 (p = 0.04). Conclusions Proactive, real-time evaluation of out-of-pocket prescription cost for patent-protected GDMT prior to discharge from inpatient hospitalization showed significant variability in the estimated monthly cost of ARNI and SGLT2i therapies. Our analysis highlights the importance of consideration of insurance coverage and out-of-pocket costs when prescribing GDMT, as lower medication costs showed a modest association with increased GDMT optimization.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Cause-Specific Healthcare Costs Following Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Cost Offset with SGLT2 Inhibitor Therapy

Veraprapas Kittipibul,Muthiah Vaduganathan,Uchechukwu Ikeaba,Karen Chiswell,Javed Butler,Adam D. DeVore,Paul A. Heidenreich,Joanna C. Huang,Michelle M. Kittleson,Karen E. Joynt Maddox,Karthik K. Linganathan,James J. McDermott,Anjali Tiku Owens,Pamela N. Peterson,Scott D. Solomon,Orly Vardeny,Clyde W. Yancy,Gregg C. Fonarow,Stephen J. Greene

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2024.04.003

IF: 12.544

2024-04-08

JACC Heart Failure

Abstract:Background Little is known regarding differences in cause-specific costs between HF with EF≤40% versus >40%, and potential cost implications of SGLT2i therapy. Objectives To compare cause-specific healthcare costs following hospitalization for heart failure (HF) with ejection fraction (EF) ≤40% versus >40%, and estimate the cost offset with implementation of SGLT2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) therapy. Methods We examined Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for HF in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry from 2016-2020. Mean per-patient total (excluding drug costs) and cause-specific costs from discharge through 1-year follow-up were calculated and compared between EF≤40% vs >40%. We then estimated risk reductions on total all-cause and HF hospitalizations in a trial-level meta-analysis of 5 pivotal trials of SGLT2i in HF. Finally, we applied these relative treatment effects to Medicare beneficiaries eligible for SGLT2i to estimate the projected cost offset with implementation of SGLT2i, excluding drug costs. Results Among 146,003 patients, 50,598 (34.7%) had EF≤40% and 95,405 (65.3%) had EF>40%. Mean total cost through 1-year was 2,451-2,668 per patient with EF≤40%, and $1,439-2,410 per patient with EF>40%. Conclusions In this large cohort of older US adults hospitalized for HF, cause-specific costs of care differ among patients with EF≤40% versus EF>40%. SGLT2i significantly reduces the rate of HF and all-cause hospitalizations irrespective of EF in clinical trials, and implementation of SGLT2i in clinical practice is projected to reduce costs by $1,439-2,668 per patient over the 1-year post-discharge, excluding drug costs.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
The Economic Burden of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: Living Longer but Poorer?

Larry A Allen,Emily Fryman Lowe,Dan D Matlock

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hfc.2024.06.003

Abstract:Treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has benefitted from a proliferation of new medications and devices. These treatments carry important clinical benefits, but also come with costs relevant to payers, providers, and patients. Patient out-of-pocket costs have been implicated in the avoidance of medical care, nonadherence to medications, and the exacerbation of health care disparities. In the absence of major health care policy and payment redesign, high-quality HFrEF care delivery requires transparent integration of cost considerations into system design, patient-clinician interactions, and medical decision making.
Post-approval indications and clinical trials for cardiovascular drugs: some implications of the US Inflation Reduction Act

Henry Grabowski,Genia Long

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2024.2323903

2024-03-19

Journal of Medical Economics

Abstract:Objective To describe the historical baseline landscape of cardiovascular drug post-approval activity, including the number and timing of post-approval clinical trials and approved indications. The US Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) Drug Price Negotiation Program (DPNP) and its Maximum Fair Prices (MFPs) will affect incentives for investment in post-approval activity such as clinical trials for new indications. While three of the first ten drugs selected for the DPNP and MFP-setting are cardiovascular or antithrombotic drugs, limited attention has been paid to potential cardiovascular drug impacts, and to post-approval innovation.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services
Comparative value of dapagliflozin vs empagliflozin in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Amey Rane,Regina Nwamaka Nechi,Maryam Imam,Cesar Rodrigo Zoni,Cyrille Ndikumukiza,Ibraheem M Karaye,Ismaeel Yunusa,Abdullah Alanzi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2023.29.9.1045

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) imposes a high disease burden on patients, primarily because of multimorbidity and frequent hospitalizations. Recently, the American College of Cardiology Expert Consensus recommended treating all patients diagnosed with HFpEF with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, such as dapagliflozin or empagliflozin, to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization and improve health status. However, managing HFpEF can be expensive, highlighting the need to assess therapeutic alternatives that can minimize health care costs while optimizing patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin vs empagliflozin in managing patients with HFpEF from the US health care system perspective. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to simulate a cohort of patients with HFpEF (defined as having a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 50%) treated with dapagliflozin or empagliflozin. Transition probabilities between 3 health states (HFpEF, hospitalization for heart failure, and death), costs, and quality of life weight input variables were obtained from the literature. In the base-case analysis, we estimated total expected costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime horizon. All future expected costs and QALYs were discounted at the annual rate of 3%. We conducted sensitivity analyses to demonstrate the robustness of the cost-effectiveness model findings. RESULTS: Dapagliflozin had an incremental expected lifetime cost of $29,896 compared with empagliflozin, resulting in an ICER of $36,902/QALY. Value-based price threshold analysis suggested that for empagliflozin to be cost-effective, it would need a 29% discount on its annual price. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, dapagliflozin would be the most preferred cost-effective option at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000/QALY about 72% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: This cost-effectiveness analysis showed that, from the US health care system perspective, dapagliflozin was more cost-effective than empagliflozin, and its uptake may enhance long-term outcomes in patients with HFpEF.
Innovation, affordability, access: Alzheimer disease drugs and the Inflation Reduction Act

Niying Li,Smita Rawal,Henry N Young,Lorenzo Villa Zapata

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37765/ajmc.2024.89563

2024-06-01

Abstract:Objectives: This analysis examines the implications of new Alzheimer disease drugs in the era of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). It focuses on balancing innovation in Alzheimer disease treatment with affordability and access, assessing the impact on Medicare's budget, patient cost, and health care system readiness. Study design: A comprehensive review was conducted, synthesizing information from recent FDA drug approvals, drug pricing models, Medicare coverage policies, and the updated regulations under the IRA. This analysis reflects on the broader clinical and economic consequences of introducing new Alzheimer disease treatments. Methods: The study employs a qualitative review of existing literature, policy documents, and economic data. It explores the implications of Alzheimer disease drugs on health care policy, analyzing the economic and clinical impacts within the current health care landscape in the US. Results: The study highlights the economic challenges posed by the high costs of new Alzheimer disease drugs, contrasting with their moderate clinical benefits and potential risks. It discusses the limitations of the IRA in regulating drug prices and the resulting implications for Medicare's budget. Additionally, it examines disparities in health care access and system preparedness for these new treatments. Conclusions: The study findings underscore the need for a comprehensive approach to ensure fair pricing and equitable access to Alzheimer disease treatments. It suggests the application of frameworks such as the ISPOR Value Flower, focusing on diversity, equity, and comprehensive economic evaluations, to navigate the evolving landscape of Alzheimer disease treatment in the context of the IRA.
Budget Impact Analysis of Dapagliflozin in Treating Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction From the Perspective of Malaysian Public Healthcare System

Yi Jing Tan,Siew Chin Ong,Joo Zheng Low

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2024.08.008

2024-09-10

Abstract:Purpose: This is a budget impact analysis that compared the scenario of treating heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) using dapagliflozin plus standard of care (SoC) versus a scenario without dapagliflozin, from the perspective of Ministry of Health (MOH) Malaysia over a 5-year time horizon. Methods: A Microsoft Excel-based cost calculator was developed for such comparison. The estimated size of eligible population, uptake rates for dapagliflozin, as well as costs related to drugs, clinical events, and adverse events were based on published data, official tariffs, and databases, and expert opinion. Clinical data from the DAPA-HF trial were used to inform efficacy and safety inputs (i.e., hospitalization for heart failure (hHF), cardiovascular death, and adverse events). Results were reported as total annual and cumulative costs (in 2023 Malaysian Ringgits [RM], United States Dollars [USD], and European Union Euros, [EUR]; with exchange rates of 1 USD = RM 4.40 and 1 EUR = RM 4.90]), as well as the number of clinical events. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were also conducted. Findings: The base-case analysis estimated that over a five-year period, the adoption of dapagliflozin for HFrEF treatment would result in a cumulative cost-saving of RM 2.6 million (USD 0.6 million/EUR 0.5 million), representing a 0.3% reduction in costs, driven primarily by reduced expenditure on hHF. Moreover, dapagliflozin treatment would lead to 731 fewer hHF and 366 fewer cardiovascular deaths. Sensitivity and scenario analyses revealed that the results were most sensitive to assumptions regarding loop diuretic requirements and the cost of dapagliflozin. Although cost savings or a net-zero balance were projected for the first four years, an anticipated 2.5% annual increase in dapagliflozin uptake in the longer term would lead to additional costs for the MOH, starting from the fifth year. Implications: Incorporating dapagliflozin into the SoC can improve health outcomes for HFrEF patients and may generate cost savings, potentially easing the economic strain of HFrEF management on Malaysia's public healthcare system in the short term. Nonetheless, a modest increase in budget should be anticipated as more patients gain access to the treatment over time.
Cost Offset of Dapagliflozin in the US Medicare Population with Cardio-Kidney Metabolic Syndrome

Raymond C Chang,Ryan L Miller,Katherine W Kwon,Joanna C Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-024-02919-5

Abstract:Introduction: Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome is highly prevalent in the US Medicare population and is projected to increase further. Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors have indications in chronic kidney disease (CKD), heart failure (HF), and type 2 diabetes (T2D), providing protective efficacy across conditions within CKM syndrome. The objective of this study was to develop a model to extrapolate key outcomes observed in pivotal clinical trials to the US Medicare population, and to assess the potential direct cost offsets associated with dapagliflozin therapy. Methods: All US 2022 Medicare beneficiaries (≥ 65 years of age) eligible to receive dapagliflozin were estimated according to drug label indication and Medicare enrollment and claims data. Incidence of key outcomes from the dapagliflozin clinical program were modelled over a 4-year time horizon based on patient-level data with CKD, HF, and T2D. Published cost data of relevant clinical outcomes were used to calculate direct medical care cost-offset associated with treatment with dapagliflozin. Results: In a population of 13.1 million patients with CKM syndrome, treatment with dapagliflozin in addition to historical standard of care (hSoC) versus hSoC alone led to fewer incidents of HF-related events (hospitalization for HF, 613,545; urgent HF visit, 98,896), renal events (kidney failure, 285,041; ≥ 50% sustained decline in kidney function, 375,137), and 450,355 fewer deaths (of which 225,346 and 13,206 incidences of cardiovascular and renal death were avoided). In total this led to medical care cost offsets of $99.3 billion versus treatment with hSoC only (dapagliflozin plus hSoC, $310.3 billion; hSoC, $211.0 billion). Conclusion: By extrapolating data from trials across multiple indications within CKM syndrome, this broader perspective shows that considerable medical care cost offsets may result through attenuated incidence of clinical events in CKD, T2D, and HF populations if treated with dapagliflozin in addition to hSoC over a 4-year time horizon. Graphical abstract available for this article.
Public Health Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Empagliflozin (JARDIANCE®) in the Treatment of Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction in France, Based on the EMPEROR-Preserved Clinical Trial

Laurent Fauchier,Nicolas Lamblin,Jean Tardu,Lucile Bellier,Harinala Groyer,Deborah Ittah,Julien Chollet,Stephan Linden,Pierre Levy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-023-00432-z

Abstract:Introduction: The efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in the treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) were demonstrated in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial, which showed a 21% reduction in combined risks of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.90, p < 0.001] and a 27% reduction in the total number of HF hospitalizations (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.61-0.88, p < 0.001) compared with placebo. On the basis of these results, the present study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin + standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC alone in the treatment of HFpEF. Methods: A published Markov model was adapted to compare the health and economic outcomes in France, considering a collective perspective, in patients treated with empagliflozin in addition to SoC versus patients treated by SoC alone. The model simulated the intention-to-treat (ITT) population of the trial, transitioning between four mutually exclusive health states representing the quartiles of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS). For each arm, the model estimated (over a lifetime time horizon) the economics and the health outcomes (HF hospitalizations avoided, and life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained) to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The resources used were derived by pairing the FREnch Survey on HF (FRESH) cohort data to French health insurance claims data, and the utilities were derived on the basis of the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire valued on the French tariff. Both economic and health outcomes were discounted at a 2.5% annual rate. Results: The model predicted that treatment of HFpEF patients with empagliflozin would prevent, for 1000 patients treated, 74 HF hospitalizations and 15 deaths attributable to cardiovascular events, resulting on average in a gain of 1 month in overall survival (7.24 versus 7.16 years with placebo) and 0.11 QALYs (6.14 versus 6.03 with placebo). Empagliflozin costs were partially offset by the cost savings from avoided hospitalizations. The ICERs were €18,597 per life year gained and €13,980 per QALY gained. The sensitivity analyses conducted showed that empagliflozin has a 65% probability to be cost-effective under the €25,000/QALY threshold. Conclusions: The base-case results showed that empagliflozin is a cost-effective strategy for management of HFpEF, in addition to the impact on public health by preventing HF-hospitalizations and deaths in France. Sensitivity analyses suggest that 65% of simulations are under the €25,000/QALY threshold.
Cost analysis of drugs used in management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and marketed in India

Daya Tupe,Kiran Bhave,Prasad Pandit

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20242417

2024-08-28

International Journal of Basic & Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract:Background: Heart failure is characterised by significant morbidity, mortality, poor functional capacity, reduced quality of life, and high cost of lifelong medications. No studies have been performed yet on cost analysis of oral drugs used in management of HFrEF (Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction). So, we analysed cost variations of different brands of such drugs which are marketed in India. Methods: It was an analytical study in which maximum and minimum costs in rupees per 10 tablets/capsules of each drug in same strength, manufactured by different pharmaceutical companies in India, were obtained from “Current Index of Medical Specialties” (CIMS) January to April 2023, Indian Drug Review (IDR 2023) and Drug Today (January– April 2023 Cost ratio and % cost variation were calculated for each drug. % Cost variation= Maximum cost- Minimum cost × 100/ Minimum cost. Cost ratio= Price of the costliest brand/ Price of the least costly brand. Results: Totally 652 brands of HFrEF management drugs from different classes were evaluated. Telmisartan 80 mg had highest cost ratio of 44 and 4300% cost variation, while Spironolactone 25 mg had lowest cost ratio of 1.29 and 31.11% cost variation. Conclusions: Our study showed significant cost variation in different brands of the same drugs that are used in the management of HFrEF. To lessen economic burden and to improve adherence to treatment, also considering the demographics, it is desirable for doctors to prescribe least costly brands/ generic drugs, to meet the health-care needs of such patients.
How adoption of new pharmaceuticals can impact US health system reimbursement under alternative payment models: An economic model measuring the impact of sotagliflozin among patients with heart failure and diabetes

Jason Shafrin,Shanshan Wang,Jaehong Kim,Slaven Sikirica,Alexander T Sandhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2024.23236

Abstract:Background: Heart failure (HF) is among the leading causes of death in the United States. Further, patients hospitalized because of HF with comorbid diabetes mellitus (DM) are at a significantly increased risk of death and rehospitalization. Results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial show that sotagliflozin lowered rates of readmission among hospitalized patients with HF and comorbid DM. However, it is unclear what the economic impact of the use of sotagliflozin would be on hospitals and health systems, particularly in an age where provider reimbursement is increasingly tied to value. Objective: To quantify the 1-year financial impact on US provider health systems of adopting sotagliflozin relative to standard of care (SoC) across different alternative payment models. Methods: This study created a 3-part decision tree model to quantify the financial impact of using sotagliflozin to treat patients hospitalized with HF in a US hospital setting. The model first estimated the clinical and economic outcomes of health systems with current SoC (no sotagliflozin) to treat US patients hospitalized for HF with comorbid DM. Then, using the results from the SOLOIST trial, the changes in clinical and economic outcomes with sotagliflozin adoption were modeled. Finally, the differences in health care utilization between sotagliflozin and SoC arms were translated to differences in health system reimbursement in the context of 3 common alternative payment models (APMs) in addition to the baseline fee-for-service (FFS) model: FFS with the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement-Advanced program, and Accountable Care Organizations. Results: A typical community hospital would have 83.4 patients per year on average with an index HF hospitalization with comorbid DM. The model predicted that sotagliflozin would reduce the probability of hospitalization, emergency department visits, and deaths by 29.3%, 38.5%, and 17.8%, respectively, compared with SoC. For hospitals not participating in APM programs, sotagliflozin resulted in a net loss of $92.94 per person ($7,754 per health system). Conversely, when accounting for provider health system participation in APMs, sotagliflozin adoption increased financial returns by $4,720 per person ($305,604 per health system) under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, $1,200 per person ($100,106 per health system) for the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement-Advanced program, and $1,078 per person ($31,029 per health system) for Accountable Care Organizations. Based on the national average composition of APM reimbursement, sotagliflozin adoption resulted in a $1,576 increase in margin per patient with HF ($105,454 per health system). Conclusions: Although sotagliflozin adoption reduced health system revenue in an FFS payment model, it led to a net positive financial impact after accounting for APM bonus payments.
Medicare Coverage and Patient Out-Of-Pocket Costs for Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Medications

Grant M. Young,Kannu Bansal,Ralph J. Riello,Katherine A. A. Clark,Sanket S. Dhruva,Kamil F. Faridi,Nihar R. Desai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.12437

2024-05-22

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:This cross-sectional study evaluates the association between Medicare coverage and patient out-of-pocket costs for cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic medications.

medicine, general & internal
Cost‐effectiveness of dapagliflozin as a treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a multinational health‐economic analysis of DAPA‐HF

Phil McEwan,Oliver Darlington,John J.V. McMurray,Pardeep S. Jhund,Kieran F. Docherty,Michael Böhm,Mark C. Petrie,Klas Bergenheim,Lei Qin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.1978

2020-09-15

European Journal of Heart Failure

Abstract:<section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Aim</h3><p>To estimate the cost‐effectiveness of dapagliflozin added to standard therapy, versus standard therapy only, in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, from the perspective of UK, German, and Spanish payers.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Methods and Results</h3><p>A lifetime Markov model was built to estimate outcomes in patients with HFrEF. Health states were defined by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Total Symptom Score, type 2 diabetes and worsening HF events. The incidence of worsening HF and all‐cause mortality was estimated using negative binomial regression models and parametric survival analysis, respectively. Direct healthcare costs (2019 British pounds/Euro) and patient‐reported outcomes (EQ‐5D) were sourced from the existing literature and the Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse‐outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA‐HF), respectively; the median duration of follow‐up in DAPA‐HF was 18.2 months (range: 0‐27.8). Future costs and effects were discounted at 3.0% for the Spanish and German analyses and 3.5% for the UK analysis.</p><p>In the UK setting, treatment with dapagliflozin was estimated to increase life‐years and quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs) from 5.62 to 6.20 (+0.58) and 4.13 to 4.61 (+0.48), respectively, and reduce lifetime hospitalisations for HF (925 and 820 events per 1,000 patients for placebo and dapagliflozin, respectively). Similar results were obtained for Germany and Spain. The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios were £5,822, €5,379 and €9,406/QALY in the UK, Germany and Spain, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, more than 90% of simulations were cost‐effective at a willingness‐to‐pay threshold of £20,000/QALY in UK and €20,000/QALY in Germany and Spain.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Conclusion</h3><p>Dapagliflozin is likely to be a cost‐effective treatment for HFrEF in the UK, German and Spanish healthcare systems.</p><p>This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.</p></section>

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Empagliflozin cost-effectiveness analysis in Japanese heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction

Hiroyuki Tsutsui,Hiroyuki Sakamaki,Shin-Ichi Momomura,Yasushi Sakata,Yutaro Kotobuki,Stephan Linden,Koki Idehara,Daisuke Nitta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.14565

Abstract:Aims: Empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor, was shown to be effective in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. The present study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin among Japanese patients with HFpEF. Methods and results: A Markov cohort model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin added to standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC alone in patients with HFpEF from the perspective of the Japanese healthcare system and with a lifetime horizon. In addition to clinical events, the progression of disease severity was modelled based on the migration of Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Scores (KCCQ-CSS). Model inputs, including risk of clinical events, costs, and utilities/disutilities, were derived from EMPEROR-Preserved trial data, a claims database and published literature. The generalizability of model results was investigated by applying various subgroups including age, body mass index (BMI), and region Asia, based on the subgroup analysis of EMPEROR-Preserved data. In the base-case analysis, empagliflozin yielded additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 0.11) with an incremental cost of $1408 per patient for Japanese patients with HFpEF. Incremental cost, mainly derived from drug acquisition cost ($1963 per patient), was largely offset by reduced cost in hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and cardiovascular death (-$537 per patient and -$166 per patient, respectively). Treatment of empagliflozin provided incremental 0.11 QALYs and 0.08 life years compared with SoC alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $12 772 (¥1 662 689)/QALY, which was below the Japanese willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $38 408 (¥5 000 000)/QALY. The results were consistent across all the subgroups considered, and empagliflozin was dominant over SoC alone in the region Asia and BMI < 25 kg/m2 subgroups. ICERs for the remaining subgroups ranged from $7520/QALY (¥978 972/QALY, patients with baseline age ≥ 75 years) to $31 049/QALY (¥4 041 896/QALY, patients with baseline New York Heart Association class III/IV). Deterministic sensitivity analysis result showed that the treatment effect on HHF is the biggest driver of the cost-effectiveness analysis, while the ICER will be still under the threshold even if no effect of empagliflozin on HHF was assumed. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis result showed that 64% of simulations were cost-effective based on the Japanese WTP threshold. Conclusions: Empagliflozin was demonstrated to be cost-effective for patients with HFpEF in Japan based on EMPEROR-Preserved trial data.
Impact of Insurance Status and Region on Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor Prescription During Heart Failure Hospitalizations

Giovanni Davogustto,Quinn S Wells,Frank E Harrell Jr,Stephen J Greene,Dan M Roden,Lynne W Stevenson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2024.02.003

Abstract:Background: An angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) is the preferred renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Among eligible patients, insurance status and prescriber concern regarding out-of-pocket costs may constrain early initiation of ARNI and other new therapies. Objectives: In this study, the authors sought to evaluate the association of insurance and other social determinants of health with ARNI initiation at discharge from HFrEF hospitalization. Methods: The authors analyzed ARNI initiation from January 2017 to June 2020 among patients with HFrEF eligible to receive RAS inhibitor at discharge from hospitals in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry. The primary outcome was the proportion of ARNI prescription at discharge among those prescribed RAS inhibitor who were not on ARNI on admission. A logistic regression model was used to determine the association of insurance status, U.S. region, and their interaction, as well as self-reported race, with ARNI initiation at discharge. Results: From 42,766 admissions, 24,904 were excluded for absolute or relative contraindications to RAS inhibitors. RAS inhibitors were prescribed for 16,817 (94.2%) of remaining discharges, for which ARNI was prescribed in 1,640 (9.8%). Self-reported Black patients were less likely to be initiated on ARNI compared to self-reported White patients (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.50-0.81). Compared to Medicare beneficiaries, patients with third-party insurance, Medicaid, or no insurance were less likely to be initiated on ARNI (OR: 0.47 [95% CI: 0.31-0.72], OR: 0.41 [95% CI: 0.25-0.67], and OR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.08-0.47], respectively). ARNI therapy varied by hospital region, with lowest utilization in the Mountain region. An interaction was demonstrated between the impact of insurance disparities and hospital region. Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized between 2017 and 2020 for HFrEF who were prescribed RAS inhibitor therapy at discharge, insurance status, geographic region, and self-reported race were associated with ARNI initiation.
Cost‐effectiveness of dapagliflozin for patients with heart failure across the spectrum of ejection fraction: A pooled analysis of DAPA‐HF and DELIVER data

Jason A. Davis,David Booth,Phil McEwan,Scott D. Solomon,John J.V. McMurray,Rudolf A. de Boer,Josep Comin‐Colet,Erasmus Bachus,Jieling Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.3197

2024-03-22

European Journal of Heart Failure

Abstract:Cost‐effectiveness of dapagliflozin for patients with heart failure across the spectrum of ejection fraction. Aim To assess the cost‐effectiveness of dapagliflozin in addition to usual care, compared with usual care alone, in a large population of patients with heart failure (HF), spanning the full range of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Methods and results Patient‐level data were pooled from HF trials (DAPA‐HF, DELIVER) to generate a population including HF with reduced, mildly reduced and preserved LVEF, to increase statistical power and enable exploration of interactions among LVEF, renal function and N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide levels, as they are relevant determinants of health status in this population. Survival and HF recurrent event risk equations were derived and applied to a lifetime horizon Markov model with health states defined by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score quartiles; costs and utilities were in the UK setting. The base case incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £6470 per quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) gained, well below the UK willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) threshold of £20 000/QALY gained. In interaction sensitivity analyses, the highest ICER was observed for elderly patients with preserved LVEF (£16 624/QALY gained), and ranged to a region of dominance (increased QALYs, decreased costs) for patients with poorer renal function and reduced/mildly reduced LVEF. Results across the patient characteristic interaction plane were mostly between £5000 and £10 000/QALY gained. Conclusions Dapagliflozin plus usual care, versus usual care alone, yielded results well below the WTP threshold for the UK across a heterogeneous population of patients with HF including the full spectrum of LVEF, and is likely a cost‐effective intervention.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Evaluation of Out-of-Pocket Costs and Treatment Intensification With an SGLT2 Inhibitor or GLP-1 RA in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease

Jing Luo,Robert Feldman,Katherine Callaway Kim,Scott Rothenberger,Mary Korytkowski,Inmaculada Hernandez,Walid F Gellad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.17886

2023-06-01

Abstract:Importance: The latest guidelines continue to recommend sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and established cardiovascular disease (CVD). Despite this, overall use of these 2 drug classes has been suboptimal. Objective: To assess the association of high out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and the initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 RA among adults with T2D and established CVD who are treated with metformin-treated. Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective cohort study used 2017 to 2021 data from the Optum deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. Each individual in the cohort was categorized into quartiles of OOP costs for a 1-month supply of SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 RA based on their health plan assignment. Data were analyzed from April 2021 to October 2022. Exposures: OOP cost for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RA. Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was treatment intensification, defined as a new dispensing (ie, initiation) of either an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 RA, among patients with T2D previously treated with metformin monotherapy. For each drug class separately, Cox proportional hazards models were used to adjust for demographic, clinical, plan, clinician, and laboratory characteristics to estimate the hazard ratios of treatment intensification comparing the highest vs the lowest quartile of OOP costs. Results: Our cohort included 80 807 adult patients (mean [SD] age, 72 [9.5] years, 45 129 [55.8%] male; 71 128 [88%] were insured with Medicare Advantage) with T2D and established CVD on metformin monotherapy. Patients were followed for a median (IQR) of 1080 days (528 to 1337). The mean (SD) of OOP costs in the highest vs lowest quartile was $118 [32] vs $25 [12] for GLP-1 RA, and $91 [25] vs $23 [9] for SGLT2 inhibitors. Compared with patients in plans with the lowest quartile (Q1) of OOP costs, patients in plans with the highest quartile (Q4) of costs were less likely to initiate a GLP-1 RA (adjusted HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.97]) or an SGLT2 inhibitor (adjusted HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73 to 0.88]). The median (IQR) number of days to initiating a GLP-1 RA was 481 (207-820) days in Q1 and 556 (237-917) days in Q4 of OOP costs and 520 (193-876) days in Q1 vs 685 (309-1017) days in Q4 for SGLT2 inhibitors. Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study of more than 80 000 older adults with T2D and established CVD covered by Medicare Advantage and commercial plans, those in the highest quartile of OOP cost were 13% and 20% less likely to initiate a GLP-1 RA or SGLT2 inhibitor, respectively, when compared with those in the lowest quartile of OOP costs.
Could the Inflation Reduction Act Maximum Fair Price Hurt Patients?

Esteban Rivera,Anne M Sydor,Robert Popovian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.26.24309544

2024-06-27

Abstract:The Inflation Reduction Act′s Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program allows the federal government to negotiate caps for select medications. These price caps may reduce revenue for the pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that negotiate the actual price paid for medicines in the US. To offset the resulting pressure on their profit margins, it is possible that PBMs would, in turn, increase patient′s out-of-pocket costs for medicines with capped prices. The model presented here evaluates how such increased out-of-pocket costs for the anticoagulants Eliquis (apixaban) and Xarelto (rivaroxaban) could impact patients financially and clinically. Copay distributions for all 2023 prescription fills for Eliquis and Xarelto managed by the three largest PBMs were used to approximate current copay costs. Increased out-of-pocket costs were modeled as a shift of all Eliquis and Xarelto prescriptions to the highest copay tier. The known linear relationship between copay costs and treatment abandonment was used to calculate the potential resulting increase in treatment abandonment. Known rates of morbidity and mortality due to abandoning anticoagulants were used to estimate resulting increases in morbidity and mortality. If the three largest PBMs all shifted costs onto patients by moving all Eliquis and Xarelto prescriptions to the highest formulary tier, Tier 6, patients′ copay amount would increase by $235 to $482 million for Eliquis and $105 to $206 million for Xarelto. Such an increase could lead to 169,000 to 228,000 patients abandoning Eliquis and 71,000 to 93,000 abandoning Xarelto. The resulting morbidity and mortality could include up to an additional 145,000 major cardiovascular events and up to 97,000 more deaths. The Medicare Price Negotiation Program could impact patients negatively if it causes PBMs to increase patients′ out-of-pocket costs for medicines. Policymakers should closely monitor changes in overall affordability, including all patient out-of-pocket expenditures, for medications in the program. Preemptive measures to ensure that the most vulnerable citizens are not placed in precarious situations leading to poorer health outcomes should be considered.

Health Policy

The Inflation Reduction Act and Patient Costs for Drugs to Treat Heart Failure

Out-of-Pocket Prescription Drug Savings for Medicare Beneficiaries with Asthma and COPD Under the Inflation Reduction Act

Dapagliflozin versus sacubitril–valsartan for heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction

Impact Of Cost Evaluation On Prescriptions Of Heart Failure Therapies

Cause-Specific Healthcare Costs Following Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Cost Offset with SGLT2 Inhibitor Therapy

The Economic Burden of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: Living Longer but Poorer?

Post-approval indications and clinical trials for cardiovascular drugs: some implications of the US Inflation Reduction Act

Comparative value of dapagliflozin vs empagliflozin in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Innovation, affordability, access: Alzheimer disease drugs and the Inflation Reduction Act

Budget Impact Analysis of Dapagliflozin in Treating Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction From the Perspective of Malaysian Public Healthcare System

Cost Offset of Dapagliflozin in the US Medicare Population with Cardio-Kidney Metabolic Syndrome

Public Health Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Empagliflozin (JARDIANCE®) in the Treatment of Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction in France, Based on the EMPEROR-Preserved Clinical Trial

Cost analysis of drugs used in management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and marketed in India

How adoption of new pharmaceuticals can impact US health system reimbursement under alternative payment models: An economic model measuring the impact of sotagliflozin among patients with heart failure and diabetes

Medicare Coverage and Patient Out-Of-Pocket Costs for Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Medications

Cost‐effectiveness of dapagliflozin as a treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a multinational health‐economic analysis of DAPA‐HF

Empagliflozin cost-effectiveness analysis in Japanese heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction

Impact of Insurance Status and Region on Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor Prescription During Heart Failure Hospitalizations

Cost‐effectiveness of dapagliflozin for patients with heart failure across the spectrum of ejection fraction: A pooled analysis of DAPA‐HF and DELIVER data

Evaluation of Out-of-Pocket Costs and Treatment Intensification With an SGLT2 Inhibitor or GLP-1 RA in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease

Could the Inflation Reduction Act Maximum Fair Price Hurt Patients?