Estimated Savings Under the Medicare High-Value Drug List Model

Christopher L. Cai,Aaron S. Kesselheim,Benjamin N. Rome

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.4846

2024-09-23

JAMA Internal Medicine

Abstract:This cross-sectional study describes potential reductions in out-of-pocket costs for generic medications among Medicare beneficiaries.

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Medicare Spending on Brand-name Combination Medications vs Their Generic Constituents

Chana A. Sacks,ChangWon C. Lee,Aaron S. Kesselheim,Jerry Avorn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.11439

IF: 11.816

2018-08-21

JAMA

Abstract:Importance: Brand-name combination drugs can be more expensive than the sum of their components, especially when the constituent products are available as generic medications. The potential savings that could be achieved using generic components is not known.Objective: To estimate the additional cost to Medicare of prescribing brand-name combination medications instead of generic constituents.Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective analysis for 2011 through 2016 using the Medicare data set of Part D beneficiaries prescribed any of the 1500 medications that accounted for the highest total spending in 2015. Brand-name combination drugs that had identical or therapeutically equivalent generic constituents were included.Exposures: Brand-name, oral combination medications with constituents available either as generic drugs or therapeutically equivalent generic substitutes.Main Outcomes and Measures: The estimated difference between the amount spent by Medicare on brand-name combination drugs and the estimated amount that would have been spent on substitutable generic components.Results: Among the 1500 medications evaluated, 29 brand-name combination medications were separated into 3 mutually exclusive categories: constituents available as generic medications at identical doses (n = 20), generic constituents at different doses (n = 3), and therapeutically equivalent generic substitutes (n = 6). For the constituents available as generic medications at identical doses category, total spending by Medicare in 2016 on the brand-name combination products was $303 million and the estimated spending for the generic constituents would have been $68 million, which is an estimated difference of $235 million. For the generic constituents at different doses category, total spending by Medicare in 2016 on the brand-name combination products was $232 million and the estimated spending for the generic constituents would have been $13 million, which is an estimated difference of $219 million. For the therapeutically equivalent generic substitutes category, total spending by Medicare in 2016 on the brand-name combination products was $491 million and the estimated spending for the generic constituents would have been $20 million, which is an estimated difference of $471 million. In 2016, the estimated spending for the generic constituents for these 29 drugs would have been $925 million less than the estimated spending for the brand-name combinations. For the 10 most costly combination products available during the entire study period, the listed Medicare spending could have been an estimated $2.7 billion lower between 2011 and 2016 if the generic constituents had been prescribed.Conclusions and Relevance: In 2016, the difference between the amount that the Medicare drug benefit program reported spending on brand-name combination medications and the estimated spending for generic constituents for the same number of doses was $925 million. Promoting generic substitution and therapeutic interchange through prescriber education and more rational substitution policies may offer important opportunities to achieve substantial savings in the Medicare drug benefit program.
Potential Medicare Savings From Generic Substitution and Therapeutic Interchange of ACE Inhibitors and Angiotensin-II-Receptor Blockers

Matthew E Growdon,Chana A Sacks,Aaron S Kesselheim,Jerry Avorn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.3107

2019-12-01

Abstract:This economic evaluation study estimates the potential Medicare savings from generic substitution and therapeutic interchange of brand-name hypertension medications.
Drug Pricing Stewardship from Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Generic Drug Program

Snigdha Gulati,Mohak Gupta,TingTing Yan,Sneha Yelamanchili,Lucy Qinghua Xu,Tina Bharani,Ali Naji,Divyansh Agarwal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01426-3

2024-08-21

PharmacoEconomics

Abstract:Importance: The exceedingly high US spending per capita on prescription medications is mediated, at least in part, by the inefficiencies of existing generic pharmaceutical distribution and reimbursement systems; yet, the extent of potential savings and areas for targeted interventions for generic drug prescribers remains underexplored. Objective: We aimed to analyze 2021 Medicare Part D spending on generic drugs in comparison with pricing of a low-cost generic drug program, the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC), to gauge the extent of achievable potential savings. Design, setting, and participants: In this retrospective, observational study, we performed a systematic analysis of potential Medicare Part D savings when using MCCPDC generic pricing. The 2023 MCCPDC data, as of August 2023, were obtained from the provider's publicly available database. The 2021 Medicare Part D data and prescriber datasets were obtained from the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Main outcomes and measures: Outcomes included total prescription volume, proportion of drugs with savings, total US dollar Medicare savings, and average weighted price reduction per unit drug. Results were stratified by medical and surgical subspecialties to identify areas for targeted interventions. Subspecialty-wise contribution to total savings versus contribution to total prescription volume was characterized. Results: Total estimated Medicare Part D savings were $8.6 billion using 90-day MCCPDC pricing, with surgical drugs accounting for over $900 million. Nearly 80% of the examined drugs were more price effective through MCCPDC using 90-day supply. Commonly prescribed drugs in cardiology, psychiatry, neurology, transplant surgery, and urology demonstrated the highest estimated absolute savings. The most disproportionate savings relative to prescription volume were observed for drugs in oncology, gynecology, infectious disease, transplant surgery, and colorectal surgery. Conclusions and relevance: This study underscores the significant potential for Medicare Part D savings through strategies that address the systemic overpayment for generic medications. We identified key areas for reform as well as specific medical and surgical subspecialties where targeted interventions could yield substantial savings.
Estimating Rebates and Other Discounts Received by Medicare Part D

William B Feldman,Benjamin N Rome,Véronique C Raimond,Joshua J Gagne,Aaron S Kesselheim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.0626

2021-06-04

JAMA Health Forum

Abstract:Importance: Spending in Medicare Part D continues to increase. Yet, studies of Medicare Part D are plagued by a common limitation: none can fully account for confidential rebates and other discounts that drug manufacturers and pharmacies pay to Medicare Part D plans. Objectives: To review existing methods and to propose an approach for estimating rebates and other discounts received by Medicare Part D. Evidence review: Publicly available data from the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, and the Office of Inspector General. Findings: Existing methods for estimating rebates and other discounts in Medicare Part D have several limitations. This analysis used an approach that aims to improve on those methods. Based on this approach, estimated discounts on brand-name drugs increased in Medicare Part D from 25.4% of gross brand-name spending in 2014 to 37.3% in 2018. There was substantial variation between classes, with estimated 2016 discounts surpassing 50% for some drugs (eg, ophthalmologic and gastrointestinal tract agents) while remaining below 10% for others (eg, antineoplastic and immunologic agents). Between 2014 and 2018, estimated net Medicare Part D spending on prescription drugs increased by 21% from $99 billion to $119 billion. With increasing enrollment, estimated annual net spending per beneficiary remained stable, increasing by just 3% from $2622 to $2694, which was below the 6% rate of inflation during the same period. Conclusions and relevance: Models that fail to properly account for increasing rebates and other discounts will overestimate Medicare Part D expenditures. Rigorous and transparent methods for estimating discounts are critical for understanding patterns in spending and developing new cost-containment strategies.
Potential cost savings from generic medicines—protecting the Prescribed Minimum Benefits

E Nicolosi,A Gray

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20786204.2009.10873809

2009-01-01

South African Family Practice

Abstract:Background: South Africa has followed a pro-generic policy since the introduction of the National Drug Policy in 1996. The selection processes in the public and private sectors have, however, remained largely disconnected, and at times contradictory. Medicines provided outside of hospitals accounted for 17% of medical aid spend in 2006, up 8.8% from the previous year. Of particular concern to funders has been the expenditure on the 27 chronic conditions listed as Prescribed Minimum Benefits. The Medical Schemes Act (No 131 of 1998) provides for the definition of Prescribed Minimum Benefits, which stipulate a package of services or care a medical scheme must provide for in its benefit design. There is pressure to reconsider these requirements in order to increase the affordability of medical scheme coverage. This study assessed the potential savings that would be achievable by substituting generics for brand name (originator) medicines listed in the chronic disease algorithms set out by the Council for Medical Schemes (CMS). Methods: All medicines listed in the 25 chronic diseases algorithms made available by the CMS were identified. Brand and generic versions were identified in the Monthly Index of Medical Specialties (MIMS, May 2006). Single exit prices inclusive of value added tax were obtained from the web site of the Pharmaceutical Blue Book and the cost per defined daily dose for one month was then calculated. Cost differentials, where available, were then identified for each medicine listed in the algorithms. Cost differentials for medicines within each algorithm were presented as the median of the difference between brand and generic medicines listed for that algorithm, and also as the median of differences between generic medicines for the same condition. Results: Three of the algorithms (diabetes insipidus, haemophilia and hypothyroidism) list medicines for which no generic equivalent was available at the time of the study. The median cost differential between brand and generic equivalents for the remaining 22 chronic conditions ranged from 19.5% (for type 1 diabetes mellitus) to 97% (for Addison's disease). Across the entire chronic disease algorithm set, 80 medicines with generic equivalents were listed for 22 conditions. The median cost differential between brand and generic versions of these 80 medicines was 49.9% (interquartile range 32.0 to 78.5%). Of all generic medicines identified, 67.5% were more than 40% cheaper, per defined daily dose (DDD) per month, than the branded version. In 16 medicines the cost differentials between generic versions were 1% or less. Some correlation between the number of generics and the size of the cost differential was apparent (correlation coefficient 0.49). There were examples of high-cost differentials in highly competitive areas of the market. Conclusions: An argument could be made for more closely aligning the process of developing the National Essential Drugs List and the development of the CMS algorithms. By being more specific about which medicines should be covered, needless expenditure on “me-too” agents of doubtful additional benefit could be avoided. Where clinically warranted, appropriate choices could be provided. Finality in respect of the pricing of medicines needs to be achieved. This applies not only to the dispensing fee but also to the proposed benchmarking process and the proposed differential between brand and generic medicines.
The Impact of International Pricing Index Models on Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Drug Costs in the United States

Stephanie Choi,Evan M Chen,Dinah Chen,Jayanth Sridhar,Ravi Parikh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2021.1903514

2022-01-02

Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the impact of three international pricing index models on Medicare Part B spending for intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs Design: Cost analysis Methods: U.S. and international sales data from the Multinational Integrated Data Analysis (MIDAS) database was used with data from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to calculate Medicare Part B spending on anti-VEGF drugs Main Outcome: Medicare Part B expenditures of anti-VEGF drugs under various international pricing index models Results: Total Medicare Part B savings was greatest (75%) under the "most favored nation" proposal to peg the U.S. price to the lowest international price. Under the "most favored nation" proposal, prices of aflibercept are reduced from $1825.80 to $507.17, bevacizumab from $74.39 to $27.55, and ranibizumab (3 units or 0.3mg) from $1057.08 to $99.72. Conclusion: International pricing index models are one of many pricing strategies that could lead to savings in Medicare Part B costs.
Potential Medicare Part D Savings on Ophthalmic Generic Drugs

David A. Collet,Matthew B. Urban,Abha Amin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2024.1717

IF: 8.253

2024-07-19

JAMA Ophthalmology

Abstract:This economic evaluation assesses potential Medicare Part D savings on ophthalmic generic drugs if discount coupon prices are used.

ophthalmology
Potential impact of pharmacist interventions to reduce cost for Medicare Part D beneficiaries

Erin E Thatcher,Elizabeth M Vanwert,Steven R Erickson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0897190012465983

Abstract:The objective was to determine the impact of simulated pharmacist interventions on out-of-pocket cost, time to coverage gap, and cost per patient to the Medicare Part D program using actual patient cases from an adult general medicine clinic. Medication profiles of 100 randomly selected Medicare-eligible patients from a university-affiliated general internal medicine clinic were reviewed by a pharmacist to identify opportunities to cost-maximize the patients' therapies based on the plan. An online Part-D calculator, Aetna Medicare Rx Essentials, was used as the standard plan to determine medication cost and time to gap. The primary analysis was comparison of the patients' pre-review and post-review out-of-pocket cost, time to coverage gap, and cost to Medicare. A total of 65 patients had at least 1 simulated pharmacist cost intervention. The most common intervention was substituting for a less costly generic, followed by substituting a generic for a brand name. Projected patient cost savings was $476 per year. The average time to coverage gap was increased by 0.7 ±1.2 months. This study illustrates that the pharmacists may be able to reduce cost to some patients as well as to the Medicare Part D program.
The Influence of Medicare Part D on the List Pricing of Brand Drugs

Benedic N. Ippolito,Joseph F. Levy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14139

2023-02-04

Health Services Research

Abstract:Objective To compare the Medicare Part D market share of brand drugs with their net‐to‐list price ratio. Data Sources and Study Setting SSR Health Brand Net Price Tool and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2007‐2019. Study Design For each drug, we calculated the ratio of net to list price and the percent of users that were Medicare‐eligible. We compared these cross sectionally in each year and estimated a difference‐in‐differences model comparing drugs with high or low Medicare market shares (MMS) after following changes to program incentives in 2010. Data Collection/Extraction Methods The sample included brand drugs without generic competitors appearing in both data sets. Principal Findings Net‐to‐list price ratios were negatively correlated with MMS in the later years of our sample. In 2019, a 10% increase in MMS was associated with a significant 4.6% [95% CI:2.1%,7.1%] decrease in net‐to‐list ratio. Difference‐in‐differences showed net to list price ratios of drugs with above median MMS fell relative to those with below median MMS. By 2019, we observe an absolute reduction of ‐0.2 [95% CI:‐0.29,‐0.11], representing 28% reduction relative to the average ratio in 2010. Conclusions Greater exposure to the Medicare Part D market was associated with larger differences between net and list prices of drugs.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Estimates of Medicaid and Non-Medicaid Net Prices of Top-Selling Brand-name Drugs Incorporating Best Price Rebates, 2015 to 2019

Lisa Clemans-Cope,Marni Epstein,Jessica Banthin,Aaron S Kesselheim,Thomas J Hwang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.5012

2023-01-06

JAMA Health Forum

Abstract:Importance: The US spends far more on brand-name prescription drugs than other comparable countries. However, studies of prescription drug spending in the US are often limited because there can be substantial differences in the confidential rebates that drug manufacturers pay to Medicaid vs other payers. Objectives: To demonstrate an approach for improved estimation of Medicaid rebates through case studies of 18 top-selling drugs to better understand trends in net Medicaid and non-Medicaid spending and prices for brand-name drugs. Design, settings, and participants: This was a cross-sectional study of US pricing data from 2015 to 2019 derived from Medicaid State Drug Utilization data SSR Health, Medi-Span, the Federal Supply Schedule, and IQVIA. Pricing data for 18 top-selling brand-name drugs measured consistently in both SSR Health, which captures US sales reported by publicly traded companies, and IQVIA's top US prescription drugs by nondiscounted spending in 2015 to 2019. Data were accessed and analyzed from January 2019 to June 2021. Main outcomes and measures: Gross and net Medicaid and non-Medicaid drug spending for the sample of 18 drugs and prices corresponding to a 30-day supply of medication. Results: Medicaid aggregate gross spending for the 18 drugs in the sample increased 173%, from $3.6 billion in 2015 to $9.9 billion in 2019, and estimated net spending after discounts increased by 119%, from $1.4 billion to $3.0 billion. Medicaid inflation-linked rebates reduced average gross price per 30-day supply by an estimated 43% in 2019, and up to 67% for individual drugs. In addition to the basic rebate, the best price provision reduced the average gross price per 30-day supply by an estimated 3% in 2019 and up to 54% for individual drugs. Between 2015 and 2019 across all study drugs, estimated average non-Medicaid net 30-day prices were between 1.9 and 2.6 times higher than Medicaid net prices. Excluding adalimumab-a spending anomaly because of the entry of a new high-cost formulation-net prices weighted by average gross spending decreased annually by 1% from 2015 through 2019 for Medicaid, while increasing by 2% for non-Medicaid payers. Conclusions and relevance: In this cross-sectional study of 18 top-selling brand-name drugs, excluding 1 anomaly, Medicaid average net prices declined from 2015 to 2019. Simultaneously, for non-Medicaid payers, net price increased more than previously published marketwide growth rates, raising the importance of restraining drug price growth in non-Medicaid markets. Rigorous and transparent methods to estimate Medicaid discounts are imperative to understand patterns in Medicaid and non-Medicaid prices and develop policies that better align drug prices with clinical benefits.
Cost-lowering strategies used by medicare beneficiaries who exceed drug benefit caps and have a gap in drug coverage

Chien-Wen Tseng,Robert H Brook,Emmett Keeler,W Neil Steers,Carol M Mangione

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.8.952

IF: 11.816

2004-08-25

JAMA

Abstract:Context: The majority of Medicare drug benefits in managed care (Medicare + Choice) have annual dollar limits or caps and many beneficiaries face temporary but potentially significant gaps in coverage after exceeding caps before the end of the year. In the new national Medicare drug benefit, beneficiaries with high medication expenditures will also face a period without drug coverage when their total drug costs exceed annual caps but are not high enough to qualify for catastrophic coverage. Objective: To describe strategies adopted by beneficiaries exceeding annual drug benefit caps to lower prescription costs, the type of medications involved, and their financial burden. Design, setting, and participants: A survey (completed in 2002) of Medicare + Choice beneficiaries aged 65 years and older with high medication costs and benefits capped on the plan's share of drug costs (65% response rate). The different caps offered in different counties were used as a natural experiment. Study participants (n = 665) exceeded a 750 dollars or 1200 dollars yearly cap in 2001 and had coverage gaps of 75 to 180 days. Control participants (n = 643) had 2000 dollars caps, which they did not exceed. Study and control participants were matched by average total drug expenditures per month. Main outcome measures: Proportion of beneficiaries reporting specific strategies to decrease medication costs, medications affected, and difficulty paying for prescriptions. Results: In multivariate analyses adjusting for demographic and health characteristics, a higher proportion of patients exceeding caps reported using less prescribed medication than controls (18% vs 10%, respectively; P<.001), but similar proportions reported stopping medications completely (8% for both, P =.86) and of not starting prescribed medications (6% vs 5%, P =.39). Patients exceeding caps more often called pharmacies to find the best price (46% vs 29%, P<.001), switched medications (15% vs 9%, P =.002), used samples (34% vs 27%, P =.006), and had difficulty paying for prescriptions (62% vs 37%, P<.001). Twelve of the 20 therapeutic classes most often affected by decreases in use of medication were for chronic health problems such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and emphysema or asthma. Conclusions: Medicare beneficiaries often decreased use of essential medications and experienced difficulty paying for prescriptions during gaps in coverage. Health professionals need to explore how they can lessen the impact of caps on patients' health and financial burden.
Variation in generic dispensing rates in Medicare Part D

Christine Buttorff,Yifan Xu,Geoffrey Joyce

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37765/ajmc.2020.88530

2020-11-01

Abstract:Objectives: The use of generics in Medicare Part D generates cost savings for plan sponsors, beneficiaries, and the federal government. However, there is considerable variation in generic use across plans, even within a therapeutic class. Our objective is to understand the extent of variation in generic use in Part D and to understand factors associated with generic use. Study design: We used an observational study design using Medicare Part D claims from 2006 to 2016. Methods: We used descriptive statistics and regression analysis to examine the variation in generic and brand use across plans and the extent to which patient, plan, and area characteristics are associated with the choice of medication within a therapeutic class. Results: Although generic use has increased markedly over time in Part D, substantial variation across plans persists in a number of common therapeutic classes. Beneficiary characteristics such as gender and health status are associated with higher/lower generic use, as are plan characteristics such as plan type (stand-alone prescription drug plan or Medicare Advantage), premium, and parent company. Conclusions: Because we cannot study the impact of brand-name drug rebates on generic use, we can study the variation in generic use across Part D plans as an indirect way to assess pharmacy benefit manager and plan incentives. We find circumstantial evidence that, in certain classes, rebates may play a role in influencing brand over generic use, although the exact relationship is unknowable given the proprietary nature of rebates.
Out-of-Pocket Prescription Drug Costs for Adults with Cardiovascular Risk Factors Under Amazon's Direct-to-Consumer Pharmacy Service

D. August Oddleifson,Zhaonian Zheng,Rishi K. Wadhera

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2024.02.004

IF: 5.099

2024-02-17

American Heart Journal

Abstract:Background US adults often overpay for generic prescription medications, which can lead to medication nonadherence that negatively impacts cardiovascular outcomes. As a result, new direct-to-consumer online medication services are growing in popularity nationwide. Amazon recently launched a $5/month direct-to-consumer medication subscription service (Amazon RxPass), but it is unclear how many US adults could save on out-of-pocket drug costs by using this new service. Objectives To estimate out-of-pocket savings on generic prescription medications achievable through Amazon's new direct-to-consumer subscription medication service for adults with cardiovascular risk factors and/or conditions. Methods Cross-sectional study of adults 18-64 years in the 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Results Of the 25,280,517 (SE ±934,809) adults aged 18-64 years with cardiovascular risk factors or conditions who were prescribed at least one medication available in the Amazon RxPass formulary, only 6.4% (1,624,587 [SE±68,571]) would achieve savings. Among those achieving savings, the estimated average out-of-pocket savings would be 15.8) per person per year, amounting to a total savings of 26,117,241). In multivariable regression models, lack of insurance coverage (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.5, 95% CI 1.9 to 6.5) and being prescribed a greater number of RxPass-eligible medications (2-3 medications versus 1 medication: OR 5.6, 95% CI 3.0 to 10.3; 4+ medications: OR 21.8, 95% CI 10.7 to 44.3) were each associated with a higher likelihood of achieving out-of-pocket savings from RxPass. Conclusions Changes to the pricing structure of Amazon's direct-to-consumer medication service are needed to expand out-of-pocket savings on generic medications to a larger segment of the working-age adults with cardiovascular risk factors and/or diseases.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Association between changes in prices and out‐of‐pocket costs for brand‐name clinician‐administered drugs

Hussain S. Lalani,Massimilano Russo,Rishi J. Desai,Aaron S. Kesselheim,Benjamin N. Rome

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14279

2024-01-23

Health Services Research

Abstract:Objective To determine whether annual changes in prices for clinician‐administered drugs are associated with changes in patient out‐of‐pocket costs. Data Sources and Study Setting National commercial claims database, 2009 to 2018. Study Design In a serial, cross‐sectional study, we calculated the annual percent change in manufacturer list prices and net prices after rebates. We used two‐part generalized linear models to assess the relationship between annual changes in price with (1) the percentage of individuals incurring any out‐of‐pocket costs and (2) the percent change in median non‐zero out‐of‐pocket costs. Data Collection/Extraction Methods We created annual cohorts of privately insured individuals who used one of 52 brand‐name clinician‐administered drugs. Principal Findings List prices increased 4.4%/yr (interquartile range [IQR], 1.1% to 6.0%) and net prices 3.3%/yr (IQR, 0.3% to 5.5%). The median percentage of patients with any out‐of‐pocket costs increased from 38% in 2009 to 48% in 2018, and median non‐zero annual out‐of‐pocket costs increased by 9.6%/yr (IQR, 4.1% to 15.4%). There was no association between changes in prices and out‐of‐pocket costs for individual drugs. Conclusions From 2009 to 2018, prices and out‐of‐pocket costs for brand‐name clinician‐administered drugs increased, but these were not directly related for individual drugs. This may be due to changes to insurance benefit design and private insurer drug reimbursement rates.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
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
A Cost Analysis of Medications Prescribed by Vascular Surgeons

Shourya Verma,Hayden R. Wood,Huiting Chen,Jordan K. Knepper,Judith C. Lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2024.08.022

IF: 4.86

2024-08-27

Journal of Vascular Surgery

Abstract:CONCLUSIONS: Cost Plus Drugs shows a strong potential for cost-savings for patients commonly prescribed medications by vascular surgeons. As a specialty which provides long-term care and establishes long-term relationships with its patients, vascular surgeons have the unique ability to impact their overall health in a meaningful way by limiting the financial burdens associated with vascular-based medication acquisition and utilization.

surgery,peripheral vascular disease
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
Medicare beneficiaries' out-of-pocket costs for commonly used generic drugs, 2009-2017

Patrick Liu,Sanket S Dhruva,Nilay D Shah,Joseph S Ross

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37765/ajmc.2020.42635

Abstract:Objectives: To examine differences in the out-of-pocket costs for common generic drugs used to treat chronic conditions when individuals used their Medicare prescription drug plan (PDP) or when purchased through Walmart's generic drug discount programs (GDDPs) from 2009 to 2017. Study design: A retrospective analysis of Medicare PDP Formulary files and Walmart's GDDP retail drug lists from 2009 to 2017. Methods: We identified all generic drugs used to treat chronic conditions that were on Walmart's GDDP retail drug list from 2009 to 2017. We then determined the out-of-pocket costs for each drug for each Medicare PDP and compared those costs with Walmart's GDDP cash price. Results: There were 62 and 43 generic medications used to treat common chronic diseases available through Walmart's GDDP in 2009 and 2017, respectively. Across all PDPs, the median beneficiary out-of-pocket expenditure for a 30-day supply of the GDDP-available medications for chronic diseases decreased from $5.70 (interquartile range [IQR], $2.55-$7.98) in 2009 to $2.00 (IQR, $0.00-$4.00) in 2017 (P <.001) Approximately three-fifths (60.2%) of PDPs required beneficiaries to pay out-of-pocket costs higher than those of Walmart's GDDP in 2009, but only one-third (33.4%) did so in 2017. Conclusions: Although Medicare beneficiary out-of-pocket costs for commonly used generic drug prescriptions generally decreased over time, Medicare beneficiaries may still be paying more for the same drugs than they would through Walmart's GDDP. Increased generic drug price transparency, including enforcing bans on gag clauses, is needed to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries obtain drugs using the most affordable options.
Assessment of the utilization of real-time prescription benefits for patient cost savings within an outpatient setting

Rachel Reise,Asinamai M Ndai,Marvin A Dewar,Anzeela M Schentrup,Julia Yang,Scott Martin Vouri

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcsop.2024.100460

2024-06-05

Abstract:Background: This study evaluates the impact of Real-Time Prescription Benefits (RTPB), a tool integrated into electronic health records (EHRs), on patient out-of-pocket costs in an academic institution. RTPB provides prescribers with alternative, less expensive medications based on insurance plans. The primary measure was cost-savings, defined as the difference between the out-of-pocket cost of the prescribed medication and its alternative. Methods: A retrospective analysis of prescriptions from outpatient clinics in a university-based health system was conducted between May 2020 and July 2021. Prescriptions were analyzed at the 2nd level of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system. Costs were standardized to a 30-day supply. Standardized cost and total cost per prescription, and overall savings for the top 20 medication classes at the 2nd ATC level were calculated. The overall impact of RTPB was estimated based on selecting the least expensive alternative suggested by RTPB. Results: The study found that RTPB information was provided for 22% of prescriptions, with suggested alternatives for 1.26%. Among prescriptions with an alternative selected, the standardized average cost saving was $38.83. The study realized $15,416 in patient total cost savings. If the least expensive RTPB-suggested alternative were chosen for all prescriptions, an estimated $276,386 could have been saved. Psychoanaleptic and psycholeptic medications were the most prescribed with an alternative, with most savings in specialty drugs like anthelmintic and immunostimulant medications. Conclusion: The study highlights the importance of RTPB in reducing patient costs. It reports patient cost-savings with RTPB in prescribing decisions. Future research could explore the impact of RTPB on medication adherence using pharmacy claims data.
Drugs anticipated to be selected for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program in 2025

Emma M Cousin,Sean D Sullivan,Ryan N Hansen,Nico Gabriel,Ayuri S Kirihennedige,Inmaculada Hernandez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2024.24167

Abstract:Background: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced the Maximum Fair Price for the first 10 Medicare Part D drugs selected for price negotiation. By February 2025, CMS should announce the list of Part D drugs to be negotiated with implementation of the negotiated prices in 2027. Objective: To identify up to 15 Medicare Part D single-source drugs anticipated to be selected by CMS for price negotiation in 2025. Methods: We followed selection criteria identified in the Inflation Reduction Act and CMS guidance to identify drugs. We projected 2023 Part D gross spending using 2020-2022 data reported by CMS and linear prediction models. We ranked products according to the projected spending figure and identified those not eligible for selection because of (1) number of years since approval, (2) availability of a biosimilar or generic version, (3) approval for a single orphan indication, (4) whole human blood or plasma-derived, or (5) eligibility for the small biotech exception. Results: We identified 13 products likely subject to Medicare drug price negotiation, including 4 anticancer therapies, 3 noninsulin antidiabetic products, 2 inhalers, 1 antifibrotic therapy, 1 gastrointestinal agent, 1 enzyme replacement therapy, and 1 product indicated for dyskinesia. These 13 products each had projected annual gross Part D spending more than $1 billion. We identified 7 additional products with uncertainty to complete the list of 15, including an insulin, an antiviral, an antibiotic, an immunologic agent, an antidiabetic, and 2 cancer drugs. These products had projected gross Part D spending between $877 million and $1.399 billion. Twenty-two products with comparable levels of spending were deemed ineligible for selection because of availability of a generic or biosimilar version (10 products), insufficient years since approval (8 products), eligibility for the small biotech exception (3 products), and expected market discontinuation (1 product). Conclusions: Our identification of products anticipated to be selected for negotiation in 2025 (with implementation of negotiated prices in 2027) will help inform manufacturers, payers, patients, and policymakers of the products that will likely see a decrease in Medicare drug prices as result of negotiation. We identified 22 products with levels of spending that are comparable with those anticipated to be selected for negotiation but are not eligible, primarily because of generic or biosimilar availability or insufficient time on market.

Estimated Savings Under the Medicare High-Value Drug List Model

Medicare Spending on Brand-name Combination Medications vs Their Generic Constituents

Potential Medicare Savings From Generic Substitution and Therapeutic Interchange of ACE Inhibitors and Angiotensin-II-Receptor Blockers

Drug Pricing Stewardship from Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Generic Drug Program

Estimating Rebates and Other Discounts Received by Medicare Part D

Potential cost savings from generic medicines—protecting the Prescribed Minimum Benefits

The Impact of International Pricing Index Models on Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Drug Costs in the United States

Potential Medicare Part D Savings on Ophthalmic Generic Drugs

Potential impact of pharmacist interventions to reduce cost for Medicare Part D beneficiaries

The Influence of Medicare Part D on the List Pricing of Brand Drugs

Estimates of Medicaid and Non-Medicaid Net Prices of Top-Selling Brand-name Drugs Incorporating Best Price Rebates, 2015 to 2019

Cost-lowering strategies used by medicare beneficiaries who exceed drug benefit caps and have a gap in drug coverage

Variation in generic dispensing rates in Medicare Part D

Out-of-Pocket Prescription Drug Costs for Adults with Cardiovascular Risk Factors Under Amazon's Direct-to-Consumer Pharmacy Service

Association between changes in prices and out‐of‐pocket costs for brand‐name clinician‐administered drugs

Impact Of Cost Evaluation On Prescriptions Of Heart Failure Therapies

A Cost Analysis of Medications Prescribed by Vascular Surgeons

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

Medicare beneficiaries' out-of-pocket costs for commonly used generic drugs, 2009-2017

Assessment of the utilization of real-time prescription benefits for patient cost savings within an outpatient setting

Drugs anticipated to be selected for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program in 2025