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.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Clinical Outcome and Medical Cost of Originator and Generic Antihypertensive Drugs: A Population-Based Study in Yinzhou, China

Tao Huang,Lin Bai,Haishaerjiang Wushouer,Zhiyuan Wang,Mingchun Yang,Hongbo Lin,Peng Shen,Xiaodong Guan,Luwen Shi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.757398

IF: 5.6

2022-01-01

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:Background: The substitution of generic drugs can effectively alleviate the rapid growth of drug costs; however, the clinical effectiveness and medical costs of originator products and generics were barely studied in China.Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs and hypertension-related medical costs between originator and generic initiators in Yinzhou, China.Methods: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using the Chinese Electronic Health Records Research in Yinzhou (CHERRY), from July 1, 2011, to December 31, 2018. Hypertension patients initiating with originator products were compared with patients initiating with generic counterparts. We used 1:1 propensity score matching to pair the two groups based on sociodemographic, clinical, and health service utilization variables. Cox proportional regression was adopted to compare the rate of hospitalization for hypertension-related cardiovascular disease between matched originator and generic initiators. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test was used to compare annual hypertension-related medical costs.Results: Matched pairs (10,535) of patients were included in the comparative study of originator products and generics, corresponding to seven antihypertensive drugs including amlodipine, felodipine, nifedipine, irbesartan, losartan, valsartan, and metoprolol. The average age of patients included in the analysis was around 60 years (originator vs. generics initiators: from 59.0 vs. 59.1 years in losartan to 62.9 vs. 63.6 years in nifedipine). Higher hospitalization rates among originator initiators were observed for three calcium channel blockers (hazard ratio[95% CI]: amlodipine, 3.18[1.43, 7.11]; felodipine, 3.60[1.63, 7.98]; and nifedipine, 3.86[1.26, 11.81]; respectively). The remaining four out of seven drugs of the clinical endpoint estimates showed comparable outcomes between originator products and generics (hazard ratio[95% CI]: irbesartan, 1.19[0.50, 2.84]; losartan, 1.84[0.84, 4.07]; valsartan, 2.04[0.72, 5.78]; and metoprolol, 1.25[0.56, 2.80]; respectively). Higher median annual hypertension-related medical costs were observed in originator initiators (all p < 0.001), except for metoprolol (p = 0.646).Conclusion: We observed comparable or even better clinical outcomes and less medical cost associated with the use of antihypertensive generics compared to originator counterparts. This could help increase patient and provider confidence in the efficacy of generic medicines to manage hypertension diseases.
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.
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
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
Economic Impact of Switching from Valsartan to Other Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in Patients with Hypertension.

J. Signorovitch,J. Zhang,E. Q. Wu,D. Latremouille-Viau,A. P. Yu,H. Dastani,K. H. Kahler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1098-3015(10)72782-0

IF: 5.156

2010-01-01

Value in Health

Abstract:The approaching availability of lower-cost generic angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may affect formulary policies for patients maintained on the ARB valsartan.Estimate the economic impact of switching from valsartan (including valsartan-based single-pill combinations) to other ARBs without apparent medical reasons.Patients with essential hypertension and at least 6 months of continuous valsartan treatment free of hospitalization, cardiovascular events, renal events or ARB-associated adverse events were identified from the MarketScan administrative claims database from January 1, 2004 to March 31, 2008. Those who subsequently switched to a different ARB with at least a 5% copayment decrease (switchers) were matched to those who did not switch (maintainers) according to propensity score quintiles and selected baseline characteristics. Refills were not required after the index fill for the switched-to ARB or maintained valsartan. Matched switchers and maintainers were compared in terms of medication discontinuation, healthcare resource use and costs during the 6 months following the index fill.A total of 99 926 valsartan maintainers and 2150 switchers (with a mean copayment decrease of $16.5 per month) were identified and matched. After matching, switching from versus maintaining valsartan was associated with an 8% higher risk of medication discontinuation (p < 0.008), 19.1 additional outpatient visits/100 patients (p = 0.002) and 9.3 additional hypertension-related inpatient days/100 patients (p = 0.030). Concurrently, switching from versus maintaining valsartan was associated with higher total medical costs by $748/patient (p < 0.001), driven largely by higher costs for hypertension-related medical services by $492/patient (p = 0.004).Exact reasons for switching were not available and the study assessed only the short-term impacts of switching.Hypertension patients maintained on valsartan who switched to a different ARB with a lower copayment experienced substantial increases in medication discontinuation, healthcare resource use and costs compared to those who maintained valsartan treatment.
Comparative effectiveness of generic and brand-name medication use: A database study of US health insurance claims

Rishi J. Desai,Ameet Sarpatwari,Sara Dejene,Nazleen F. Khan,Joyce Lii,James R. Rogers,Sarah K. Dutcher,Saeid Raofi,Justin Bohn,John G. Connolly,Michael A. Fischer,Aaron S. Kesselheim,Joshua J. Gagne

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002763

2019-03-13

PLoS Medicine

Abstract:<div><p>by Rishi J. Desai, Ameet Sarpatwari, Sara Dejene, Nazleen F. Khan, Joyce Lii, James R. Rogers, Sarah K. Dutcher, Saeid Raofi, Justin Bohn, John G. Connolly, Michael A. Fischer, Aaron S. Kesselheim, Joshua J. Gagne</p>Background <p>To the extent that outcomes are mediated through negative perceptions of generics (the nocebo effect), observational studies comparing brand-name and generic drugs are susceptible to bias favoring the brand-name drugs. We used authorized generic (AG) products, which are identical in composition and appearance to brand-name products but are marketed as generics, as a control group to address this bias in an evaluation aiming to compare the effectiveness of generic versus brand medications.</p> Methods and findings <p>For commercial health insurance enrollees from the US, administrative claims data were derived from 2 databases: (1) Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (years: 2004–2013) and (2) Truven MarketScan (years: 2003–2015). For a total of 8 drug products, the following groups were compared using a cohort study design: (1) patients switching from brand-name products to AGs versus generics, and patients initiating treatment with AGs versus generics, where AG use proxied brand-name use, addressing negative perception bias, and (2) patients initiating generic versus brand-name products (bias-prone direct comparison) and patients initiating AG versus brand-name products (negative control). Using Cox proportional hazards regression after 1:1 propensity-score matching, we compared a composite cardiovascular endpoint (for amlodipine, amlodipine-benazepril, and quinapril), non-vertebral fracture (for alendronate and calcitonin), psychiatric hospitalization rate (for sertraline and escitalopram), and insulin initiation (for glipizide) between the groups. Inverse variance meta-analytic methods were used to pool adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for each comparison between the 2 databases. Across 8 products, 2,264,774 matched pairs of patients were included in the comparisons of AGs versus generics. A majority (12 out of 16) of the clinical endpoint estimates showed similar outcomes between AGs and generics. Among the other 4 estimates that did have significantly different outcomes, 3 suggested improved outcomes with generics and 1 favored AGs (patients switching from amlodipine brand-name: HR [95% CI] 0.92 [0.88–0.97]). The comparison between generic and brand-name initiators involved 1,313,161 matched pairs, and no differences in outcomes were noted for alendronate, calcitonin, glipizide, or quinapril. We observed a lower risk of the composite cardiovascular endpoint with generics versus brand-name products for amlodipine and amlodipine-benazepril (HR [95% CI]: 0.91 [0.84–0.99] and 0.84 [0.76–0.94], respectively). For escitalopram and sertraline, we observed higher rates of psychiatric hospitalizations with generics (HR [95% CI]: 1.05 [1.01–1.10] and 1.07 [1.01–1.14], respectively). The negative control comparisons also indicated potentially higher rates of similar magnitude with AG compared to brand-name initiation for escitalopram and sertraline (HR [95% CI]: 1.06 [0.98–1.13] and 1.11 [1.05–1.18], respectively), suggesting that the differences observed between brand and generic users in these outcomes are likely explained by either residual confounding or generic perception bias. Limitations of this study include potential residual confounding due to the unavailability of certain clinical parameters in administrative claims data and the inability to evaluate surrogate outcomes, such as immediate changes in blood pressure, upon switching from brand products to generics.</p> Conclusions <p>In this study, we observed that use of generics was associated with comparable clinical outcomes to use of brand-name products. These results could help in promoting educational interventions aimed at increasing patient and provider confidence in the ability of generic medicines to manage chronic diseases.</p></div>

medicine, general & internal
Economic Impact of Therapeutic Substitution of a Brand Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor with an Alternative Generic Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder

Eric Q. Wu,Andrew P. Yu,Veronique Lauzon,Karthik Ramakrishnan,Maryna Marynchenko,Rym Ben-Hamadi,Steven Blum,M. Haim Erder

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.1p482

2011-01-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND: To reduce pharmacy costs, managed care organizations encourage therapeutic substitution from brand to a generic product. However, little is known about whether these cost-containment strategies can also potentially lower total expenditures for payers in treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD).OBJECTIVE: To compare economic outcomes of patients with MDD who were switched from a brand selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) to an alternative generic SSRI for nonmedical reasons versus patients who continued on the brand SSRI.METHODS: Adult MDD patients in the Ingenix Impact Database (2003-2007) were considered "switchers" if they received treatment with a brand SSRI and were later switched to an alternative generic SSRI for nonmedical reasons. Patients who remained on the brand SSRI (nonswitchers) were matched 1:1 with switchers. All-cause, mental health-related, and MDD-related rates of hospitalizations/emergency department (ED) visits and costs over 6 months were compared both descriptively and by using adjusted regression models. A subgroup analysis on patients who were switched from escitalopram (Lexapro) to an alternative generic SSRI was also performed.RESULTS: The study included 4449 matched pairs. Compared with nonswitchers, switchers had higher risk of all-cause, mental health related, and MDD-related use of hospitalizations/ED visits (OR 1.15, 1.34, and 1.54, respectively; all p < 0.01) and higher risk-adjusted mental health related and MDD-related medical costs ($219 and $222, respectively; both p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis on escitalopram showed similar results; switchers experienced higher risk of any-cause, mental health related, and MDD-related use of hospitalizations/ED visits (OR 1.21, 1.41, and 1.53, respectively; all p < 0.01) and higher risk-adjusted MDD-related medical costs ($151; p < 0.05).CONCLUSIONS: Compared with patients who continued on their patented SSRIs, patients who switched to a generic SSRI incurred more resource use of hospitalizations/ED visits and higher MDD-related health-care costs. The effects of therapeutic substitution should be carefully examined, because use of generic alternatives may not be a cost-saving strategy when total health-care costs are considered.
How much could be saved in Chinese hospitals in procurement of anti-hypertensives and anti-diabetics?

Jing Sun,Luo Ren,Veronika Wirtz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2016.1181641

2016-05-10

Journal of Medical Economics

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Efficient use of government funding has been increasingly relevant for the success and sustainability of ongoing health-system reform in China; however, as there is no generic substitution policy, patients and basic health-insurance programs pay more for public-preferred brand originators. Such phenomenon is especially typical in public hospitals. The objective of this study is to estimate the potential cost savings in procurement by Chinese public hospitals when switching from brand originators of anti-hypertensive and anti-diabetic medications to their generic equivalents between 2012-2014.METHOD: IMS Health volume and value consumption data (IMS China Hospitals Audit system 2012-2014) were used, which covered all Chinese hospitals with 100 beds and above. The top 60% IMS volume consumption of respective anti-hypertensive and anti-diabetic medication with unique dosage form and strength were included. The potential cost savings were calculated from a switch of brand originators with their generic equivalents on the Chinese and international market. An independent sample t-test was conducted to compare the difference of proportion of cost savings in value between the Chinese and international market.RESULTS: An average of 44% (US$44 million) and 87% (US$90 million) and a total of US$1.4 and 2.8 billion (2014 US$) could be saved from a switch from originator brand anti-hypertensives and anti-diabetics to domestically and internationally available generic equivalents, respectively. The differences of cost savings (in proportion) between domestic and international market were statistically significant (α = 0.005, p = 0.003, p = 0.002, p = 0.000).CONCLUSION: Expensive brand originators dominated the anti-hypertensive and anti-diabetic market in Chinese hospitals between 2012-2014. Preference of brand originators wastes a huge amount of health resources in China and these limited resources could have been used more efficiently. As one of the world's key generic suppliers, if China wants to use its health resource more efficiently on medicines, comprehensive measures are needed to address both demand-side (consumers' low trust in the quality of local generics) and supply-side barriers (health professionals' preference of brand originators).

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services
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.
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
Evaluation of blood pressure lowering effect by generic and brand-name antihypertensive drugs treatment: a multicenter prospective study in China

Shu-Yuan Zhang,Li-Yuan Tao,Yun-Yun Yang,Tao Kong,Cun-Jin Wu,Yang Wang,Jing-Zhou Chen,Lei Song,Yi-Bo Wang,Ru-Tai Hui,Wei-Li Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/cm9.0000000000001360

IF: 6.133

2021-01-19

Chinese Medical Journal

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Generic drugs are bioequivalent to their brand-name counterparts; however, concerns still exist regarding the effectiveness and safety of generic drugs because of small sample sizes and short follow-up time in most studies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term antihypertensive efficacy, cost-effectiveness and cardiovascular outcomes of generic drugs compared with brand-name drugs.METHODS: In a multicenter, community-based study including 7955 hypertensive patients who were prospectively followed up for an average of 2.5 years, we used the propensity-score-matching method to match the patients using brand-name drugs to those using generic drugs in a ratio of 1:2, 2176 patients using brand-name drugs and 4352 patients using generic drugs.RESULTS: There were no significant differences between generic drugs and brand-name drugs in blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy, BP control rate, and cardiovascular outcomes including coronary heart disease and stroke. The adjusted mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) of systolic BP (SBP)-lowering was -7.9 mmHg (95% CI, -9.9 to -5.9) in the brand-name drug group and -7.1 mmHg (95% CI, -9.1 to -5.1) in the generic drug group after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, number of antihypertensive drugs and traditionally cardiovascular risk factors. Among patients aged <60 years, brand-name drugs had a higher BP control rate (47% vs. 41%; P = 0.02) and a greater effect in lowering SBP compared with generic drugs, with the between-group difference of 1.5 mmHg (95% CI, 0.2-2.8; P = 0.03). BP control rate was higher in male patients using brand-name drugs compared with those using generic drugs (46% vs. 40%; P = 0.01). Generic drugs treatment yielded an average annual incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $315.4 per patient per mmHg decrease in SBP compared with brand-name drugs treatment.CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggested that generic drugs are suitable and cost-effective in improving hypertension management and facilitating public health benefits, especially in low- and middle-income areas.

medicine, general & internal
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.
Health economics and effectiveness analysis of generic anti-diabetic medication from jan aushadhi: An ambispective study in community pharmacy

Raushan Kumar Chaudhary,Melwin Johns Philip,Ashly Santhosh,Satish S Karoli,Ramesh Bhandari,M S Ganachari

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2021.102303

Abstract:Background and aims: The pharmacotherapy of diabetes mellitus has a colossal economic burden, which demands cost-effective therapy, as the patients have to be on treatment lifelong. Thus, our study aimed to study cost variation and effectiveness analysis among type 2 diabetic patients. Methodology: We conducted ambi-spective research for the adult type 2 diabetes patients who underwent substitution of branded anti-diabetic therapy with the generic alternative from "Jan Aushadhi" for more than one month and were not using any other anti-diabetic medicines. Results: Among the monotherapy, glimepiride (2500%) and vildagliptin (20%) were found to have wide and narrow percentage cost variation respectively whereas, metformin Hcl 500 mg plus voglibose 0.2 mg was estimated to have the highest (891.7%), and teneligliptin 20 mg plus metformin 500 mg with the lowest (137.29%) cost variation in case of combined therapy. Similarly, generic substitutions were cost-effective in most patients, whereas the increased cost of brand drugs didn't justify its effectiveness. There was no significant difference between glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of brand and generic anti-diabetic drugs (t = 0.774, p = 0.22). Conclusion: The adaptation of generic drugs can significantly reduce the economic burden of treatment. Thus, healthcare professionals should promote generic medicines by prescribing & dispensing generic drugs and erasing misconceptions prevailing among patients.
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.
Compliance, Persistence, Healthcare Resource Use, and Treatment Costs Associated with Aliskiren plus ARB versus ACE Inhibitor plus ARB Combination Therapy

Joanne Chang,Weiyi Yang,Kristijan H. Kahler,Thomas Fellers,John Orloff,Arielle G. Bensimon,Andrew P. Yu,Chun-Po Steve Fan,Eric Q. Wu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11586570-000000000-00000

2012-01-01

American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs

Abstract:Background Evidence is currently equivocal on the added benefits of dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system with the combination of either an ACE inhibitor (ACEI) plus an angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist (angiotensin receptor blocker [ARB]) or aliskiren, the first-in-class direct renin inhibitor, plus an ARB. Objective To compare the compliance, persistence, healthcare resource utilization, and healthcare costs associated with aliskiren plus ARB versus ACEI plus ARB combination therapies among adult patients diagnosed with hypertension. Methods Patients (aged ≥18 years) initiated on either combination therapy were identified in the Market-Scan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases (1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008). The ARB components considered were candesartan, irbesartan, losartan, olmesartan, telmisartan, and valsartan. The ACEI components included benazepril, captopril, enalapril, fosinopril, lisinopril, moexipril, perindopril, quinapril, ramipril, and trandolapril. Outcomes measured during the 6-month study period included the proportion of days covered (PDC), treatment discontinuation, healthcare resource utilization, and changes in healthcare costs (study period minus 6-month baseline values). Risk-adjusted differences in outcomes between treatments and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using multivariate regression models, controlling for demographics, region, co-morbidities, prescription drug use, and resource utilization during the baseline period. Results Adjusting for baseline characteristics, aliskiren plus ARB patients (n= 1395) demonstrated a significantly higher PDC (67.0% vs 54.3%; difference 12.7%; 95% CI 10.6, 14.7) and a significantly lower discontinuation rate (50.4% vs 68.6%; odds ratio 0.46; 95% CI 0.40, 0.54) than ACEI plus ARB patients (n=16 507). Aliskiren plus ARB patients had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.73; 95% CI 0.61,0.86) and significantly fewer all-cause emergency room (ER) visits (adjusted IRR 0.72; 95% CI 0.61, 0.85) than ACEI plus ARB patients. Compared with ACEI plus ARB therapy, aliskiren plus ARB therapy was associated with significantly larger increases in prescription costs by $US264 post therapy initiation (95% CI 153, 375), but with non-significantly greater reductions in total healthcare costs by -$583 (95% CI −2409, 1242) [2008 values]. Conclusion In adult hypertensive patients, treatment with aliskiren plus ARB was associated with significantly better compliance/persistence and fewer hospitalizations and ER visits compared with ACEI plus ARB therapy. Reductions in total healthcare costs were non-significantly different between patients treated with aliskiren plus ARB versus ACEI plus ARB, despite the increased prescription costs associated with aliskiren plus ARB therapy.
Evaluation of compliance and health care utilization in patients treated with single pill vs. free combination antihypertensives.

Weiyi Yang,Joanne Chang,Kristijan H Kahler,Thomas Fellers,John Orloff,Eric Q Wu,Arielle G Bensimon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2010.494462

2010-01-01

Current Medical Research and Opinion

Abstract:Objectives: To compare compliance/persistence, health care resource utilization, and costs associated with single-pill combination (SPC) vs. free-combination (FC) therapies among adult hypertension patients at the national and state level. Combination therapies with angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) + calcium channel blocker, ARB + hydrochlorothiazide, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor + hydrochlorothiazide were evaluated. Methods: Patients initiated on SPC or FC were identified in the MarketScan Database (2006-2008). Multivariate regression models were used to compare the health care outcomes of SPC vs. FC use during the 6-month study period. National-and state-level outcomes were analyzed and reported. Compliance was measured by medication possession ratio (MPR), and persistence was assessed based on treatment discontinuation (i.e., a lapse in therapy exceeding 30 days). Utilization and cost outcomes included frequencies of inpatient and emergency room (ER) visits and changes in health care costs from baseline. Results: Adjusting for baseline characteristics, SPC patients (N - 382,476) demonstrated significantly higher MPR than FC patients (N - 197,375) (difference = 11.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.4%, 11.7%). SPC patients had fewer all-cause hospitalizations (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.77; 95% CI: 0.75, 0.79) and ER visits (adjusted IRR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.86, 0.89) than FC patients. Results for cardiovascular-related utilization were similar to all-cause results. Compared to FC, SPC patients showed significantly greater reductions post-therapy initiation in all-cause medical costs by -$208 (95% CI: -$302, -$114), but larger increases in hypertension-related prescription costs by $53 (95% CI: $51, $55). State-level results were generally consistent in magnitude and direction for comparisons of compliance and utilization, with greater regional variation in costs. Limitations include the possibility of residual confounding from factors not observable in claims. Conclusion: SPC use was associated with significantly better compliance/persistence and fewer hospitalizations and ER visits than FC in hypertensive patients at the national level and in almost all states. Larger reductions in medical costs with SPC use more than offset higher drug costs within most states.
Testing the Unintended Cost Effects of Health Policies for Generic Substitutions: the Case of China's National Volume-Based Procurement (NVBP) Policy.

Boya Zhao,Jing Wu,Xing Lin Feng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czae101

2024-01-01

Health Policy and Planning

Abstract:Generic substitutions are globally considered to contain health expenditures. Yet it is uncertain whether the costs would spill over to other medicines or health services. Contextualizing China's National Volume-Based Procurement (NVBP) policy, which promoted generic substitution, this study tests the changes in patients' utilisation of generic medicines and whether the costs shift to other pharmaceutics or health services post-policy. This population-based, matched, cohort study uses claims data from Tianjin, China in 2018-2020. We focus on Amlodipine, the most commonly used calcium channel blocker with the largest volume. We build comparable post-policy cohorts: Non-switchers who kept using originator Amlodipine, Pure-switchers who loyally switched to generic Amlodipine, and Back-switchers who switched back-and-forth; and compare between each matched pair, respectively, of their annual healthcare costs and that broken down by components, and patients' use of and adherence to Amlodipine post-policy. 1185 Pure-switchers, 1398 Back-switchers, and 2330 Non-switchers are identified (mean age: 63.0 years; 58.5% men). For the matched pairs, Pure-switchers (N=772) incurred an annual total medical costs of CNY 9213.5, 12.2% lower than Non-switchers (N=1544, absolute difference CNY -1309.3, 95%CI: [-2645.8, -19.6]). The cost reduction only results from Amlodipine prescriptions in outpatient encounters, and are equally born on health plans and the enrolees. Pure-switchers and Non-switchers are not different in costs from other medicines, nor from other items including tests, surgeries, beds, and medical consumables for hypertension-related encounters/admissions. Pure-switchers had higher daily dosage and better adherence to Amlodipine than Non-switchers as well. The differences between Back-switchers and Non-switchers show similar trends but are less profound. China's NVBP policy is effective to control pharmaceutical costs. No unintended cost effects have yet been identified in the short run. Other countries may learn from China on the comprehensive sets of auxiliary policies, including listing, bidding, purchasing, and reimbursing, to better promote generic substitutions.
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.
Use and Cost Patterns of Antihypertensive Medications in the United States From 1996 to 2021

Joshua A Jacobs,Anthony Rodgers,Brandon K Bellows,Inmaculada Hernandez,Nelson Wang,Catherine G Derington,Jordan B King,Alexander R Zheutlin,Paul K Whelton,Brent M Egan,William C Cushman,Adam P Bress

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.124.23509

IF: 9.8968

2024-09-04

Hypertension

Abstract:Background: Antihypertensive medication use patterns have likely been influenced by changing costs and accessibility over the past 3 decades. This study examines the relationships between patent exclusivity loss, medication costs, and national health policies on antihypertensive medication use. Methods: Using 1996 to 2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data of US adults with hypertension taking at least 1 antihypertensive medication, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis. We explored the associations between patent exclusivity loss, per-pill costs, and Medicare Part D enactment on medication use over time, focusing on the most commonly used medications (lisinopril, amlodipine, losartan, hydrochlorothiazide, and metoprolol). Results: The unweighted sample comprised 50 095 US adults (mean age, 62 years; 53% female). The survey-weighted number of adults taking antihypertensive medications increased from 22 million (95% CIs, 20-23 million) to 55 million (95% CI, 51-60 million) between 1996 and 2021. Loss of patent exclusivity led to increased medication fills, notably for lisinopril, amlodipine, and losartan, which all exhibited within-class dominance. However, per-pill cost decreases coinciding with Medicare Part D did not increase the number of individuals treated or the use of specific antihypertensive medications or classes. Conclusions: The increase in antihypertensive medication use over the past decades highlights the significant impact of loss of patent exclusivity on the uptake in the use of specific medications. These findings underscore the complexity of factors influencing medication use, beyond cost reductions alone, and suggest that policies need to consider multiple facets to effectively improve antihypertensive medication accessibility and utilization.
Long-Term and Short-Term Changes in Antihypertensive Prescribing by Office-Based Physicians in the United States

Randall S Stafford,Veronica Monti,Curt D Furberg,Jun Ma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/01.hyp.0000229653.73128.b6

2006-01-01

Abstract:Medication choices for the treatment of elevated blood pressure have a large potential impact on both patient outcomes and health care costs. Historic trends of prescribing for hypertension will advance the understanding of physician practice of evidence-based medicine. This study describes both long- and short-term trends in US antihypertensive prescribing from 1990 through 2004. Data were extracted from the National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a continuing survey of a national sample of US office-based physicians. Cox and Stuart and z tests were performed. Diuretics ranked among the top 3 antihypertensive drug classes throughout the entire study time span. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and calcium channel blockers (CCBs) were preferred over diuretics beginning in 1993, with diuretics surpassing CCBs in 2000. Beta-blockers were consistently the fourth most common class until 2002, when exceeded by angiotensin II receptor antagonists (ARBs). Most recent trends indicated an immediate but short-lived increase in the prescription of thiazide diuretics after the new clinical evidence released in December 2002 demonstrating clinical equivalence of thiazides to ACE inhibitors and CCBs. In contrast, prescription of ACE inhibitors declined, accompanied by continuation of a pre-existing increase in the prescription of ARBs, whereas prescription of CCBs remained essentially stable after the new evidence was released. The recorded long- and short-term trends indicate that evidence-based clinical recommendations had an impact on antihypertensive prescribing practices, but the magnitude of impact may be smaller and of more limited duration than desired.

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

Clinical Outcome and Medical Cost of Originator and Generic Antihypertensive Drugs: A Population-Based Study in Yinzhou, China

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

Estimated Savings Under the Medicare High-Value Drug List Model

Potential Medicare Part D Savings on Ophthalmic Generic Drugs

Economic Impact of Switching from Valsartan to Other Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in Patients with Hypertension.

Comparative effectiveness of generic and brand-name medication use: A database study of US health insurance claims

Economic Impact of Therapeutic Substitution of a Brand Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor with an Alternative Generic Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder

How much could be saved in Chinese hospitals in procurement of anti-hypertensives and anti-diabetics?

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

Impact Of Cost Evaluation On Prescriptions Of Heart Failure Therapies

Evaluation of blood pressure lowering effect by generic and brand-name antihypertensive drugs treatment: a multicenter prospective study in China

Variation in generic dispensing rates in Medicare Part D

Health economics and effectiveness analysis of generic anti-diabetic medication from jan aushadhi: An ambispective study in community pharmacy

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

Compliance, Persistence, Healthcare Resource Use, and Treatment Costs Associated with Aliskiren plus ARB versus ACE Inhibitor plus ARB Combination Therapy

Evaluation of compliance and health care utilization in patients treated with single pill vs. free combination antihypertensives.

Testing the Unintended Cost Effects of Health Policies for Generic Substitutions: the Case of China's National Volume-Based Procurement (NVBP) Policy.

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

Use and Cost Patterns of Antihypertensive Medications in the United States From 1996 to 2021

Long-Term and Short-Term Changes in Antihypertensive Prescribing by Office-Based Physicians in the United States