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

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
(317) Significant Cost Savings for Erectile Dysfunction Medications are Available Using Discount Online Pharmacies Compared to Medicare

JA Miller,CA Loeb,MA Moukhtar Hammad,M Nguyen,B Azad,FA Yafi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdae001.302

2024-02-07

The Journal of Sexual Medicine

Abstract:Introduction The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (CPD) is an online retailer launched in January 2022 that sells generic prescription medications directly to consumers at cost of ingredients and manufacturing plus a fixed 15% margin in addition to a small pharmacy dispensing fee and shipping fee. GoodRx is an online tool which offers coupons redeemable at pharmacies for discounts on prescription medications. The combination of these two tools offers physicians a way to provide prescription medications to patients at lower costs, which may lead to improved medication adherence and lower medication expenditures nationally. Objective To compare the cost of various erectile dysfunction medications when purchased through retail pharmacies, reimbursed through Medicare, or obtained utilizing CPD and GoodRx. Methods A review of publicly available data from CPD and GoodRx was performed to obtain average retail and discounted prices for generic sildenafil, tadalafil, and vardenafil. GoodRx prices were obtained using prices from Costco, CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart pharmacies in the most from populous zip code from each of the 3 most populous U.S. states: California, New York, and Texas. Prices were adjusted to account for dosage and prescribed quantity to estimate an average cost per dosage unit ($/adu). The Medicare Part D Drug Spending and Utilization data from 2021 were used to report the average spending per dosage unit and total expenditure for each of the listed medications. These data were compared to create an estimate of average national savings after use of CPD or GoodRx. Results Average spending per dosage unit for sildenafil, tadalafil, and vardenafil was less when GoodRx or CPD were used (0.28 /adu, and 6.17 /adu, 8.08 /adu respectively) or retail pricing (0.52 /adu, and 8.35 149M. Use of either CPD or GoodRx compared to retail pricing would similarly result in a combined annual nation saving of $40M. Conclusions The utilization of CPD and GoodRx in the prescription of common erectile dysfunction medications may lead to significant reductions in pricing compared to retail and Medicare estimates. Knowledge of these prescription tools may lead to significant reductions in national expenditures on medications and decreased cost burden for patients seeking treatment. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Advisory board and speaker for Coloplast; consultant for Cynosure; advisory board and speaker for Halozyme; intellectual property with Masimo; advisory board for Promescent; consultant for Sprout; advisory board for Xialla.

urology & nephrology
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.
(164) Potential Savings with Use of Cost Plus Pharmacy for Medical Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction

V Schloegel,B Dropkin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdae001.155

2024-02-01

The Journal of Sexual Medicine

Abstract:Abstract Introduction With its stated goal “to end ridiculous drug prices,” the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC) launched in January 2022 with over 100 generic prescription drugs available to be mailed directly to patients without the involvement of health insurance. To promote drug cost transparency, all drugs are priced at the cost to manufacture the drug with a 15% administrative markup, a $3 pharmacist fee, and a $5 shipping fee. Prior research has focused on the theoretical savings MCCPDC could offer if Medicare purchased drugs at MCCPDC prices with studies reporting a potential $3.3 billion in savings for Medicare. Prescription drug spending is continuing to rise in the United States and providers are increasingly considering patient’s out-of-pocket costs. MCCPDC touts a transparent, consistent pricing model, but it is unclear if this pricing model will actually translate to cost savings for patients. Objective We sought to analyze if Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC) can offer savings directly to patients compared with other mail-order pharmacies, local pharmacies (based on zip code of our urology clinic) and with patients using health insurance to fill prescriptions for their sildenafil, vardenafil and tadalafil. Methods Out of the approximately 100 generic drugs available on MCCPDC website, we analyzed the 3 drugs that are prescribed to treat erectile dysfunction. We analyzed drug prices of 30 and 90-day prescriptions at the same dose of each medication. Using Good Rx prescription drug search engine, we compared the drug prices of the cheapest mail order and local in person pharmacies near our zip code. We also included prices for the recently started telemedicine company Roman. To compare if MCCPDC could offer savings to patients using health insurance to fill their prescriptions, we extracted the out-of-pocket drug costs for patients from the 2020 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS; a national survey that compiles data from both the pharmacy and the survey respondent to determine the exact cost of each prescription filled during that year) and the 2020 Medicare Part D spending data. Medicare Part D spending data was used to estimate the out-of-pocket cost for each medication, which is approximately a 25% copayment for Medicare prescriptions. Results MCCPDC offered the lowest direct-to-consumer price on sildenafil and tadalafil 90-day prescriptions (Table 1). MCCPDC saved patients approximately $10 per sildenafil and tadalafil prescription compared with the next cheapest option. We found additional, although smaller, savings at 30-day prescriptions for sildenafil and tadalafil. MCCPDC was not the cheapest option for vardenafil. Compared with Roman, MCCPDC offered cheaper prescriptions for sildenafil and tadalafil by over $300 and $900, respectively. Conclusions MCCPDC can offer significant cost savings to patients, especially considering the high number of sildenafil and tadalafil prescriptions each year. The transparency and consistency in pricing with MCCPDC can be utilized by providers when counseling patients on medical therapy options for erectile dysfunction. Disclosure No.

urology & nephrology
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.
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
Evaluating the Effects of Pioneer Accountable Care Organizations on Medicare Part D Drug Spending and Utilization

Yuting Zhang,Kadin J Caines,Christopher A Powers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000686

Abstract:Background: The improvement of medication use is a critical mechanism that accountable care organization (ACO) could use to save overall costs. Currently pharmaceutical spending is not part of the calculation for ACO-shared savings and risks. Thus, ACO providers may have strong incentives to prescribe more medications hoping to avoid expensive downstream medical costs. Methods: We designed a quasinatural experiment study to evaluate the effects of Pioneer ACOs on Medicare Part D spending and utilization. Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with Part D drug coverage who were aligned to a Pioneer ACO were compared with a random 5% sample of non-ACO beneficiaries. Outcomes included changes in Part D spending, number of prescription fills, percent of brand medications, and total Part A and B medical spending. We utilized a generalized linear model with a difference-in-differences approach to estimate 2011-2012 changes in these outcomes among beneficiaries aligned with Pioneer ACOs, adjusting for all beneficiary-level demographics, income and insurance status, clinical characteristics, and regional fixed effects. Results: Being in an ACO did not significantly affect Part D spending (-$23.52; P=0.19), total prescriptions filled (-0.12; P=0.27), and the percent of claims for brand-name drugs (0.06%; P=0.23). The ACO group was associated with savings in Parts A and B spending of $345 (P<0.0001) per person per year. Conclusions: We found that beneficiaries aligned to Pioneer ACOs were not associated with changes in pharmaceutical spending and use, but were associated with savings in Parts A and B spending in 2012.
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.
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.
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
(003) Use of Online Pharmacy Tools May Lead to Significantly Reduced National Expenditures on Vaginal Estrogen

CA Loeb,JA Miller,MA Moukhtar Hammad,M Nguyen,B Azad,FA Yafi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdae001.003

2024-02-07

The Journal of Sexual Medicine

Abstract:Introduction High medication costs for vaginal estrogen may create a barrier for patients seeking treatment for numerous urinary and vaginal symptoms and lead to poor medication adherence. The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (CPD) and GoodRx tools offer patients a method to purchase prescription medications at a discount, which may lead to improved medication adherence and decreased national expenditures on such medications. Objective To compare the pricing of vaginal estrogen as advertised by retail pharmacies, Medicare, and discount listings through CPD and GoodRx. Methods A review of publicly available data from CPD and GoodRx was performed to obtain listed retail and discounted prices for Estrace (topical), Vagifem (tablet), and Premarin (topical). GoodRx prices were obtained using prices from Costco, CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart pharmacies in the most from populous zip code from each of the 3 most populous U.S. states: California, New York, and Texas. Prices were adjusted to account for dosage and prescribed quantity to estimate an average cost per dosage unit ($/adu). The Medicare Part D Drug Spending and Utilization data from 2021 were used to report the average spending per dosage unit and total expenditure for each of the listed medications. These data were compared to create an estimate of average national savings after use of CPD and/or GoodRx. Results Average spending per dosage unit for Estrace, Vagifem, and Premarin was lesser when discount tools were used (0.50 /adu, and 4.30 /adu, 20.95 /adu respectively) or retail pricing (3.14 /adu, and 5.43 64.2M. Use of either CPD or GoodRx compared to retail pricing would similarly result in a combined annual national saving of $39.2M. Conclusions The utilization of CPD and GoodRx in the prescription of vaginal estrogen led to a substantial national average cost savings when compared to retail and Medicare pricing. CPD and GoodRx may offer a way to decrease the cost burden for patients seeking treatment for urinary and vaginal symptoms and significantly reduce national expenditures on medications. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Advisory board and speaker for Coloplast; consultant for Cynosure; advisory board and speaker for Halozyme; intellectual property with Masimo; advisory board for Promescent; consultant for Sprout; advisory board for Xialla.

urology & nephrology
Medicare Part D Protected-Class Policy Is Associated With Lower Drug Rebates

Pragya Kakani,Michael Anne Kyle,Amitabh Chandra,Luca Maini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2024.00273

Abstract:Medicare Part D does not allow plans to exclude drugs in six protected classes from their formularies, which may limit plans' ability to negotiate rebates and lead to higher spending. We estimated the association between protected-class status, US-level estimated rebates, and formulary coverage during the period 2011-19. We found that protected classes indeed had significantly lower exclusion rates in Medicare Part D during this period relative to nonprotected classes, and this difference was larger than the corresponding difference in commercial plans. US-level average rebates grew 22.5 percentage points less in protected than in nonprotected classes during 2011-19, a period when formulary exclusions increased. Relative to nonprotected classes, US-level average rebates in protected classes were especially low among drugs with high Medicare market share. These results suggest that Medicare Part D protected-class policy may reduce rebates.
Strategies to reduce out-of-pocket medication costs for Canadians with peripheral arterial disease

Graham R McClure,William F McIntyre,Peter Belesiotis,Eric Kaplovitch,Noel Chan,Vinai Bhagirath,Gurneet Chahill,Abigail Hayes,Gursharan Sohi,Wendy Bordman,Richard P Whitlock,Sonia S Anand,Emilie P Belley-Côté,Graham R. McClure,William F. McIntyre,Richard P. Whitlock,Sonia S. Anand,Emilie P. Belley-Côté

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.003722

2024-01-03

Canadian Journal of Surgery

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Given that peripheral arterial disease (PAD) disproportionately affects people of lower socioeconomic status, out-of-pocket expenses for preventive medications are a major barrier to their use. We carried out a cost comparison of drug therapies for PAD to identify prescribing strategies that minimize out-of-pocket expenses for these medications.METHODS: Between March and June 2019, we contacted outpatient pharmacies in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, to assess pricing of pharmacologic therapies at dosages included in the 2016 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline for management of lower extremity PAD. We also gathered pricing information for supplementary charges, including delivery, pill splitting and blister packaging. We calculated prescription prices with and without dispensing fees for 30-day brand-name and generic prescriptions, and 90-day generic prescriptions.RESULTS: Twenty-four pharmacies, including hospital-based, independent and chain, were included in our sample. In the most extreme scenario, total 90-day medication costs could differ by up to $1377.26. Costs were affected by choice of agent within a drug class, generic versus brand-name drug, quantity dispensed, dispensing fee and delivery cost, if any.CONCLUSION: By opting for prescriptions for 90 days or as long as possible, selecting the lowest-cost generic drugs available in each drug class, and identifying dispensing locations with lower fees, prescribers can minimize out-of-pocket patient medication expenses. This may help improve adherence to guideline-recommended therapies for the secondary prevention of vascular events in patients with PAD.

surgery
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

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

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

Estimating Rebates and Other Discounts Received by Medicare Part D

Estimated Savings Under the Medicare High-Value Drug List Model

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

Variation in generic dispensing rates in Medicare Part D

(317) Significant Cost Savings for Erectile Dysfunction Medications are Available Using Discount Online Pharmacies Compared to Medicare

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

(164) Potential Savings with Use of Cost Plus Pharmacy for Medical Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction

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

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

Evaluating the Effects of Pioneer Accountable Care Organizations on Medicare Part D Drug Spending and Utilization

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

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

A Cost Analysis of Medications Prescribed by Vascular Surgeons

(003) Use of Online Pharmacy Tools May Lead to Significantly Reduced National Expenditures on Vaginal Estrogen

Medicare Part D Protected-Class Policy Is Associated With Lower Drug Rebates

Strategies to reduce out-of-pocket medication costs for Canadians with peripheral arterial disease

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