Dataset Information

Projected spending for brand-name drugs in English primary care given US prices: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To estimate additional spending if NHS England paid the same prices as US Medicare Part D for the 50 single-source brand-name drugs with the highest expenditure in English primary care in 2018.

Design

Retrospective analysis of 2018 drug prescribing and spending in the NHS England prescribing data and the Medicare Part D Drug Spending Dashboard and Data. We examined the 50 costliest drugs in English primary care available as brand-name-only in the US and England. We performed cost projections of NHS England spending with US Medicare Part D prices. We estimated average 2018 US rebates as 1 minus the quotient of net divided by gross Medicare Part D spending.

Setting

England and US.

Participants

NHS England and US Medicare systems.

Main outcome measures

Total spending, prescriptions and claims in NHS England and Medicare Part D. All spending and cost measures were reported in 2018 British pounds.

Results

NHS England spent £1.39 billion on drugs in the cohort. All drugs were more expensive under US Medicare Part D than NHS England. The US-England price ratios ranged from 1.3 to 9.9 (mean ratio 4.8). Accounting for prescribing volume, if NHS England had paid US Medicare Part D prices after adjusting for estimated US rebates, it would have spent 4.6 times as much in 2018 on drugs in the cohort (£6.42 billion).

Conclusions

Spending by NHS England would be substantially higher if it paid US Medicare Part D prices. This could result in decreased access to medicines and other health services.

SUBMITTER: Liu M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7488930 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Projected spending for brand-name drugs in English primary care given US prices: a cross-sectional study.

Liu Michael M MacKenna Brian B Feldman William B WB Walker Alex J AJ Avorn Jerry J Kesselheim Aaron S AS Goldacre Ben B

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 20200901 9

<h4>Objectives</h4>To estimate additional spending if NHS England paid the same prices as US Medicare Part D for the 50 single-source brand-name drugs with the highest expenditure in English primary care in 2018.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective analysis of 2018 drug prescribing and spending in the NHS England prescribing data and the Medicare Part D Drug Spending Dashboard and Data. We examined the 50 costliest drugs in English primary care available as brand-name-only in the US and England. We perf ...[more]

PMID: 32910868

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHigh and continually increasing pharmaceutical drug spending is a major health and health policy concern in the United States.ObjectiveTo demonstrate trends in prices among popular brand-name prescription drugs.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation of drug prices focuses on 49 top-selling brand-name medications in the United States. Pharmacy claims data from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2017, were obtained from Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis, a database that includes data from more than 35 million individuals with private pharmaceutical insurance. Drugs that exceeded $500 million in US sales or $1 billion in worldwide sales were examined.Main outcomes and measuresThe median sum of out-of-pocket and insurance costs paid by patients or insurers for common prescriptions, presented annually and monthly, was the primary outcome.ResultsIn total, 132 brand-name prescription drugs were identified in 2017 that met the inclusion criteria. Of this total, the study focused on 49 top-selling drugs that exceeded 100 000 pharmacy claims. Substantial cost increases among these drugs was near universal, with a 76% median cost increase from January 2012 through December 2017, and almost all drugs (48 [98%]) displaying regular annual or biannual price increases. Of the 36 drugs that have been available since 2012, 28 (78%) have seen an increase in insurer and out-of-pocket costs by more than 50%, and 16 (44%) have more than doubled in price. Insulins (ie, Novolog, Humalog, and Lantus) and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (ie, Humira and Enbrel) demonstrated highly correlated price increases, coinciding with some of the largest growth in drug costs. Relative price changes did not differ between drugs that entered the market in the past 3 to 6 years and those that have been on the market longer (number of drugs, 13 vs 36; median, 29% increase from January 2015 through December 2017; P = .81) nor between drugs with or without a Food and Drug Administration-approved therapeutic equivalent (number of drugs, 17 vs 32; median, 79% vs 73%; P = .21). Changes in prices paid were highly correlated with third-party estimates of changes in drug net prices (ρ = 0.55; P = 3.8 × 10-5), suggesting that the current rebate system, which incentivizes high list prices and greater reliance on rebates, increases overall costs.Conclusions and relevanceThe growth of drug spending in the United States associated with government-protected market exclusivity is likely to continue; greater price transparency is warranted.

Project description:This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and adverse events, either serious or mild/moderate, of all generic versus brand-name cardiovascular medicines. We searched randomized trials in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov (last update December 1, 2014). Attempts were made to contact the investigators of all potentially eligible trials. Two investigators independently extracted and analyzed soft (including systolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and others) and hard efficacy outcomes (including major cardiovascular adverse events and death), minor/moderate and serious adverse events. We included 74 randomized trials; 53 reported ≥1 efficacy outcome (overall sample 3051), 32 measured mild/moderate adverse events (n = 2407), and 51 evaluated serious adverse events (n = 2892). We included trials assessing ACE inhibitors (n = 12), anticoagulants (n = 5), antiplatelet agents (n = 17), beta-blockers (n = 11), calcium channel blockers (n = 7); diuretics (n = 13); statins (n = 6); and others (n = 3). For both soft and hard efficacy outcomes, 100 % of the trials showed non-significant differences between generic and brand-name drugs. The aggregate effect size was 0.01 (95 % CI -0.05; 0.08) for soft outcomes; -0.06 (-0.71; 0.59) for hard outcomes. All but two trials showed non-significant differences in mild/moderate adverse events, and aggregate effect size was 0.07 (-0.06; 0.20). Comparable results were observed for each drug class and in each stratified meta-analysis. Overall, 8 serious possibly drug-related adverse events were reported: 5/2074 subjects on generics; 3/2076 subjects on brand-name drugs (OR 1.69; 95 % CI 0.40-7.20). This meta-analysis strengthens the evidence for clinical equivalence between brand-name and generic cardiovascular drugs. Physicians could be reassured about prescribing generic cardiovascular drugs, and health care organization about endorsing their wider use.

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

Project description:ImportanceList prices set by manufacturers for brand-name prescription drugs in the US have been increasing faster than inflation, although confidential manufacturer rebates offset some of these increases. Most commercially insured patients pay at least some out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, and higher patient spending is associated with lower adherence and worse health outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine whether price changes for brand-name drugs are correlated with changes in patient out-of-pocket spending and whether this association varies by insurance benefit design.Design, setting, and participantsA cohort study of 79 brand-name drugs with available pricing data from January 2015 to December 2017 was conducted, with data obtained from a national commercial insurance claims database.ExposuresChange in the list prices set by manufacturers and estimated net prices after rebates among non-Medicaid payers.Main outcomes and measuresChange in median out-of-pocket spending among all patients and stratified by insurance pharmacy benefit design, including high-deductible insurance plans and plans with any amount of deductibles or coinsurance.ResultsAmong 79 drugs, median increases were 16.7% (interquartile range [IQR], 13.6%-21.1%) for list prices, 5.4% (IQR, -3.9% to 11.7%) for net prices, and 3.5% (IQR, 1.4%-9.1%) for out-of-pocket spending from 2015 to 2017. Changes in list prices were correlated with changes in net prices (r = 0.34; P = .002). Overall, changes in out-of-pocket spending were not correlated with changes in list prices (r = 0.14; P = .22) or net prices (r = 0.04; P = .71). Among 53.7% of patients who paid any drug deductible or coinsurance, median out-of-pocket spending increased by 15.0%, and changes were moderately correlated with changes in list prices (r = 0.38; P = .001) but not net prices (r = 0.06; P = .62).Conclusions and relevanceSome commercially insured patients who pay only prescription drug copayments appear to be insulated from increases in drug prices. However, more than half of patients pay deductibles or coinsurance and may experience substantial increases in out-of-pocket spending when drug prices increase. Among these patients, there was no evidence that manufacturer rebates to insurers are associated with patients' out-of-pocket spending. Policies to rein in unregulated annual increases in list prices for brand-name drugs may have important consequences for patient out-of-pocket spending.

Project description:ImportanceThe Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 authorizes Medicare to negotiate prices of top-selling drugs based on several factors, including therapeutic benefit compared with existing treatment options.ObjectiveTo determine the added therapeutic benefit of the 50 top-selling brand-name drugs in Medicare in 2020, as assessed by health technology assessment (HTA) organizations in Canada, France, and Germany.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, publicly available therapeutic benefit ratings, US Food and Drug Administration documents, and the Medicare Part B and Part D prescription drug spending dashboards were used to determine the 50 top-selling single-source drugs used in Medicare in 2020 and to assess their added therapeutic benefit ratings through 2021.Main outcomes and measuresRatings from HTA bodies in Canada, France, and Germany were categorized as high (moderate or greater) or low (minor or no) added benefit. Each drug was rated based on its most favorable rating across countries, indications, subpopulations, and dosage forms. We compared the use and prerebate and postrebate (ie, net) Medicare spending between drugs with high vs low added benefit.ResultsForty-nine drugs (98%) received an HTA rating by at least 1 country; 22 of 36 drugs (61%) received a low added benefit rating in Canada, 34 of 47 in France (72%), and 17 of 29 in Germany (59%). Across countries, 27 drugs (55%) had a low added therapeutic rating, accounting for $19.3 billion in annual estimated net spending, or 35% of Medicare net spending on the 50 top-selling single-source drugs and 11% of total Medicare net prescription drug spending in 2020. Compared with those with high added benefit, drugs with a low added therapeutic rating were used by more Medicare beneficiaries (median 387 149 vs 44 869) and had lower net spending per beneficiary (median $992 vs $32 287).Conclusions and relevanceMany top-selling Medicare drugs received low added benefit ratings by the national HTA organizations of Canada, France, and Germany. When negotiating prices for these drugs, Medicare should ensure they are not priced higher than reasonable therapeutic alternatives.

Project description:ImportanceIn response to scrutiny over high drug prices, manufacturers of insulin and direct-acting antiviral agents for treating hepatitis C have recently introduced authorized generic alternatives to their patented brand-name products. These authorized generic drugs have list prices at least 50% lower than the list price of the brand-name drugs, which should result in savings to patients. However, it is unclear whether these authorized generic drugs are offered on Medicare Part D formularies because they may not provide savings to plans or Medicare.ObjectiveTo assess Medicare Part D formulary coverage for 4 brand-name formulations of insulin and direct-acting antiviral agents and their authorized generic formulations.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Formulary and Pricing Information Files from quarter 3 of 2020 and Medicare Part D plan enrollment for September 2020. Four patented brand-name drugs (sofosbuvir and velpatasvir fixed-dose combination tablets [Epclusa], ledipasvir and sofosbuvir tablets [Harvoni], insulin lispro [Humalog], and insulin aspart [Novolog]) and their authorized generic formulations for all Part D stand-alone prescription drug plans (n = 959) and Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans (n = 3148) were studied.Main outcomes and measuresBeneficiary-weighted formulary coverage of brand-name and authorized generic products; beneficiary out-of-pocket costs; and prerebate plan, manufacturer, and Medicare spending on brand-name and authorized generic products.ResultsIn quarter 3 of 2020, 97% of beneficiaries were in plans that covered brand-name drugs only or both brand-name and authorized generic drugs; approximately 3% were in plans that covered authorized generic drugs only. Observed authorized generic drug list prices were 67%, 62%, and 50% lower than list prices for Epclusa, Harvoni, and each brand-name insulin product, respectively. Medicare beneficiaries using authorized generic drugs could save $270 per year for 12 vials of Humalog and $2974 for a full course of Harvoni. Plans, however, have limited incentives to encourage authorized generic drug use because rebates for brands likely exceed savings available with authorized generic drugs, particularly for beneficiaries with spending that reaches the Medicare Part D coverage gap.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this cross-sectional study suggest that authorized generic drugs for insulin and direct-acting antiviral agents may lower out-of-pocket spending for patients but are unlikely to provide savings for Part D plans or Medicare. Instead, these drugs allow manufacturers to offer products at a lower list price without materially lowering net prices or profits.

Dataset Information

Projected spending for brand-name drugs in English primary care given US prices: a cross-sectional study.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Projected spending for brand-name drugs in English primary care given US prices: a cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets