Prolonged Increases in Public-Payer Spending and Prices After Unapproved Drug Initiative Approval of Colchicine.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: McCormick N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7851728 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Prolonged Increases in Public-Payer Spending and Prices After Unapproved Drug Initiative Approval of Colchicine.
McCormick Natalie N Wallace Zachary S ZS Yokose Chio C Jorge April A Sacks Chana A CA Hsu John J Choi Hyon K HK
JAMA internal medicine 20210201 2
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10918506 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBrand-name prescription drugs are an important driver of prescription drug spending, but different payers may bear these costs differentially necessitating different policy goals for each payer. But little is known about how the top 10 selling drugs in the U.S. impact spending across payers.ObjectiveTo estimate the differential spending burden of top prescription drugs on Medicaid, Medicare, commercial coverage, and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending.MethodsThe percentage of total prescription drug spending, total spending, total prescriptions, and average cost per prescription overall and for each of the following payers - Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance, and OOP - was calculated for each of the top 10 selling prescription drugs using 2017-2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data.ResultsThese 10 prescription drugs accounted for average annual spending of $83.4 billion and 19.0% of all prescription drug spending. Medicare tended to contribute the highest fraction of spending. The average annual cost per prescription ranged from $500 for Advair to $7400 for Tecfidera. Significant variation in the average annual number of prescriptions filled was observed, ranging from 1.4 million for Tecfidera to 13.6 million for Lantus.ConclusionsThe findings highlight the significant impact of the top 10 selling prescription drugs on U.S. prescription drug spending. The wide variation in per prescription cost as well as contribution to each payer's prescription drug burden emphasizes how policies targeting top-selling drugs may differentially impact payers as well as how payer-specific policies may differ substantially even for top selling drugs.
| S-EPMC10835280 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Public health encompasses a broad array of programs designed to prevent the occurrence of disease and injury within communities. But policy makers have little evidence to draw on when determining the value of investments in these program activities, which currently account for less than 5 percent of US health spending. We examine whether changes in spending by local public health agencies over a thirteen-year period contributed to changes in rates of community mortality from preventable causes of death, including infant mortality and deaths due to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer. We found that mortality rates fell between 1.1 percent and 6.9 percent for each 10 percent increase in local public health spending. These results suggest that increased public health investments can produce measurable improvements in health, especially in low-resource communities. However, more money by itself is unlikely to generate significant and sustainable health gains; improvements in public health practices are needed as well.
| S-EPMC4019932 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11645644 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This article examines the budgetary implications of high-priced accelerated approval drugs by estimating Medicare spending on these drugs from 2015 through 2019.
| S-EPMC8796889 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:US health care spending has continued to increase and now accounts for 18% of the US economy, although little is known about how spending on each health condition varies by payer, and how these amounts have changed over time. Objective:To estimate US spending on health care according to 3 types of payers (public insurance [including Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs], private insurance, or out-of-pocket payments) and by health condition, age group, sex, and type of care for 1996 through 2016. Design and Setting:Government budgets, insurance claims, facility records, household surveys, and official US records from 1996 through 2016 were collected to estimate spending for 154 health conditions. Spending growth rates (standardized by population size and age group) were calculated for each type of payer and health condition. Exposures:Ambulatory care, inpatient care, nursing care facility stay, emergency department care, dental care, and purchase of prescribed pharmaceuticals in a retail setting. Main Outcomes and Measures:National spending estimates stratified by health condition, age group, sex, type of care, and type of payer and modeled for each year from 1996 through 2016. Results:Total health care spending increased from an estimated $1.4 trillion in 1996 (13.3% of gross domestic product [GDP]; $5259 per person) to an estimated $3.1 trillion in 2016 (17.9% of GDP; $9655 per person); 85.2% of that spending was included in this study. In 2016, an estimated 48.0% (95% CI, 48.0%-48.0%) of health care spending was paid by private insurance, 42.6% (95% CI, 42.5%-42.6%) by public insurance, and 9.4% (95% CI, 9.4%-9.4%) by out-of-pocket payments. In 2016, among the 154 conditions, low back and neck pain had the highest amount of health care spending with an estimated $134.5 billion (95% CI, $122.4-$146.9 billion) in spending, of which 57.2% (95% CI, 52.2%-61.2%) was paid by private insurance, 33.7% (95% CI, 30.0%-38.4%) by public insurance, and 9.2% (95% CI, 8.3%-10.4%) by out-of-pocket payments. Other musculoskeletal disorders accounted for the second highest amount of health care spending (estimated at $129.8 billion [95% CI, $116.3-$149.7 billion]) and most had private insurance (56.4% [95% CI, 52.6%-59.3%]). Diabetes accounted for the third highest amount of the health care spending (estimated at $111.2 billion [95% CI, $105.7-$115.9 billion]) and most had public insurance (49.8% [95% CI, 44.4%-56.0%]). Other conditions estimated to have substantial health care spending in 2016 were ischemic heart disease ($89.3 billion [95% CI, $81.1-$95.5 billion]), falls ($87.4 billion [95% CI, $75.0-$100.1 billion]), urinary diseases ($86.0 billion [95% CI, $76.3-$95.9 billion]), skin and subcutaneous diseases ($85.0 billion [95% CI, $80.5-$90.2 billion]), osteoarthritis ($80.0 billion [95% CI, $72.2-$86.1 billion]), dementias ($79.2 billion [95% CI, $67.6-$90.8 billion]), and hypertension ($79.0 billion [95% CI, $72.6-$86.8 billion]). The conditions with the highest spending varied by type of payer, age, sex, type of care, and year. After adjusting for changes in inflation, population size, and age groups, public insurance spending was estimated to have increased at an annualized rate of 2.9% (95% CI, 2.9%-2.9%); private insurance, 2.6% (95% CI, 2.6%-2.6%); and out-of-pocket payments, 1.1% (95% CI, 1.0%-1.1%). Conclusions and Relevance:Estimates of US spending on health care showed substantial increases from 1996 through 2016, with the highest increases in population-adjusted spending by public insurance. Although spending on low back and neck pain, other musculoskeletal disorders, and diabetes accounted for the highest amounts of spending, the payers and the rates of change in annual spending growth rates varied considerably.
| S-EPMC7054840 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8576628 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8278265 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo understand the relative role of prices versus utilization in the variation in total spending per patient across medical groups.Data sourcesWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of medical claims for commercially insured adults from a large national insurer in 2018.Study designAfter assigning patients to a medical group based on primary care visits in 2018, we calculated total medical spending for each patient in that year. Total spending included care provided by clinicians within the medical group and care provided by other providers, including hospitals. It did not include drug spending. We estimated the case mix adjusted spending per patient for each medical group. Within each market, we categorized medical groups into quartiles based on the group's spending per patient. To decompose spending variation into price versus utilization, we compared spending differences between highest and lowest quartile medical groups under two scenarios: (1) using actual prices (2) using a standardized price (same price used for a given service across the nation).Principal findingsIn total, 3,921,736 patients were assigned to 7284 medical groups. Per-patient spending in the highest quartile of spending medical groups was $1813 higher than per-patient spending in the lowest spending quartile of medical groups (50% higher relative spending). This overall difference was primarily driven by differences in inpatient care, imaging, and specialty care. In the scenario where we used standardized prices, the difference in spending between medical groups in the top and bottom quartiles decreased to $1425, implying that 79% of the $1813 difference in spending between the top and bottom quartile groups is explained by utilization and the remaining 21% by prices. The likely explanation for the modest impact of prices is that patients cared for by a given medical group receive care across a wide range of providers.ConclusionsPrices explained a modest fraction of the differences in spending between medical groups.
| S-EPMC10622261 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8080228 | biostudies-literature