Trends in antidiabetic drug use and expenditure in public hospitals in Northwest China, 2012-21: a case study of Gansu Province.

BACKGROUND: Since the twenty-first century, the prevalence of diabetes has risen globally year by year. In Gansu Province, an economically underdeveloped province in northwest China, the cost of drugs for diabetes patients accounted for one-third of their total drug costs. To fundamentally reduce national drug expenditures and the burden of medication on the population, the relevant departments of government have continued to reform and improve drug policies. This study aimed to analyse long-term trends in antidiabetic drug use and expenditure in Gansu Province from 2012 to 2021 and to explore the role of pharmaceutical policy. METHODS: Data were obtained from the provincial centralised bidding and purchasing (CBP) platform. Drug use was quantified using the anatomical therapeutic chemistry/defined daily dose (ATC/DDD) method and standardised by DDD per 1000 inhabitants per day (DID), and drug expenditure was expressed in terms of the total amount and defined daily cost (DDC). Linear regression was used to analyse the trends and magnitude of drug use and expenditure. RESULTS: The overall trend in the use and expenditure of antidiabetic drugs was on the rise, with the use increasing from 1.04 in 2012 to 16.02 DID in 2021 and the expenditure increasing from 48.36 in 2012 to 496.42 million yuan in 2021 (from 7.66 to 76.95 million USD). Some new and expensive drugs changed in the use pattern, and their use and expenditure shares (as the percentage of all antidiabetic drugs) increased from 0 to 11.17% and 11.37%, but insulins and analogues and biguanides remained the most used drug class. The DDC of oral drugs all showed a decreasing trend, but essential medicines (EMs) and medical insurance drugs DDC gradually decreased with increasing use. The price reduction of the bid-winning drugs was over 40%, and the top three drugs were glimepiride 2mg/30, acarbose 50mg/30 and acarbose 100mg/30. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of pharmaceutical policies has significantly increased drug use and expenditure while reducing drug prices, and the introduction of novel drugs and updated treatment guidelines has led to changes in use patterns.

Cost-effectiveness of the top 100 drugs by public spending in Canada, 2015-2021: a repeated cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the distribution and spending by cost-effectiveness category among those drugs with the highest public spending levels in Canada. DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional study. SETTING: The Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness assessments by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) for top-100 brand-name outpatient drugs by gross public plan spending in any year between 2015 and 2021 in Canada Institute for Health Information's National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System data. Gross public plan spending by cost-effectiveness category. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2021, 152 brand-name drugs occupied a top-100 rank and were included in the analysis. Of those, 117 had been assessed by CADTH. During the 7-year period, there was an increase in both top-100 drugs with cost-effective (from 18 to 24) and cost-ineffective (from 29 to 41) assessments, while drugs not assessed or with an unclear assessment declined (from 31 to 19 and from 22 to 16, respectively). As a share of spending on top-100 drugs with an assessment, spending on cost-effective drugs was mostly stable at 40%-46% from 2015 to 2021, while spending on cost-ineffective drugs increased from 30% to 45%. CONCLUSION: A large and growing share of public drug spending has been allocated to cost-ineffective drugs in Canada. Dedicating large budgets to such treatments prevents spending with greater health impact elsewhere in the healthcare system and could restrain the capacity to pay for groundbreaking pharmaceutical innovation in the future.

Pricing above value: Selling to a market with selection problems.

This paper shows that selection incentives in downstream markets distort upstream prices. It is possible for inputs to be priced above the value that the good has for final consumers. We apply this idea to pharmaceutical companies selling drugs to a health insurance market with selection problems. We specify the conditions under which drugs are sold at prices exceeding treatment value. Another feature of the model is an excessive private incentive to reduce market size, e.g. in the form of personalized medicine.

Patents on Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies for Prescription Drugs and Generic Competition.

This cross-sectional study identifies the prevalence of patents on risk evaluation and mitigation strategies and their association with delaying generic competition.

Why are our medicines so expensive? Spoiler: Not for the reasons you are being told .

Often described as a natural economic trend, the prices that pharmaceutical companies charge for new medicines have skyrocketed in recent years. Companies claim these prices are justified because of the 'value' new treatments represent or that they reflect the high costs and risks associated with the research and development process. They also claim that the revenues generated through these high prices are required to pay for continued innovation.This paper argues that high prices are not inevitable but the result of a societal and political choice to rely on a for-profit business model for medical innovation, selling medicines at the highest price possible. Instead of focusing on therapeutic advances, it prioritises profit maximisation to benefit shareholders and investors over improving people's health outcomes or equitable access.As a result, people and health systems worldwide struggle to pay for the increasingly expensive health products, with growing inequities in access to even life-saving medicines while the biopharmaceutical industry and its financiers are the most lucrative business sectors.As the extreme COVID-19 vaccine inequities once again highlighted, we urgently need to reform the social contract between governments, the biopharmaceutical industry, and the public and restore its original health purpose. Policymakers must redesign policies and financing of the pharmaceutical research and development ecosystem such that public and private sectors work together towards the shared objective of responding to public health and patients' needs, rather than maximising financial return because medicines should not be a luxury.

Applying a cost-based pricing model for innovative cancer treatments subject to indication expansion: A case study for pembrolizumab and daratumumab.

BACKGROUND: Expanding the indication of already approved immuno-oncology drugs presents treatment opportunities for patients but also strains healthcare systems. Cost-based pricing models are discussed as a possibility for cost containment. This study focuses on two drugs, pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and daratumumab (Darzalex), to explore the potential effect of indication broadening on the estimated price when using the cost-based pricing (CBP) model proposed by Uyl-de Groot and Löwenberg (2018). METHODS: The model was used to calculate cumulative yearly prices, cumulative prices per indication, and non-cumulative indication-based prices using inputs such as research and development (R&D) costs, manufacturing costs, eligible patient population, and a profit margin. A deterministic stepwise analysis and scenario analysis were conducted to examine how sensitive the estimated price is to the different input assumptions. RESULTS: The yearly cumulative cost-based prices (CBPs) ranged from €52 to €885 for pembrolizumab per vial and €823 to €31,941 for daratumumab per vial. Prices were higher in initial years or indications due to smaller patient populations, decreased over time or after additional indications. Sensitivity analysis showed that the number of eligible patients had the most significant impact on the estimated price. In the scenario analysis the profit margin contributed most to a higher CBPs for both drugs. Lower estimates resulted from assumed lower R&D costs. DISCUSSION: The estimated CBPs are consistently lower than Dutch list prices for pembrolizumab (€2,861), mainly resulting from larger patient populations in registered indications. However, daratumumab's list prices fall within the range of modeled CBPs depending on the year or indication (€4,766). Both CBPs decrease over time or with additional indications. The number of eligible patients and initial R&D costs have the most significant influence on the CBPs. These findings contribute to the ongoing discussions on pharmaceutical pricing, especially concerning cancer drugs with expanding indications.

Integrated budget impact model to estimate the impact of introducing selpercatinib as a tumor-agnostic treatment option for patients with RET-altered solid tumors in the US.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the potential budget impact on US third party payers (commercial or Medicare) associated with addition of selpercatinib as a tumor-agnostic treatment for patients with Rearranged during Transfection (RET)-altered solid tumors. METHODS: An integrated budget impact model (iBIM) with 3-year (Y) time horizon was developed for 19 RET-altered tumors. It is referred to as an integrated model because it is a single model that integrated results across multiple tumor types (as opposed to tumor-specific models developed traditionally). The model estimated eligible patient populations and included tumor-specific comparator treatments for each tumor type. Estimated annual total costs (2022USD, $) included costs of drug, administration, supportive care, and toxicity. For a one-million-member plan, the number of patients with RET-altered tumors eligible for treatment, incremental total costs, and incremental per-member per-month (PMPM) costs associated with introduction of selpercatinib treatment were estimated. Uncertainty associated with model parameters was assessed using various sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Commercial perspective estimated 11.68 patients/million with RET-altered tumors as treatment-eligible annually, of which 7.59 (Y1), 8.17 (Y2), and 8.76 (Y3) patients would be selpercatinib-treated (based on forecasted market share). The associated incremental total and PMPM costs (commercial) were estimated to be: $873,099 and $0.073 (Y1), $2,160,525 and $0.180 (Y2), and $2,561,281 and $0.213 (Y3), respectively. The Medicare perspective estimated 55.82 patients/million with RET-altered tumors as treatment-eligible annually, of which 36.29 (Y1), 39.08 (Y2), and 41.87 (Y3) patients would be selpercatinib-treated. The associated incremental total and PMPM costs (Medicare) were estimated to be: $4,447,832 and $0.371 (Y1), $11,076,422 and $0.923 (Y2), and $12,637,458 and $1.053 (Y3), respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses across both perspectives identified drug costs, selpercatinib market share, incidence of RET, and treatment duration as significant drivers of incremental costs. CONCLUSIONS: Three-year incremental PMPM cost estimates suggest a modest impact on payer-budgets associated with introduction of tumor-agnostic selpercatinib treatment.

Evaluation of Potential Urologic Prescription Drug Savings With Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company.

INTRODUCTION: Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC) launched in 2022 with a goal to decrease prescription drug costs. Thus far, research has focused on possible savings if Medicare purchased its annual volume of drugs at MCCPDC prices. The aim of this study is to analyze if MCCPDC can offer savings directly to urologic patients compared with other mail-order pharmacies, local pharmacies, and with patients using health insurance. METHODS: Twelve drugs used to treat urological diseases available on MCCPDC were analyzed. Pricing data of 30-tab and 90-tab prescriptions from MCCPDC, other mail-order pharmacies, and local in-person pharmacies near our zip code 40508 (Lexington, Kentucky) were compiled. To compare if MCCPDC could offer savings to patients using health insurance to fill their prescriptions, out-of-pocket drug costs for patients from the 2020 and 2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and the 2021 Medicare Part D spending data were extracted. RESULTS: Greater savings at MCCPDC were found at 90-tab prescriptions, but overall variability in prices existed. When comparing without health insurance, 9 of 12 drugs at MCCPDC were cheaper at 90 tabs with solifenacin and tadalafil saving $20 and $12 per prescription. When considering patients using insurance, abiraterone, sildenafil, and tadalafil offered savings on out-of-pocket costs at 30- and 90-tab prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: MCCPDC may offer cheaper prices for patients filling urologic medications, especially at 90-tab prescriptions. This study is the first to show patients could save money using MCCPDC and has implications for physician counseling when prescribing common urologic drugs.

Drug pricing and transparency in Europe and the United States: what is it and how does it work?

INTRODUCTION: As drug prices are viewed to be opaque, there have been increasing societal demands on policy and decision makers to implement initiatives that promote drug price transparency. AREAS COVERED: This Perspective discusses what drug price transparency is and how it works in theory and in practice. EXPERT OPINION: Transparency on drug prices may target payers, patients and health care professionals; and may relate to prices at each stage in a drug's distribution system. Although proponents claim that drug price transparency will reduce prices and increase patient access, others expect the opposite effect. Nevertheless, a number of international organizations, countries and consumer groups have taken steps to enhance drug price transparency. This has occurred despite a lack of theoretical clarity and of evidence about its likely impact. Policy and decision makers need to consider how payers and pharmaceutical companies are likely to react to drug price transparency and need to be aware that transparency may produce different effects depending on the country to which it is applied. Even though we believe that full drug price transparency is elusive, various incremental measures can be taken to move toward it.

Net prices of new antiobesity medications.

OBJECTIVE: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1s) are effective antiobesity drugs and the subject of intense debate around insurance coverage due to the large prevalence of obesity and overweight. The estimation of the budget impact associated with GLP1 insurance coverage requires estimates of GLP1 prices that account for manufacturer discounts. The authors applied a peer-reviewed method to estimate the net prices of GLP1s after manufacturer discounts. METHODS: The authors estimated manufacturer discounts for each product as the difference between the gross sales estimated at list price and manufacturer-reported revenue. From this difference, the authors subtracted discounts to government programs, including 340B, Medicaid, and the Medicare Part D coverage gap, and attributed the remaining amount to manufacturer discounts provided in the commercial market. RESULTS: Manufacturer discounts for GLP1s approved for obesity were estimated at 41%, which translated into net prices of $717 to $761 per month of supply. Manufacturer discounts for GLP1s approved for type 2 diabetes ranged from 54% to 59%, which translated into net prices of $312 to $469 per month of supply. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of manufacturer discounts underscores the need to consider net price information in studies that inform private and public payers' decision-making around coverage of GLP1s for obesity.

Medicare price negotiation and pharmaceutical innovation following the Inflation Reduction Act.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) requires Medicare to negotiate lower prices for some medicines with high Medicare spending. Using historical data from public and proprietary sources to apply the IRA's negotiation criteria retrospectively, we identify all drugs that met the eligibility criteria from 2012 to 2021 to classify drugs that would have had a negotiated price in effect in 2022 and to calculate associated decreases in industry revenues. Our results suggest that the IRA's reduction in overall industry revenue will be modest, will not affect most top-selling drugs and will not likely result in large-scale defunding of research and development. Changes in the net present value of drug-development projects will be concentrated in medicines where Medicare is a notable purchaser and where the ratio between expected revenue and development costs was only marginally positive before the IRA. Policymakers considering narrowing or expanding the scope of Medicare negotiation should carefully consider the tradeoffs across medicines with diverse characteristics.

Price negotiation and pricing of anticancer drugs in China: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: While China has implemented reimbursement-linked drug price negotiation annually since 2017, emphasizing value-based pricing to achieve a value-based strategic purchase of medical insurance, whether drug prices became better aligned with clinical value after price negotiation has not been sufficiently established. This study aimed to assess the changes in prices and their relationship with the clinical value of anticancer drugs after the implementation of price negotiations in China. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this observational study, anticancer drug indications that were negotiated successfully between 2017 and 2022 were identified through National Reimbursement Drug Lists (NRDL) of China. We excluded extensions of indications for drugs already listed in the NRDL, indications for pediatric use, and indications lacking corresponding clinical trials. We identified pivotal clinical trials for included indications by consulting review reports or drug labels issued by the Center for Drug Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration. We calculated treatment costs as outcome measures based on publicly available prices and collected data on clinical value including safety, survival, quality of life, and overall response rate (ORR) from publications of pivotal clinical trials. The associations between drug costs and clinical value, both before and after negotiation, were analyzed using regression analyses. We also examined whether price negotiation has led to a reduction in the variation of treatment costs for a given value. We included 103 anticancer drug indications, primarily for the treatment of blood cancer, lung cancer, and breast cancer, with 76 supported by randomized controlled trials and 27 supported by single-arm clinical trials. The median treatment costs over the entire sample have been reduced from US$34,460.72 (interquartile range (IQR): 19,990.49 to 55,441.66) to US$13,688.79 (IQR: 7,746.97 to 21,750.97) after price negotiation (P < 0.001). Before price negotiation, each additional month of survival gained was associated with an increase in treatment costs of 3.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) [2.1, 4.8], P < 0.001) for indications supported by randomized controlled trials, and a 10% increase in ORR was associated with a 6.0% (95% CI [1.6, 10.3], P = 0.009) increase in treatment costs for indications supported by single-arm clinical trials. After price negotiation, the associations between costs and clinical value may not have changed significantly, but the variation of drug costs for a given value was reduced. Study limitations include the lack of transparency in official data, missing data on clinical value, and a limited sample size. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that the implementation of price negotiation in China has led to drug pricing better aligned with clinical value for anticancer drugs even after substantial price reductions. The achievements made in China could shed light on the price regulation in other countries, particularly those with limited resources and increasing drug expenditures.