Is It Working? Evaluating The First Round Of Medicare Drug Price Negotiations.

In the short and longer terms, the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program should be evaluated based on four categories of outcomes: beneficiary access, prices and spending, promotion of value, and effects on innovation.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Costs of Inhaler Devices in the US.

This study assesses mean emissions and costs and estimated total yearly emissions and costs for US-branded inhalers prescribed to Medicare Part D and Medicaid beneficiaries.

Expanding Medicare Coverage Of Anti-Obesity Medicines Could Increase Annual Spending By $3.1 Billion To $6.1 Billion.

The introduction of highly effective anti-obesity drugs, such as Wegovy, has prompted debate over Medicare's prohibition on coverage of such products. In this study, we estimated the costs of allowing Medicare coverage of anti-obesity medications. Our analysis incorporated data on drug costs, real-world adherence rates, and potential changes to other health care spending. Using Medicare claims, we also documented beneficiaries' eligibility for nearly identical products approved for different indications. Assuming that anti-obesity drugs were covered in 2025 and that 5 percent or 10 percent of newly eligible patients were prescribed one, annual Part D costs were estimated to increase by $3.1 billion or $6.1 billion, respectively. The marginal costs of this policy could fall by as much as 62.5 percent from baseline estimates if products were approved for additional indications in coming years because these additional conditions are common among people with obesity. This would increase Medicare spending but would occur regardless of a policy change. Longer-term estimates come with significant uncertainty about utilization and price changes, but these results are consistent with this policy change likely increasing Medicare costs by the low to middle tens of billions of dollars over ten years.

Total cost of care of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries participating in an appointment-based model in a national pharmacy chain.

BACKGROUND: The appointment-based model (ABM) is a pharmacy service to improve medication-related health outcomes. ABM involves medication synchronization and medication review, plus other services such as medication reconciliation, medication therapy management, vaccine administration, and multimedication packaging. ABM can improve medication adherence, but the economic impact is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a national pharmacy chain's ABM program for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries on total cost of care (TCOC). METHODS: This study analyzed administrative claims data from April 7, 2017, through February 29, 2020, for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with Part D using a propensity score-matched cohort design. The national pharmacy chain provided a list of ABM participants. Eligibility criteria for the ABM and control (non-ABM) groups included age 65 years or older on the index date (initial participation, ABM; random fill date, control) and continuous enrollment from at least 6 months pre-index (baseline) date through at least 6 months post-index (follow-up) date. Medical inflation-adjusted (2020) TCOC was calculated as the sum of all health care spending from Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with Part D plan and patient paid amounts, standardized to per patient per month (PPPM), during the follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included medication adherence calculated across prevalent maintenance therapeutic classes using proportion of days covered (PDC). RESULTS: Each group contained 5,225 patients with balanced characteristics after matching: 64% female, 73% White, mean age 75 years, mean Quan-Charlson comorbidity index score 0.9, and hypertension and dyslipidemia, each >65%. Median baseline all-cause PPPM health care costs in the ABM and control groups, respectively, were $517 and $548 ($221 and $234 medical, $135 and $164 pharmacy). Baseline PDC of at least 80% was 83% in the ABM group and, similarly, 84% in the control group. The mean (SD) follow-up was 604 (155) days for the ABM group and 598 (151) days for the control group. During the follow-up period, the median PPPM TCOC for the ABM group was $656 and was $723 for the control group (P = 0.011). Median pharmacy costs were also significantly less in the ABM group ($161 vs $193, P < 0.001), whereas median medical costs were $328 in the ABM group and $358 among controls (P = 0.254). More patients in the ABM group were adherent during follow-up, with 84% achieving PDC of at least 80% vs 82% among controls (P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: The ABM program was associated with significantly lower follow-up median total costs (medical and pharmacy), driven primarily by pharmacy costs. More patients were adherent in the ABM program. Payers and pharmacies can use this evidence to assess ABM programs for their members.

Affordability and adherence gains for Medicare Part D low-income subsidy recipients when low-income subsidy benefits expanded in 2024.

BACKGROUND: The lowest-income beneficiaries enrolled in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program receive "full subsidies" that waive the premium and deductible and impose minimal copayments. Those with slightly higher incomes and assets may be eligible for "partial subsidies." Prior to 2024, individuals receiving partial subsidies faced reduced Part D premiums and deductibles and paid 15% coinsurance. Under provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, recipients of partial subsidies were upgraded to full subsidies beginning in 2024. The objective of this pilot study was to assess whether the new policy is likely to reduce cost-related nonadherence to prescribed medications- a common problem faced by older adults even among those receiving subsidies. OBJECTIVE: To compare cost-related nonadherence among partial- vs full-subsidy recipients with similar characteristics. METHODS: We used 2019 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data for the study. The Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey is uniquely suited for this work because it contains administrative data on low-income subsidy enrollment plus extensive survey-based information on financial resources necessary to establish program eligibility and rates of cost-related nonadherence. Explanatory variables included sociodemographic characteristics, economic resources, work status, and health variables. RESULTS: We found that the partial-subsidy group reported significantly more cost-related nonadherence (39% vs 22%; P = 0.01) arising both from a lower propensity to fill some prescriptions (23% vs 12%; P = 0.03) and to more delays in filling others (29% vs 8%; P = 0.03). The differences were more pronounced for women and racial and ethnic minority groups in contrast to men and majority populations, respectively. Because the study samples were small, we could not conduct a detailed regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of cost-related nonadherence effects associated with partial-subsidy cost sharing suggests that the Inflation Reduction Act policy to expand low-income subsidies may boost medication adherence, most notably among women and racial and ethnic minority groups.

Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs for Type 2 Diabetes Medications When Aging Into Medicare.

Importance: For people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), out-of-pocket medication costs may influence medication choice, adherence, and overall diabetes management and progression. Little is known about how these costs change as insured people enter Medicare at age 65 years, when coinsurance in the coverage gap and catastrophic phases of Part D coverage can be increased greatly by use of insulin and newer, branded medications (eg, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors). Objective: To identify whether reaching age 65 years is associated with T2D medication out-of-pocket costs and utilization. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study (2012-2020) featuring 7 years of follow-up used prescription drug claims data from the TriNetX Diamond Network. Participants included people in the US with diagnosed T2D, and claims for T2D medications were observed both before and after age 65 years. Data analysis was performed from October 2022 to September 2023. Exposure: Reaching age 65 years, according to participants' year of birth. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was patient out-of-pocket costs for T2D drugs per quarter (inflation adjusted to 2020 dollars). Utilization, measured as binary utilization of specific classes, and the number of claims for mutually exclusive classes and combinations of classes were also examined. All outcomes were examined using regression discontinuity design. Results: In claims data for 129 997 individuals with T2D diagnosed at ages 58 to 72 years (mean [SD] age, 65.50 [2.95] years; 801 235 female [50.9%]), reaching age 65 years was associated with an increase of $23.04 (95% CI, $19.86-$26.22) in mean quarterly out-of-pocket costs for T2D drugs, and an increase of $56.36 (95% CI, $51.48-$61.23) at the 95th percentile of spending, after utilization adjustment. Utilization decreased by 5.3% at age 65 years, from 3.40 claims per quarter (95% CI, 3.38-3.42 claims per quarter) to 3.22 claims per quarter (95% CI, 3.21-3.24 claims per quarter), but a shift in composition of utilization, including increased insulin use, was associated with additional increases in patient costs. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of individuals with T2D, the increase in spending upon reaching age 65 years (when most people enroll in Medicare) was associated with patient coinsurance in the coverage gap and catastrophic coverage phases of Medicare Part D. The increased patient cost burden at age 65 years and a modest reduction in overall T2D drug utilization suggest that as people with T2D age into Medicare, there is potentially an increase in nonadherence and diabetes complications.

Formulary Coverage of Brand-Name Adalimumab and Biosimilars Across Medicare Part D Plans.

This study examines formulary coverage of brand-name adalimumab and biosimilars across Medicare Part D plans.

Price benchmarks of drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation and their therapeutic alternatives.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are currently negotiating prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers for the first 10 Part D drugs selected for Medicare drug price negotiation. Non-publicly available data, including the net prices of selected drugs and their therapeutic alternatives, will play a central role in the determination of the maximum fair prices (MFPs). OBJECTIVE: To estimate price benchmarks involved in the derivation of the starting point of the CMS initial price offer for the 10 drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation. METHODS: For the 10 drugs selected for negotiation, we reported (1) the list price, (2) the net price after manufacturer discounts, (3) the maximum negotiated price based on the minimum statutory discount, and (4) the ceiling of the MFP, estimated as the lowest of the latter 2. We also estimated net prices for therapeutic alternatives to the selected drugs. Net prices were estimated using peer-reviewed methodology that isolates commercial discounts negotiated between payers and manufacturers from mandatory discounts under government programs. All price benchmarks were estimated at the product level, for 30-day equivalent dosing, using 2021 data. RESULTS: 6 products (apixaban, rivaroxaban, empagliflozin, sacubitril/valsartan, etanercept, and insulin aspart) had therapeutic alternatives with lower net prices, which will be integrated with clinical benefit data in the derivation of initial price offers. The other 4 products (ustekinumab, ibrutinib, sitagliptin, and dapagliflozin) had therapeutic alternatives with higher net prices than the drugs selected for negotiation. For ibrutinib and ustekinumab, prices based on the minimum discounts were considerably lower than the estimated net prices and will likely set the starting point of the initial price offer. For dapagliflozin and sitagliptin, the starting point of the initial price offer will likely resemble their existing net prices. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses identify different negotiation scenarios for the first 10 drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation, based on key elements involved in the derivation of the initial price offer. Our analyses can help improve transparency in the negotiation process, because the CMS is not required to reveal the information used in the derivation of price offers.

Role of Specialty Drugs in Rising Drug Prices for Medicare Part D.

Importance: Prices for brand-name drugs affect both federal spending and out-of-pocket liability for Medicare Part D enrollees. Objective: To examine how prices for brand-name drugs, net of rebates and discounts, have changed from 2010 to 2019 and to examine the role of specialty drugs in those changes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study involved a descriptive analysis of prescription drug spending and prices between 2010 and 2019. The universe of prescription drug event data from those years were combined with confidential data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on rebates and discounts that manufacturers and pharmacies pay to Medicare Part D plans to calculate rebate percentages, net spending, and net prices at the drug level. Specialty drugs were identified using information from IQVIA, allowing for a stratified analysis by specialty status. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Average prices (net of rebates and discounts in 2019 US dollars) and average annual price growth for brand-name prescription drugs, overall and separately for specialty and nonspecialty drugs. Results: Average net prices for brand-name drugs doubled from 2010 to 2019 (from $167 to $370). Growth in specialty drug prices was an underlying factor in those increases: average annual price growth was 13.2% for specialty drugs compared with 2.6% for nonspecialty drugs. Price growth for specialty drugs over the decade was smaller than what the Congressional Budget Office reported for the 2010 to 2015 period (increase of 22.3% per year vs 4.5% per year for nonspecialty drug prices), suggesting that price growth slowed after 2015. Drugs that treat hepatitis C contributed to that difference because prices for those drugs were initially high and then subsequently fell. Absent those drugs, price growth for specialty drugs averaged 18.1% in the first half of the decade and 6.9% in the second half. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study show that prices for specialty drugs have continued to increase over time in the Medicare Part D program, which contributes to high out-of-pocket liability for users of those drugs in addition to US federal budgetary expenditures.

The national financial burden of guideline directed medical therapy for heart failure patients from 2013 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: Guideline Directed Medical Therapy (GDMT) has been revolutionary in improving outcomes of heart failure patients. However, with the addition of more medication classes, the annual cost of these medications on the US healthcare system needs further evaluation. OBJECTIVES: We aim to evaluate the trend of annual cost of GDMT from 2013 to 2021 using the Medicare-part D Database. METHODS: Using Medicare Part D database (2013-2021), we determined the number of beneficiaries receiving these drugs, the total number of 30-day fills for each medication, and the total annual spending on these medications. Linear regression was used to analyze data using Python Programming Language. P value of less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: The estimated annual Medicare- part D spending on empagliflozin had a 50 % increase in cost between 2020 and 2021, which could be attributed to its FDA approval for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Empagliflozin cost Medicare 3.73 billion USD in 2021 alone. In addition, sacubitril-valsartan had a strong trajectory since its introduction to the market in 2015. Since its approval in July 2015, it cost Medicare 4.51 billion USD. The Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist class was the least costly class of GDMT. CONCLUSION: The rise in the cost of GDMT is not proportionate amongst the different classes of GDMT. Newer classes of medications cast a significant cost on Medicare in recent years.

Shingles Vaccination in Medicare Part D After Inflation Reduction Act Elimination of Cost Sharing.

This cross-sectional study uses data from retail pharmacies to examine shingles vaccine uptake among Medicare Part D beneficiaries following an IRA policy to eliminate cost sharing.

Potential Medicare Part D Savings on Ophthalmic Generic Drugs.

This economic evaluation assesses potential Medicare Part D savings on ophthalmic generic drugs if discount coupon prices are used.

Dermatology medications with the highest cost burden on Medicare Part D: Potential implications of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Signed into law in August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act includes provisions requiring the federal government to negotiate prices for medications covered under Medicare Part D. Initial negotiations will target drugs with the highest total spending and price increases relative to inflation. In this study, we identify dermatology prescriptions with the highest cost burden on Medicare Part D and analyze recent trends in total spending and unit costs.

Out-of-Pocket Cost Modeling of Adjuvant Antiestrogen and Radiation Therapy After Lumpectomy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer Across Medicaid and Medicare Plans.

PURPOSE: The optimal adjuvant therapy (antiestrogen therapy [ET] + radiation therapy or ET alone, or in some reports radiation therapy alone) in older women with early-stage breast cancer has been highly debated. However, granular details on the role of insurance in the out-of-pocket cost for patients receiving ET with or without radiation therapy are lacking. This project disaggregates out-of-pocket costs by insurance plans to increase treatment cost transparency. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Several radiation therapy schedules are accepted standards as per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. For our financial estimate model, we used the 5-fraction and 15-fraction radiation therapy and ET prescribed over a 5-year duration. The total aggregate out-of-pocket costs were determined from the sum of treatment costs, deductibles, and copays/coinsurance based on Medicaid, Original Medicare, Medigap Plan G, and Medicare Part D Rx plans. The model assumes a Medicare- and/or Medicaid-eligible patient ≥70 years of age with node-negative, early-stage estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. Patient out-of-pocket costs were estimated from publicly available insurance data from plan-specific benefit coverage materials using a 5-year time horizon. RESULTS: Original Medicare beneficiaries face a total out-of-pocket treatment charge of $2738.52 for ET alone, $2221.26 for 5-fraction radiation therapy alone, $2573.92 for 15-fraction radiation therapy alone, $3361.26 for combined ET+ 5-fraction radiation therapy, and $3713.92 for combined ET + 15-fraction radiation therapy. Medigap Plan G beneficiaries have an out-of-pocket charge of $1130.00 with radiation therapy alone and face an out-of-pocket of $2270.00 for ET alone and combined ET+ radiation therapy. For Medicaid beneficiaries, all treatments approved by Medicaid are covered without limit, resulting in no out-of-pocket expense for either adjuvant treatment option. CONCLUSIONS: This model (based on actual cost estimates per insurance plan rather than claims data), by estimating expenses within Medicare and Medicaid plans, provides a level of transparency to patient cost. With knowledge of the costs borne by patients themselves, treatment decisions informed by patients' individual priorities and preferences may be further enhanced.

The Inflation Reduction Act: Implications for Medicare spending and access to biologic therapies for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis and asthma.

KEY POINTS: In 2021, Medicare spending on biologics was $926 million in Part B (FFS) and $1.3 billion in Part D (FFS/MA). Between 2017 and 2021, annual Medicare spending on biologics increased by approximately 200%. Between 2023 and 2025, Medicare Part D OOP costs for biologics will decrease by an estimated 50%-60%.

Availability and Cost of Expensive and Common Generic Prescription Drugs: A Cross-sectional Analysis of Direct-to-Consumer Pharmacies.

BACKGROUND: Direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmacies sell generic prescription drugs, often at lower prices than traditional retail pharmacies; however, not all drugs are available, and prices vary. OBJECTIVE: To determine the availability and cost of generic drugs at DTC pharmacies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Five national DTC pharmacies in April and May 2023. PARTICIPANTS: Each qualifying form of 100 generic drugs with the highest cost-per-patient (expensive) and the 50 generic drugs with the highest number of patients (common) in Medicare Part D in 2020 MAIN MEASURES: Availability of these drugs and the lowest DTC pharmacy price for a standardized drug strength and supply (e.g., 30 pills), compared to GoodRx retail pharmacy prices. KEY RESULTS: Of the 118 expensive generic dosage forms, 94 (80%) were available at 1 or more DTC pharmacies; out of 52 common generic dosage forms, 51 (98%) were available (p < 0.001). Of the 88 expensive generics available in comparable quantities and strengths across pharmacies, 42 (47%) had the lowest cost at Amazon, 23 (26%) at Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company, 13 (14%) at Health Warehouse, and 12 (13%) at Costco; for 51 common generic formulations, 16 (31%) had the lowest cost at Costco, 14 (27%) at Amazon, 10 (20%) at Walmart, 6 (12%) at Health Warehouse, and 5 (10%) at Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company. For the 77 expensive generics with available GoodRx retail pharmacy prices, the median cost savings at DTC pharmacies were $231 (95% CI, $129-$792) or 76% (IQR, 53-91%); for 51 common generics, savings were $19 (95% CI, $10-$34) or 75% (IQR, 67-83%). CONCLUSIONS: Many of the most expensive generic drugs are unavailable at direct-to-consumer pharmacies. Meanwhile, less expensive, commonly used generics are widely available, but drug prices vary by pharmacy and savings are modest, requiring patients to shop around for the lowest cost.