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.

Added Therapeutic Benefit of Top-Selling Brand-name Drugs in Medicare.

Importance: The 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. Objective: To 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 Participants: In 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 Measures: Ratings 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. Results: Forty-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 Relevance: Many 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.

Medicare Part D: The First Fifteen Years.

In this month's column, the author reflects on the initial concerns of the Medicare Part D program and the actual results of the program 15 years after it became law.

Moving Pharmacy Benefits from Nice to Have to Essential Benefits.

DISCLOSURES: No funding supported the writing of this commentary. The authors have nothing to disclose.

Pharmacy Benefit Managers: Practices, Controversies, and What Lies Ahead.

Issue: Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are responsible for negotiating payment rates for a large share of prescription drugs distributed in the U.S. Recently, policymakers have expressed concern that certain PBMs' business practices may not be consistent with public policy goals to improve the value of pharmaceutical spending. Goal: We sought to explain key controversies related to PBM practices and their roles in driving value in the pharmaceutical market. Methods: Literature review and feedback from top experts on PBM business practices and potential policy solutions. Key Findings and Conclusion: In some cases, PBMs' use of rebates has contributed to high pharmaceutical costs, yet proposed solutions to the rebate controversy--including passing the rebate through to payers or patients--will not on their own reduce overall pharmaceutical spending without other policies that drive toward value. Policymakers seeking to reform pharmaceutical reimbursement beyond the practice of rebates will need to consider these changes in light of the recent mergers between PBMs and insurers and the entry of new market competitors.

Coverage of Novel Therapeutic Agents by Medicare Prescription Drug Plans Following FDA Approval.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory approval of novel therapies by the FDA does not guarantee insurance coverage requisite for most clinical use. In the United States, the largest health insurance payer is the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which provides Part D prescription drug benefits to over 43 million Americans. While the FDA and CMS have implemented policies to improve the availability of novel therapies to patients, the time required to secure Medicare prescription drug benefit coverage-and accompanying restrictions-has not been previously described. OBJECTIVE: To characterize Medicare prescription drug plan coverage of novel therapeutic agents approved by the FDA between 2006 and 2012. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of drug coverage using Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit plan data from 2007 to 2015. Drug coverage was defined as inclusion of a drug on a plan formulary, evaluated at 1 and 3 years after FDA approval. For covered drugs, coverage was categorized as unrestrictive or restrictive, which was defined as requiring step therapy or prior authorization. Median coverage was estimated at 1 and 3 years after FDA approval, overall, and compared with a number of drug characteristics, including year of approval, CMS-protected class status, biologics versus small molecules, therapeutic area, orphan drug status, FDA priority review, and FDA-accelerated approval. RESULTS: Among 144 novel therapeutic agents approved by the FDA between 2006 and 2012, 14% (20 of 144) were biologics; 40% (57 of 144) were included in a CMS-protected class; 31% (45 of 144) were approved under an orphan drug designation; 42% (60 of 144) received priority review; and 11% (16 of 144) received accelerated approval. The proportion of novel therapeutics covered by at least 1 Medicare prescription drug plan was 90% (129 of 144) and 97% (140 of 144) at 1 year and 3 years after approval, respectively. At 3 years after approval, 28% (40 of 144) of novel therapeutics were covered by all plans. Novel therapeutic agents were covered by a median of 61% (interquartile range [IQR] = 39%-90%) of plans at 1 year and 79% (IQR = 57%-100%) at 3 years (P < 0.001). When novel therapeutics were covered, many plans restricted coverage through prior authorization or step therapy requirements. The median proportion of unrestrictive coverage was 29% (IQR = 13%-54%) at 3 years. Several drug characteristics, including therapeutic area, FDA priority review, FDA-accelerated approval, and CMS-protected drug class, were associated with higher rates of coverage, whereas year of approval, drug type, and orphan drug status were not. CONCLUSIONS: Most Medicare prescription drug plans covered the majority of novel therapeutics in the year following FDA approval, although access was often restricted through prior authorization or step therapy and was dependent on plan choice. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was contributed by a student research grant awarded to Shaw and provided by the Yale School of Medicine Office of Student Research under National Institutes of Health training grant award T35DK104689. Ross reports research grants to Yale University from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (U01FD005938, U01FD004585), Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (HHSM-500-2013-13018I), Blue Cross-Blue Shield Association, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), and National Institutes of Health (R01HS025164), unrelated to this study. Dhruva has nothing to disclose. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Medicare Program; Contract Year 2019 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage, Medicare Cost Plan, Medicare Fee-for-Service, the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs, and the PACE Program. Final rule.

This final rule will revise the Medicare Advantage (MA) program (Part C) regulations and Prescription Drug Benefit program (Part D) regulations to implement certain provisions of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) to further reduce the number of beneficiaries who may potentially misuse or overdose on opioids while still having access to important treatment options; implement certain provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act; support innovative approaches to improve program quality, accessibility, and affordability; offer beneficiaries more choices and better care; improve the CMS customer experience and maintain high beneficiary satisfaction; address program integrity policies related to payments based on prescriber, provider and supplier status in MA, Medicare cost plan, Medicare Part D and the PACE programs; provide an update to the official Medicare Part D electronic prescribing standards; and clarify program requirements and certain technical changes regarding treatment of Medicare Part A and Part B appeal rights related to premiums adjustments.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Meeting MTM Eligibility Criteria Based on Star Ratings Compared with the Medicare Modernization Act.

BACKGROUND: Previous research found racial and ethnic disparities in meeting medication therapy management (MTM) eligibility criteria implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in accordance with the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA). OBJECTIVE: To examine whether alternative MTM eligibility criteria based on the CMS Part D star ratings quality evaluation system can reduce racial and ethnic disparities. METHODS: This study analyzed the Beneficiary Summary File and claims files for Medicare beneficiaries linked to the Area Health Resource File. Three million Medicare beneficiaries with continuous Parts A, B, and D enrollment in 2012-2013 were included. Proposed star ratings criteria included 9 existing medication safety and adherence measures developed mostly by the Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Logistic regression and the Blinder-Oaxaca approach were used to test disparities in meeting MMA and star ratings eligibility criteria across racial and ethnic groups. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine whether there was a disparity reduction by comparing individuals who were MTM-eligible under MMA but not under star ratings criteria and those who were MTM-eligible under star ratings criteria but not under the MMA. Concerning MMA-based MTM criteria, main and sensitivity analyses were performed to represent the entire range of the MMA eligibility thresholds reported by plans in 2009, 2013, and proposed by CMS in 2015. Regarding star ratings criteria, meeting any 1 of the 9 measures was examined as the main analysis, and various measure combinations were examined as the sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the main analysis, adjusted odds ratios for non-Hispanic blacks (backs) and Hispanics to non-Hispanic whites (whites) were 1.394 (95% CI = 1.375-1.414) and 1.197 (95% CI = 1.176-1.218), respectively, under star ratings. Blacks were 39.4% and Hispanics were 19.7% more likely to be MTM-eligible than whites. Blacks and Hispanics were less likely to be MTM-eligible than whites in some sensitivity analyses. Disparities were not completely explained by differences in patient characteristics based on the Blinder-Oaxaca approach. The multinomial logistic regression of each main analysis found significant adjusted relative risk ratios (RRR) between whites and blacks for 2009 (RRR = 0.459, 95% CI = 0.438-0.481); 2013 (RRR = 0.449, 95% CI = 0.434-0.465); and 2015 (RRR = 0.436, 95% CI = 0.425-0.446) and between whites and Hispanics for 2009 (RRR = 0.559, 95% CI = 0.528-0.593); 2013 (RRR = 0.544, 95% CI = 0.521-0.569); and 2015 (RRR = 0.503, 95% CI = 0.488-0.518). These findings indicate a significant reduction in racial and ethnic disparities when using star ratings eligibility criteria; for example, black-white disparities in the likelihood of meeting MTM eligibility criteria were reduced by 55.1% based on star ratings compared with MMA in 2013. Similar patterns were found in most sensitivity and disease-specific analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that minorities were more likely than whites to be MTM-eligible under the star ratings criteria. In addition, MTM eligibility criteria based on star ratings would reduce racial and ethnic disparities associated with MMA in the general Medicare population and those with specific chronic conditions. DISCLOSURES: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01AG049696. The content of this study is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Cushman reports an Eli Lilly grant and uncompensated consulting for Takeda Pharmaceuticals outside this work. The other authors have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Study concept and design were contributed by Wang and Shih, along with Wan, Kuhle, Spivey, and Cushman. Wang, Qiao, and Wan took the lead in data collection, with assistance from the other authors. Data interpretation was performed by Wang, Kuhle, and Qiao, with assistance from the other authors. The manuscript was written by Spivey and Qiao, along with the other authors, and revised by Cushman, Dagogo-Jack, and Chisholm-Burns, along with the other authors.

Medicare Program: Changes to the Medicare Claims and Entitlement, Medicare Advantage Organization Determination, and Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Determination Appeals Procedures. Final rule.

This final rule revises the procedures that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) follows at the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) level for appeals of payment and coverage determinations for items and services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries, enrollees in Medicare Advantage (MA) and other Medicare competitive health plans, and enrollees in Medicare prescription drug plans, as well as appeals of Medicare beneficiary enrollment and entitlement determinations, and certain Medicare premium appeals. In addition, this final rule revises procedures that the Department of Health and Human Services follows at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Medicare Appeals Council (Council) levels of appeal for certain matters affecting the ALJ level.