The Biden Administration's Push to Lower Drug Prices Through March-In Rights.

This Viewpoint explores a 2023 Biden administration proposal for US agencies to use their march-in rights and the impact this proposed framework could have on drug prices.

[Judicialization of high priced medications in Argentina: quali-quantitative study]. / Judicialización de medicamentos de alto precio en Argentina: estudio cuali-cuantitativo.

INTRODUCTION: The economic consequences of mandatory coverage, through judicial means, of high-priced medications constitutes a growing problem, which merits knowing its local characteristics to provide possible solutions. OBJECTIVE: To identify medications, diseases involved, economic impact and contextual factors of the judicialization of high-priced medications in the Argentine Health System(MEP). METHODS: Quali-quantitative descriptive study that retrospectively analyzed legal protection resources by MEP from three national and provincial databases from January 2017 to December 2020, evaluating the existing relationship between lawsuits with regulatory approval, inclusion in benefit packages and relationship with journalistic articles for the three most frequently prosecuted drugs. RESULTS: 405 lawsuits were included, mainly from the Ministry of National Health. The three most prosecuted medications were nusinersen (21.7%), palbociclib (5.9%) and agalsidase-alfa (4.7%). Only 69.4% of medications were approved for marketing in Argentina at the time of the protection; 45.7% were incorporated into the Single Reimbursement System, and 16.8% had a report from the National Commission for the Evaluation of Health Technologies and Clinical Excellence (CONETEC), which was negative in 87.1% of cases. The average time from request to provision of the medication was 150 days. A temporal correlation was observed between the appearance of the MEP in the national graphic press and the appeals occurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Judicialization focused on very highpriced medications for rare or oncological diseases. The rulings were mostly in favor of the plaintiff, and access times to the medication took a long time. The mass media anticipated the judicial processes.

Introducción: Las consecuencias económicas de la cobertura obligatoria, vía judicial, de medicamentos de alto precio constituye un problema creciente, que amerita conocer sus características locales para aportar posibles soluciones. OBJETIVO: Identificar medicamentos, enfermedades, impacto económico y factores contextuales de la judicialización de medicamentos de alto precio (MEP) Argentina. Métodos: Estudio descriptivo cuali-cuantitativo que analizó retrospectivamente recursos de amparos legales por MEP de tres bases de datos nacionales y provinciales durante 4 años, evaluando relación existente entre amparos con aprobación regulatoria, inclusión de los MEP al paquete de beneficios y relación con notas periodísticas. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 405 amparos provenientes principalmente del Ministerio de Salud Nacional. Los tres medicamentos más judicializados fueron nusinersen (21.7%), palbociclib (5.9%) y agalsidasa-alfa (4.7%). Solo el 69.4% de los medicamentos se encontraban aprobados para la comercialización en Argentina al momento del amparo; el 45.7% se encontraban incorporados al Sistema Único de Reintegros y el 16.8% contaban con informe de la Comisión Nacional de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias y Excelencia Clínica (CONETEC), negativa en el 87.1% de casos. El tiempo promedio desde la solicitud hasta la provisión del medicamento fue de 150 días. Se observó una correlación temporal entre la aparición del MEP en la prensa nacional gráfica y la presentación de amparos de dicho MEP. CONCLUSIONES: La judicialización se concentró en medicamentos de altísimo precio para enfermedades poco frecuentes u oncológicas. Los fallos fueron mayoritariamente a favor del demandante, siendo los tiempos de acceso al medicamento prolongados. Los medios de comunicación anticiparon los procesos judiciales.

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 impact of proposed price regulations on new patented medicine launches in Canada: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB), the agency that regulates the prices of patented medicines in Canada, published proposed amendments to the regulatory framework in December 2017. Because of a series of changes and delays, the revised policy has not yet been finalized. We sought to evaluate the potential early impact of the uncertainty about the PMPRB policy on patented-medicine launches. METHODS: We developed a retrospective cohort of patented medicines (molecules) sold in Canada and the 13 countries that the PMPRB currently uses or has proposed to use as price comparators, from sales data from the IQVIA MIDAS database for 2012-2021. The outcome was whether a molecule was launched (i.e., sold) in a specific country within 2 years of its global first launch (2-yr launch). We compared the change of 2-year launch before (2012-2017) and after the proposed amendments were published ("uncertain period," 2018-2021) in Canada with the change in the United States and the other 12 countries as a group ("other-countries group"), using interrupted time series and logistic regressions, respectively. We further conducted analyses for each individual country and subgroups by molecule characteristics, such as therapeutic benefit, separately. RESULTS: We included 242 and 107 new molecules launched before publication of the proposed amendments and during the uncertain period, respectively. The corresponding 2-year launch proportions were 45.0% and 30.8% in Canada, 81.4% and 82.2% in the US, and 83.9% and 70.1% in the other-countries group. All analyses showed changes in 2-year launch during the uncertain period in the US and in the other-countries group that were similar to the changes in Canada. Greater decreases were observed in Norway and Sweden than in Canada. The 2-year launch proportion for molecules with major therapeutic benefit decreased from 45.8% to 31.3% in Canada during the uncertain period and from 87.5% to 62.5% in the other-countries group, but increased from 91.7% to 100% in the US. INTERPRETATION: No negative impact of the PMPRB-policy uncertainty on molecule launches was observed when comparing Canada with price-comparator countries, except for molecules with major therapeutic benefit. The reduction in launches of medicines with major therapeutic benefit in Canada requires continuing investigation.

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.

The Inflation Reduction Act and Access to High-Cost Cardiovascular Therapies.

This Viewpoint discusses how the price negotiation for certain drugs under the Inflation Reduction Act will provide a unique opportunity to enhance access to therapies for older patients with cardiovascular conditions and diabetes.

Medicare's Historic Prescription Drug Price Negotiations.

This Viewpoint evaluates the legal claims and policy implications of historic drug price negotiations possible with the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

340B-Where Do We Go From Here?

This Viewpoint summarizes inefficiencies in the 340B program and provides suggestions for equitable reform that will potentially benefit patients.

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.