Availability and Pricing of Drugs Prescribed by Otolaryngologists Through a Direct-to-Consumer Pharmacy: Medicare Savings Implications.

High prescription drug prices can financially strain patients and insurers, with substantial clinical repercussions. In recent years, direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmacies have emerged as potentially lower-cost alternatives for patients to fill prescriptions. We evaluated whether drugs commonly prescribed by otolaryngologists were available at a national DTC pharmacy (Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company [MCCPDC]) and estimated potential Medicare savings from DTC pricing. We identified drugs and prices paid by Medicare Part D plans using the 2021 Drug Spending Dashboard. Our analysis included 16 generic drugs within the MCCPDC formulary, which offered lower prices for 14 (87.5%) drugs. If plans had secured MCCPDC pricing for all 16 drugs, Medicare patients and plans would have saved $2.9 billion (relative reduction: 62.3%) in 2021. Estimated total savings were greatest for budesonide-formoterol ($1.9 billion), dexlansoprazole ($464.6 million), and levothyroxine ($327.4 million). Otolaryngologists and insurers may consider utilizing DTC pharmacies with lower drug prices, though patients may face challenges projecting out-of-pocket costs across pharmacies, medications, benefit phases, and formulary tiers.

Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the availability and retail price of unregulated drugs in Vancouver, Canada: An interrupted time-series analysis, 2018-2022.

BACKGROUND: Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on unregulated drug markets in North America have not been well characterized. We sought to estimate potential changes in the availability and retail price of unregulated drugs in Vancouver, Canada pre- vs. post-emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We used self-report data from two prospective cohorts of people who use drugs in Vancouver. We employed interrupted time series analyses to identify changes in the monthly prevalence of immediate availability (i.e., within 10 minutes vs. any longer) and median retail price of crystal methamphetamine, powder cocaine, crack cocaine, and 'down' (the local term for unregulated opioids, e.g., heroin, fentanyl, etc), post-pandemic emergence (i.e. post-July 2020). RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2022 among 739 participants, the monthly prevalence of immediate availability significantly decreased for all drugs immediately post- emergence of the pandemic (all p<0.05). The monthly prevalence of immediate availability of cocaine declined most (-18.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -25.9, -10.4) and the immediate availability of 'down' declined least (-13.0%, 95% CI:-18.8, -7.3). In analyses of median price, the only significant change was in the price of cocaine, which increased by $3.46 per 0.5 grams (95% CI:1.0, 5.9) immediately post-emergence of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: While more research is needed to investigate reasons for the observed trends, the stagnant price amidst decreased availability for all drugs examined in this study (save cocaine) may reflect decreased purity/increased contamination of unregulated drugs following the beginning of the pandemic in our study setting. These findings may have implications for drug policy and practice approaches, particularly in regions where synthetic psychoactive substances are increasingly dominating the unregulated drug supply.

New Evidence of the Impact of the National Drug Price Negotiation Policy on the Availability, Utilization, and Cost of Anticancer Medicines in China: An Interrupted Time Series Study.

Purpose: The increasing global burden of cancer has become a significant challenge for public health. The Chinese government introduced the National Drug Price Negotiation (NDPN) policy with the goal of lowering the prices of innovative drugs and enhancing their accessibility. This study aims to evaluate the impact of the 2021 NDPN policy on the availability, utilization, and cost of anticancer medicines in China. Methods: Data was gathered from 1519 hospitals between April 2021 and December 2022, with a focus on eight anticancer drugs affected by the 2021 NDPN policy. The availability, Defined Daily Doses (DDDs), and cost per Defined Daily Dose (DDDc) before and after the intervention were evaluated through interrupted time series analysis. Results: The NDPN policy resulted in a substantial 5.10% increase in the availability of anticancer drugs (p < 0.001). Utilization also experienced a significant surge, with an immediate increase of 11,254.36 DDDs (p < 0.001) and a monthly increase of 1208.28 DDDs (p < 0.001) following policy implementation. The DDDc decreased by US$ 111.00 (p < 0.001) immediately after the policy. Disparities in regional drug utilization were evident, with higher usage in the eastern region. Conclusion: The 2021 NDPN policy has notably enhanced the availability and utilization of anticancer medications in China while reducing their cost, in line with the policy's objectives. However, continuous monitoring is essential to ensure sustained access and to tackle regional disparities in drug utilization.

A Comparative Analysis of International Drug Price Negotiation Frameworks: An Interview Study of Key Stakeholders.

Policy Points Health care systems around the world rely on a range of methods to ensure the affordability of prescription drugs, including negotiating prices soon after drug approval and relying on formal clinical assessments that compare newly approved therapies with existing alternatives. The negotiation framework established under the Inflation Reduction Act is far more limited than other frameworks explored in this study. Adding elements from these frameworks could lead to more effective price negotiation in the United States. CONTEXT: In 2022, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which allowed Medicare, for the first time, to begin negotiating the prices for certain high-cost brand-name prescription drugs. Many other industrialized countries negotiate drug prices, and we sought to compare and contrast key features of the negotiation process across several health systems. We focused, in particular, on the criteria for selecting drugs for price negotiation, procedures for negotiation, factors that influence negotiated prices, and how prices are implemented. METHODS: We included four G7 countries in our analysis (Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom [England]), two Benelux countries (Belgium and the Netherlands), and one Scandinavian country (Norway) with long-established frameworks for drug price negotiation. We also analyzed the Veterans Affairs Health System in the United States. For each system, we gathered relevant legislation, government publications, and guidelines to understand negotiation frameworks, and we reached out to key drug price negotiators in each system to conduct semistructured interviews. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded, and data were analyzed based on an internal assessment tool that we developed. FINDINGS: All eight systems negotiate the prices of brand-name prescription drugs soon after approval and rely on formal clinical assessments that compare newly approved drugs with existing therapies. Systems in our study differed on characteristics such as whether the body performing clinical assessments is separate from the negotiating authority, how added health benefit is assessed, whether explicit willingness-to-pay thresholds are employed, and how specific approaches for priority disease areas are taken. CONCLUSIONS: High-income countries around the world adopt different approaches to conducting price negotiations on brand-name drugs but coalesce around a set of practices that will largely be absent from the current Medicare negotiation framework. US policymakers might consider adding some of these characteristics in the future to improve negotiation outcomes.

Short- and long-term impacts of the National Essential Medicines Policy on drug availability, price, and usage in a deprived rural county in southwestern China: an interrupted time series analysis across 8 years.

Background: China's National Essential Medicines Policy (NEMP) has been implemented for over 15 years; yet empirical evidence on its long-term impacts is lacking, particularly in remote and rural regions. This study aims to assess the short-and long-term effects of NEMP on the drug availability, price, and usage in a deprived rural county in southwestern China. Methods: A quasi-experimental design was employed, featuring a single-group pre-and-post comparison. We gathered 74,436 procurement records spanning from 2009 to 2016 from the drug warehouses of local medical institutions. Pharmaceutical data were analyzed quarterly, considering various policy and therapeutic attributes. Fisher's Drug Price Index (DPI-F) was calibrated for the retail and wholesale prices of a consistent collection of 405 medications. We conducted interrupted time-series analysis to examine the immediate and enduring impacts of NEMP's initial (commencing in January 2011) and second (starting from December 2015) stages. Results: After initiation of NEMP, the number of available essential medicines surged by 115 but subsequently faced a steady quarterly decline (-9.1) in township healthcare centers (THCs, primary care). Conversely, county hospitals (secondary care) initially saw a reduction of 40 in drug availability but later exhibited a steady increase (+4.2 per quarter) up to the second-stage NEMP. Regarding price, THCs encountered abrupt (-26.1%/-15.9% in retail/wholesale price) and sustained (-0.2%/-0.3% per quarter) price drops after NEMP. The immediate price change after NEMP in county hospitals were milder but significant in non-essential medicines, and long-term declines were also observed in all drugs. As for total sales, a significant long-term disparity emerged between THCs (+0.9% per quarter) and county hospitals (+3.3% per quarter). Following the second-stage NEMP, retail prices in county hospitals further decreased, although wholesale prices did not; however, following price upward trends were observed in both THCs and county hospitals. Lastly, the influences of NEMP varied across different therapeutical categories of medicines. Conclusion: NEMP has successfully regulated drug prices in primary and secondary healthcare facilities in remote and rural areas, both short-term and long-term. However, a remarkable disparity in medicine availability and utilization was observed between different levels of facilities over time. Continuous monitoring is essential, with increased attention needed on the uneven impacts of the policy on diverse drugs, facilities, regions, and demographics.

The influence of the national drug price negotiation policy reform on the medical expenses of patients in Xuzhou City: an interrupted time series analysis.

Background: To reduce the burden of patients' medical care, the Xuzhou Municipal Government has initiated an exploratory study on the supply model and categorized management of nationally negotiated drugs. This study aims to understand the extent to which Xuzhou's 2021 reform of the National Drug Price Negotiation (NDPN) policy has had a positive impact on the healthcare costs of individuals with different types of health insurance. Methods: The Interrupted Time Series Analysis method was adopted, and the changes in average medical expenses per patient, average medical insurance payment cost per patient and actual reimbursement ratio were investigated by using the data of single-drug payments in Xuzhou from October 2020 to October 2022. Results: Following the implementation of the policy, there was a significant decrease in the average medical expenses per patient of national drug negotiation in Xuzhou, with a reduction of 62.42 yuan per month (p < 0.001). Additionally, the average medical insurance payment cost per patient decreased by 44.13 yuan per month (p = 0.01). Furthermore, the average medical expenses per patient of urban and rural medical insurance participants decreased by 63.45 yuan (p < 0.001), and the average monthly medical insurance payment cost per patient decreased by 57.56 yuan (p < 0.04). However, the mean total medical expenditures for individuals enrolled in employee medical insurance decreased by 63.41 yuan per month (p < 0.001), whereas the monthly decrease was 22.11 yuan per month (p = 0.21). On the other hand, there was no discernible change in the actual reimbursement ratio. Conclusion: After the adoption of the NDPN policy, a noticeable decline has been observed in the average medical expenses per patient and the mean cost of the average medical insurance payment per patient, although to a limited extent. Notably, the reduction in employee medical insurance surpasses that of urban and rural medical insurance.

Use of patent term extensions to restore regulatory time for medical devices in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Medical devices can seek patent term extensions (PTEs), which extend market exclusivity to compensate for delays related to clinical trials and regulatory review. Pharmaceutical companies commonly use PTEs, but their use by medical device companies has not been clear. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We examined the use of PTEs by medical device companies between 1984 and 2024 using a database published in the Federal Register and a list published by the Patent and Trademark Office. RESULTS: Only 178 medical device submissions were linked to a PTE application. They were mostly concentrated in 116 product codes associated with 15 medical specialties; nearly half were associated with cardiovascular devices. Numbers increased significantly in the past decade. Successful applications restored 987 days on average. CONCLUSIONS: The patent restoration opportunity appears underutilized. It is unclear whether some companies do not recognize the opportunity it promises, or whether it does not meet their needs. Different business features and marketing strategies in device versus pharmaceutical industries may decrease the usefulness of the PTE program for these types of medical products. However, the finding that a small subset of manufacturers operating in competitive markets adopted patent extension strategies more commonly suggests a significant competitive advantage when competition increases.

Impact of national drug price negotiation policy on the accessibility and utilization of PCSK9 inhibitors in China: an interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: PCSK9 inhibitors are a novel class of lipid-lowering drugs that have demonstrated favorable efficacy and safety. Evolocumab and alirocumab have been added to China's National Reimbursement Drug List through the National Drug Price Negotiation (NDPN) policy. This study aims to evaluate the impact of the NDPN policy on the utilization and accessibility of these two PCSK9 inhibitors. METHODS: The procurement data of evolocumab and alirocumab were collected from 1,519 hospitals between January 2021 and December 2022. We determined the monthly availability, utilization, cost per daily defined dose (DDDc), and affordability of the two medicines. Single-group interrupted time series (ITS) analysis was performed to assess the impact of the NDPN policy on each drug, and multiple-group ITS analysis was performed to compare the differences between them. RESULTS: The NDPN policy led to a significant and sudden increase in the availability and utilization of PCSK9 inhibitors, along with a decrease in their DDDc. In the year following the policy implementation, there was an increase in the availability, utilization, and spending, and the DDDc remained stable. The affordability of PCSK9 inhibitors in China have been significantly improved, with a 92.97% reduction in out-of-pocket costs. The availability of both PCSK9 inhibitors was similar, and the DDDc of alirocumab was only $0.23 higher after the intervention. The market share of evolocumab consistently exceeded that of alirocumab. Regional disparities in utilization were observed, with higher utilization in the eastern region and a correlation with per capita disposable income. CONCLUSIONS: The NDPN policy has successfully improved the accessibility and utilization of PCSK9 inhibitors in China. However, regional disparities in utilization indicate the need for further interventions to ensure equitable medicine access.

Variables affecting new drug prices in South Korea's pricing system.

Objective: The price of pharmaceuticals is important from the economic and industrial perspectives but as well as patients' access to treatment. This study aimed to analyze the variables affecting the prices of new drugs in South Korea's pricing system. Methods: Data on 192 new drugs listed in South Korea from 2012 to 2022 were collected from the official website of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. The independent variables included drugs for severe diseases, alternatives, number of patients, number of advanced 7 countries listed, budget impact, and listing period. The dependent variables included annual treatment cost and the price ratio to the advanced 7 country's average adjusted price. Descriptive statistics of variables, linear correlations between quantitative independent and dependent variables, and associations between independent and dependent variables were analyzed. Results: The mean annual treatment cost and price ratio to the advanced 7 country's average adjusted price were higher for drugs for severe diseases and those with no alternatives. Annual treatment cost and price ratio to the advanced 7 country's average adjusted price were negatively correlated with the number of patients and positively correlated with the number of advanced 7 countries listed. Annual treatment cost was affected by the variables drugs for severe diseases, alternatives, number of patients, number of advanced 7 countries listed, and budget impact. The price ratio to the advanced 7 country's average adjusted price was affected by drugs for severe diseases, alternatives, and the number of patients. Conclusion: This study revealed the effect of different variables on the prices of new drugs in South Korea, allowing for the development of a more effective assessment system to evaluate the prices of new drugs while ensuring profitability for pharmaceutical companies, sustainability of public insurance, and accessibility to drugs by patients.

The usage and costs of national drug price-negotiated anticancer medicines in a first-tier city in Northeast China: a study based on health insurance data.

BACKGROUND: The National Drug Price Negotiation (NDPN) policy has entered a normalisation stage, aiming to alleviate, to some extent, the disease-related and economic burdens experienced by cancer patients. This study analysed the use and subsequent burden of anticancer medicines among cancer patients in a first-tier city in northeast China. METHODS: We assessed the usage of 64 negotiated anticancer medicines using the data on the actual drug deployment situation, the frequency of medical insurance claims and actual medication costs. The affordability of these medicines was measured using the catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) incidence and intensity of occurrence. Finally, we used the defined daily doses (DDDs) and defined daily doses cost (DDDc) as indicators to evaluate the actual use of these medicines in the region. RESULTS: During the study period, 63 of the 64 medicines were readily available. From the perspective of drug usage, the frequency of medical insurance claims for negotiated anticancer medicines and medication costs showed an increasing trend from 2018 to 2021. Cancer patients typically sought medical treatment at tertiary hospitals and purchased medicines at community pharmacies. The overall quantity and cost of medications for patients covered by the Urban Employee Basic Medical Insurance (UEBMI) were five times higher than those covered by the Urban and Rural Resident Medical Insurance (URRMI). The frequency of medical insurance claims and medication costs were highest for lung and breast cancer patients. Furthermore, from 2018 to 2021, CHE incidence showed a decreasing trend (2.85-1.60%) under urban patients' payment capability level, but an increasing trend (11.94%-18.42) under rural patients' payment capability level. The average occurrence intensities for urban (0.55-1.26 times) and rural (1.27-1.74 times) patients showed an increasing trend. From the perspective of drug utilisation, the overall DDD of negotiated anticancer medicines showed an increasing trend, while the DDDc exhibited a decreasing trend. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that access to drugs for urban cancer patients has improved. However, patients' medical behaviours are affected by some factors such as hospital level and type of medical insurance. In the future, the Chinese Department of Health Insurance Management should further improve its work in promoting the fairness of medical resource distribution and strengthen its supervision of the nation's health insurance funds.

Medicare Part B and Part D drug eligibility for center for Medicare and Medicaid Services price negotiation under the Inflation Reduction Act: estimates using 2016-2019 data.

Background: To reduce Medicare prescription drug expenditures, the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) allows the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to directly negotiate with drug manufacturers on Medicare prices of high-expenditure drugs (≥$200m annual spending) which meet certain eligibility criteria. However, it is unclear what proportion of high-expenditure drugs covered by Medicare, and attributable annual drug spending, would typically be eligible for CMS negotiations in a given year. Methods: We used historical Medicare drug spending data to determine how many high-expenditure drugs, and attributable drug spending, would have been eligible for CMS negotiations had the IRA been in effect from 2016-2019, while also determining which of the IRA's eligibility criteria is most restrictive. Results: From 2016-2019, approximately one third (33.3% for Part B, 32.4% for Part D) of high-expenditure Medicare drugs would have been eligible for negotiation, with ineligible drugs accounting for 75.2% and 63.8% of spending on high-expenditure drugs in Medicare Part B and D, respectively. Most ineligible high-expenditure drugs were ineligible because they launched too recently. From 2016-2019, between 59 and 74 high-expenditure drugs were eligible per year, indicating that in some years there may not be enough eligible drugs for CMS to negotiate on the maximum number of drugs allowable by law. Conclusions: The IRA's current eligibility criteria may restrict CMS from being able to negotiate drug prices on approximately two-thirds of the high-expenditure drugs covered by Medicare and may not allow CMS to negotiate on the maximum number of drugs allowable by law. Congress could consider relaxing eligibility requirements for price negotiation, such as those pertaining to launch date recency, to ensure there are a sufficient number of high-expenditure drugs eligible for negotiation or make certain ineligible drugs contributing to significant annual Medicare spending eligible for negotiation on a case-by-case basis.

Vinte anos da publicação da regulamentação de preços de medicamentos no Brasil: momento de atualizar? / Twenty years since the publication of medication price regulation in Brazil: time to update? / Veinte años desde la publicación de la regulación de precios de medicamentos en Brasil: ¿es hora de actualizarla?

Resumo: Os critérios para definir os preços de medicamentos no Brasil estão previstos na Resolução CMED nº 2/2004 da Câmara de Regulação do Mercado de Medicamentos. Os preços estipulados influenciam o mercado privado e público, o que torna desafiador a revisão de políticas de preços devido a necessidade de harmonizar interesses sociais e econômicos. Uma proposta de revisão dessa Resolução foi disponibilizada por meio da Consulta Pública SEAE nº 2/2021 da Secretaria de Advocacia da Concorrência e Competitividade/Ministério da Economia, porém, até o momento sem publicação dos resultados consolidados até o momento. Recomendações recentes da Organização Mundial da Saúde em relação à adoção de diferentes limiares para definição de preços de medicamentos são adotadas nessa Resolução, embora essa tenha sido publicada há 20 anos. Com o objetivo de interpretar e descrever o alinhamento e os possíveis avanços e retrocessos nos textos legais relacionados à regulação de preços de medicamentos, foi utilizado o método da pesquisa documental analítica-descritiva, de cunho exploratório. Como resultado, foram mantidas a lista de países referência para conferência de preço internacional e os limiares de referenciamento interno e externo de preços. As omissões normativas da Resolução permanecem na Consulta Pública, como a ausência de critérios para precificar radiofármacos, terapias avançadas e medicamentos sem preço internacional, e sem comparadores no mercado brasileiro para revisar preços e transpor preço provisório para definitivo. Um ponto crítico foi a criação de bônus de 35% acima do preço estipulado para medicamentos que apresentem benefício clínico adicional sem, contudo, definir contornos claros quanto às evidências científicas aceitáveis para a comprovação desse benefício. Em suma, poucos avanços foram percebidos na Consulta Pública.

Abstract: Criteria for setting medication prices in Brazil are set forth in CMED Resolution n. 2/2004 of the (Medicines Market Regulation Chamber). The stipulated prices influence the private and public markets, which makes it challenging to review pricing policies due to the need to harmonize social and economic interests. A proposal for reviewing this Resolution was made available through the SEAE Public Consultation n. 2/2021 of the Competition and Competitiveness Advocacy Secretariat/Brazilian Ministry of Economy; however, so far without publication of the consolidated results. Recent recommendations from the World Health Organization regarding the adoption of different thresholds for setting medication prices are adopted in this Resolution, although it was published 20 years ago. To interpret and describe the alignment, possible advances and setbacks between the legal texts related to medication price regulation, we conducted an analytical-descriptive and exploratory documentary research. As a result, the list of reference countries for international price verification and the thresholds for internal and external price referencing were maintained. The normative omissions of the Resolution remain in the Public Consultation, such as the absence of criteria for pricing radiopharmaceuticals, advanced therapies and medication without international and comparator prices in the Brazilian market, to revise prices and transpose provisional to definitive prices. A critical point was the creation of a 35% bonus above the stipulated price for medication that present additional clinical benefit without, however, defining clear contours as to the acceptable scientific evidence to prove such benefit. In short, few advances were noticed in the Public Consultation.

Resumen: Los criterios para definir los precios de los medicamentos en Brasil están establecidos en la Resolución CMED nº 2/2004 de la Cámara de Regulación del Mercado de Medicamentos. Los precios estipulados influyen en el mercado público y privado, lo que dificulta la revisión de las políticas de precios debido a la necesidad de armonizar los intereses sociales y económicos. Una propuesta para revisar esta Resolución se puso a disposición mediante la Consulta Pública SEAE nº 2/2021 de la Secretaría de Competencia y Promoción de la Competitividad/Ministerio de Economía, sin embargo, hasta el momento no se han publicado los resultados consolidados. En esta Resolución se adoptan recomendaciones recientes de la Organización Mundial de la Salud sobre la adopción de diferentes umbrales para fijar los precios de los medicamentos, aunque fue publicada hace 20 años. Con el objetivo de interpretar y describir el alineamiento, posibles avances y retrocesos, entre los textos legales relacionados con la regulación de precios de medicamentos, se utilizó el método de investigación documental analítica-descriptiva, de carácter exploratorio. Como resultado, se mantuvieron la lista de países de referencia para la verificación de precio internacional y los umbrales para la referenciación interna y externa de precios. Quedan en Consulta Pública las omisiones normativas de la Resolución, como la ausencia de criterios de fijación de precios de radiofármacos, terapias avanzadas y medicamentos sin precio internacional y comparadores en el mercado brasileño, para revisar precios y transponer el precio provisional al definitivo. Un punto crítico fue la creación de una bonificación del 35% sobre el precio estipulado para los medicamentos que presenten un beneficio clínico adicional sin definir, sin embargo, contornos claros sobre las evidencias científicas aceptables para demostrar dicho beneficio. En definitiva, se percibieron pocos avances en la Consulta Pública.

The impact of drug shortages on drug prices: evidence from China.

Introduction: Drug shortages pose a serious global public health challenge, affecting China and other countries. Evidence from USA shows that short-supplied drugs demonstrated a very high price growth during and after a shortage. However, the effect of shortages on drug prices in China remains unknown. This paper aims to understand the impact of drug shortages on prices and explore implications for shortage prevention policy. Methods: We collected the purchase prices and delivery rates of 120 drugs from April 2019 to December 2021 across whole China. We examined price progression of affected drugs using linear mixed-effects models and performed subgroup analyses based on the number of manufacturers and the severity of shortage. Results: Non-shortage cohort had an annual price growth of 11.62% (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.34 to 14.98). Shortage cohort demonstrated an annual price growth of 8.08% (95%CI 0.12 to 16.77) in the period preceding a shortage, 27.57% (95%CI 6.17 to 52.87) during a shortage, and 9.38% (95%CI -12.64 to 36.39) in the post-shortage period. Drug shortages' impact on prices varied across subgroups. Compared with that of drug markets supplied by a single manufacturer, the price growth rate of markets supplied by more than one manufacture declined more after the shortage resolution. Conclusion: Shortages resulted in significant price increases of study markets, especially the low-priced markets, while the shortage resolution slowed the growth. The primary shortage driver has shifted from the low price to others drivers, such as unavailability of active pharmaceutical ingredients. For currently sole-supplied drugs, the expedited review of applications from other manufacturers should be considered.

Special FDA designations for drug development: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decades, US Congress enabled the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to facilitate and expedite drug development for serious conditions filling unmet medical needs with five special designations and review pathways: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy. OBJECTIVES: This study reviews the FDA's five special designations for drug development regarding their safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, clinical trials, innovation, economic incentives, development timelines, and price. METHODS: We conducted a keyword search to identify studies analyzing the impact of the FDA's special designations (orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy) on the safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, trials, innovativeness, economic incentives, development times, and pricing of new drugs. Results were summarized in a narrative overview. RESULTS: Expedited approval reduces new drugs' time to market. However, faster drug development and regulatory review are associated with more unrecognized adverse events and post-marketing safety revisions. Clinical trials supporting special FDA approvals frequently use small, non-randomized, open-label designs. Required post-approval trials to monitor unknown adverse events are often delayed or not even initiated. Evidence suggests that drugs approved under special review pathways, marketed as "breakthroughs", are more innovative and deliver a higher clinical benefit than those receiving standard FDA approval. Special designations are an economically viable strategy for investors and pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for rare diseases with unmet medical needs, due to financial incentives, expedited development timelines, higher clinical trial success rates, alongside greater prices. Nonetheless, patients, physicians, and insurers are concerned about spending money on drugs without a proven benefit or even on drugs that turn out to be ineffective. While European countries established performance- and financial-based managed entry agreements to account for this uncertainty in clinical trial evidence and cost-effectiveness, the pricing and reimbursement of these drugs remain largely unregulated in the US. CONCLUSION: Special FDA designations shorten clinical development and FDA approval times for new drugs treating rare and severe diseases with unmet medical needs. Special-designated drugs offer a greater clinical benefit to patients. However, physicians, patients, and insurers must be aware that special-designated drugs are often approved based on non-robust trials, associated with more unrecognized side effects, and sold for higher prices.

Estimated Savings From Using Added Therapeutic Benefit and Therapeutic Reference Pricing in United States Medicare Drug Price Negotiations.

OBJECTIVES: US Medicare will begin negotiating prices for top-selling drugs in 2023. This study describes and estimates potential savings from a therapeutic reference pricing approach, linking comparative effectiveness with the costs of existing therapeutic alternatives, that Medicare could use to adjust the starting point for price negotiations. METHODS: First, we identified target drugs likely to be selected for Medicare negotiation. Second, we identified comparative effectiveness ratings for target drugs based on French Haute Autorité de Santé reports. For target drugs with minor or no added benefit, we identified therapeutic alternatives based on the French reports and US clinical guidelines. For each target drug with minor or no added benefit, we computed the difference between spending based on the drug's estimated statutory ceiling price and spending based on the weighted average cost of therapeutic alternatives or the lowest cost therapeutic alternative. Finally, we calculated potential annual savings from using a starting point in negotiations based on costs of therapeutic alternatives. RESULTS: Potential drug-level savings to Medicare from using a starting point in negotiations based on average spending across therapeutic alternatives, compared with using the statutory ceiling price alone, ranged from $186 541 340 to $2 173 441 197. Potential savings from using a starting point based on the lowest cost alternative ranged from $199 872 163 to $3 605 904 765. CONCLUSIONS: Although we do not expect Medicare to rely on French comparative effectiveness assessments, this study demonstrates the potential for additional savings when using comparative effectiveness and costs of therapeutic alternatives to inform the starting price for negotiations.

Consumer expectations, drug effects, price and purity of heroin and cocaine purchased at drug consumption rooms.

BACKGROUND: Drug consumption rooms offer heroin and cocaine consumers a secure and hygienic environment including medical and social guidance. Despite the support and mentoring, only sparse information is available about how drug quality, drug prices and user expectations match at these locations. The present study reports analysis of these three parameters in two drug consumption rooms in Luxembourg. METHODS: Drug users were invited to participate in the project by handing in a few milligrams of the product they planned to consume for chemical analysis and filling out a short questionnaire about the price and their expectations. After consumption, they were asked to report the experienced effects. Drug quality was accessed using LC-Q-ToF and HPLC-UV, and a statistical analysis was carried out of the questionnaires that were correctly filled out. RESULTS: A total of 513 drug samples have been analyzed. Most consumers were looking for the relaxing/calming effects of heroin and the stimulating effects of cocaine, but they generally overestimated heroin potency and underestimated cocaine potency. No strong correlation based on Spearman's ρ between drug user estimations, drug prices and drug quality was found. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to combine drug analysis with heroin and cocaine user feedback about expectation, drug prices and drug effects. The analytical results were of great interest for users and the staff working at the drug consumption rooms. They may be a strong supplementary communication tool for health care workers when discussing effects and risks of highly toxic substance consumption.

An empirical study of the impact of generic drug competition on drug market prices in China.

Introduction: Generic substitution is encouraged to reduce pharmaceutical spending in China, and with incentive policies, the market size of the generic drug continues to rise. To find out how the generic competition affects drug price in this area, this study examines how the quantity of generic drug manufacturers can influence average drug price in the Chinese market. Methods: This study uses a rigorous selection of drugs from the 2021 China's National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL), and uses drug-level fixed effects regressions to estimate the relationship between competition and price within each drug. Results: We note that drug prices decline with increasing competition in the Chinese market, but not in a perfectly linear manner, with marginal price declines decreasing after the fourth entrant and "rebounding" at subsequent entrants, especially the sixth. Discussion: The findings suggest the importance of maintaining effective competition between suppliers to control prices, and that the government needs to further control generic pricing, especially for late entry generics, to ensure effective competition in the Chinese market.

Cost-Effectiveness of Quadruple Therapy in Management of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The 2022 clinical guidelines for management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction call for quadruple therapy. Quadruple therapy consists of an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and beta blocker. The ARNi and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor are newer additions to standard of care with the ARNi replacing ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers. METHODS: We investigate the cost-effectiveness of sequentially adding the SGLT2i and ARNi to form quadruple therapy as compared with the previous standard of care with ACE inhibitor/mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist/beta blocker. Using a 2-stage Markov model, we projected the expected lifetime discounted costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of a simulated cohort of US patients who underwent each treatment option and calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. We assessed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using criteria for health care value (<$50 000/quality-adjusted life year [QALY] indicating high-value, $50 000-150 000/QALY indicating intermediate value, and >$150 000/QALY indicating low-value) and a standard $100 000/QALY cost-effectiveness threshold. RESULTS: Compared with the previous standard of care, the SGLT2i addition had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $73 000/QALY and weakly dominated the ARNi addition. The addition of both the ARNi and SGLT2i for quadruple therapy offered 0.68 additional discounted QALYs over the SGLT2i addition alone at a lifetime discounted cost of $66 700, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $98 500/QALY. In sensitivity analysis varying drug prices, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for quadruple therapy ranged from $73 500/QALY using prices available to the US Department of Veterans Affairs to $110 000/QALY using drug list prices. CONCLUSIONS: While quadruple therapy offers intermediate value, it is borderline cost effective compared with adding the SGLT2i alone to previous standard of care. Thus, its cost-effectiveness is sensitive to a payer's ability to negotiate discounts off the increasing list prices for ARNI and SGLT2is. The demonstrated benefits of ARNi and SGLT2is should be weighed against their high prices in payer and policy considerations.

The Inflation Reduction Act: How Will Medicare Negotiating Drug Prices Impact Patients with Heart Disease?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiovascular medications improve health and prevent early death. However, high drug prices reduce the use of these medications and strain the health system. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 allows Medicare to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers and reduces out-of-pocket drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries. This article explores the potential impact that the IRA will have on the treatment of cardiovascular disease. RECENT FINDINGS: Cardiovascular disease medications are likely to be selected for price negotiations under the IRA, leading to savings for patients and for Medicare. Recent work suggests that the IRA's reforms to the Medicare Part D drug benefit will meaningfully reduce out-of-pocket costs for important cardiovascular medications. The IRA is expected to impact cardiovascular disease treatments via price negotiations and through the broader access to medications afforded by improvements to Part D coverage design.

Correlation of Anticancer Drug Prices with Outcomes of Overall Survival and Progression-Free Survival in Clinical Trials in Japan.

Drug pricing methods vary extensively across countries. Japan calculates drug prices using cost accounting and based on the efficacy of similar drugs. This study investigated the relationship between drug prices and their clinical efficacy and usefulness using public information on anticancer drugs reimbursed by the National Health Insurance price listing between January 2009 and March 2020. We investigated drug characteristics, prices, and clinical benefits based on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Eighty anticancer drugs were approved in Japan during the study period. The largest number (28 drugs, 35.0%) was approved based on PFS, 18 (22.5%) were approved based on OS, and 13 (16.3%) based on the response rate. The mean (±SD) drug price was JPY 88,416.2 (±148,974.7), while the median drug price (with quartiles) was JPY 21,694 (JPY 4855.0-JPY 93,396.8). Drug prices were significantly higher for PFS than for OS, while cost index-the drug price to extend PFS or OS by one day-did not differ significantly between PFS and OS. The relationship between the 46 drugs approved based on OS or PFS and their prices was examined. A correlation was found between drug prices and their clinical usefulness in terms of OS but not PFS.