Small Changes or Big Ones? The Case of Limits on Prescription Drug Copayments in California.

Despite standardization, advocates for various industries and certain patient needs continue to propose changes in coverage rules. Much of the advocacy is occurring at the state level with a focus on pharmaceutical coverage, such as equalizing cost sharing between oral and infused oncology drugs or setting limits on cost sharing for prescriptions.

Out-of-Pocket and Health Care Spending Changes for Patients Using Orally Administered Anticancer Therapy After Adoption of State Parity Laws.

Importance: Oral anticancer medications are increasingly important but costly treatment options for patients with cancer. By early 2017, 43 states and Washington, DC, had passed laws to ensure patients with private insurance enrolled in fully insured health plans pay no more for anticancer medications administered by mouth than anticancer medications administered by infusion. Federal legislation regarding this issue is currently pending. Despite their rapid acceptance, the changes associated with state adoption of oral chemotherapy parity laws have not been described. Objective: To estimate changes in oral anticancer medication use, out-of-pocket spending, and health plan spending associated with oral chemotherapy parity law adoption. Design, Setting, and Participants: Analysis of administrative health plan claims data from 2008-2012 for 3 large nationwide insurers aggregated by the Health Care Cost Institute. Data analysis was first completed in 2015 and updated in 2017. The study population included 63 780 adults living in 1 of 16 states that passed parity laws during the study period and who received anticancer drug treatment for which orally administered treatment options were available. Study analysis used a difference-in-differences approach. Exposures: Time period before and after adoption of state parity laws, controlling for whether the patient was enrolled in a plan subject to parity (fully insured) or not (self-funded, exempt via the Employee Retirement Income Security Act). Main Outcomes and Measures: Oral anticancer medication use, out-of-pocket spending, and total health care spending. Results: Of the 63 780 adults aged 18 through 64 years, 51.4% participated in fully insured plans and 48.6% in self-funded plans (57.2% were women; 76.8% were aged 45 to 64 years). The use of oral anticancer medication treatment as a proportion of all anticancer treatment increased from 18% to 22% (adjusted difference-in-differences risk ratio [aDDRR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96-1.13; P = .34) comparing months before vs after parity. In plans subject to parity laws, the proportion of prescription fills for orally administered therapy without copayment increased from 15.0% to 53.0%, more than double the increase (12.3%-18.0%) in plans not subject to parity (P < .001). The proportion of patients with out-of-pocket spending of more than $100 per month increased from 8.4% to 11.1% compared with a slight decline from 12.0% to 11.7% in plans not subject to parity (P = .004). In plans subject to parity laws, estimated monthly out-of-pocket spending decreased by $19.44 at the 25th percentile, by $32.13 at the 50th percentile, and by $10.83 at the 75th percentile but increased at the 90th ($37.19) and 95th ($143.25) percentiles after parity (all P < .001, controlling for changes in plans not subject to parity). Parity laws did not increase 6-month total spending for users of any anticancer therapy or for users of oral anticancer therapy alone. Conclusions and Relevance: While oral chemotherapy parity laws modestly improved financial protection for many patients without increasing total health care spending, these laws alone may be insufficient to ensure that patients are protected from high out-of-pocket medication costs.

[Biosimilars and the efficiency principle]. / Biosimilars und das Wirtschaftlichkeitsgebot.

Biosimilars are subject to the efficiency evaluation according to section 106 Social Code Book Five (SGB V). The specific evaluation method influences the physician's prescription behaviour. In the case of an individual prescription limit evaluation (Richtgrößenprüfung), the prescription of biosimilars would usually not result in recourse but, as a start, in the initiation of the evaluation proceedings. Starting from 2017, the individual prescription limit evaluation will be cancelled. The active ingredient evaluation (Wirkstoffprüfung) expected instead at a regional level may provide for biosimilar to original drug ratios and result in recourses if these ratios are missed. First agreements on specific evaluation proceedings at a regional level are expected for this year.

[Can we transfer the mechanisms of the generics market to biosimilars?]

Personalized medicines such as biologics and their generic equivalents, biosimilars, are pouring onto the pharmaceutical markets. Data of 16 private health insurance companies were used to describe the market shares of selected biosimilars available in 2014 and 2015. The purpose of this study focuses on the question of whether market access of biosimilars will lead to a price competition of the expense of innovation competition. The results show that prescriptions of biosimilars made up 37% of total prescriptions in 2015 compared to 35% in 2014, and that their share of prescription costs went up from 21% to 23% in the same period. Price competition similar to that found in the generic markets has been established for erythropoietin and filgrastim. The same has not been observed for follitropin alfa and somatropin due to the limited number of competitors and products available at this stage. No definitive conclusions can be drown from the results at this stage. Time will tell whether it will be possible for physicians and individuals with private health insurance to fully leverage the savings potential of biosimilars while safeguarding patient safety.

[The importance of biosimilars medicines for private and statutory health insurance].

Patented biopharmaceuticals generate huge costs for private and statutory health insurance. Exactly ten years ago, off-patent biopharmaceuticals, also referred to as 'biosimilars medicines', became available as a more cost-efficient and therapeutically equivalent alternative in Germany and Europe. Following their approval by all the relevant authorities, biosimilars medicines can therefore be applied in the same way as previously patented biopharmaceuticals.

Decision making in Germany: is health economic evaluation as a supporting tool a sleeping beauty?

For many years, the legal situation within the statutory health insurance (SHI) system in Germany has allowed for health economic evaluations. There are various reasons why health economic evaluations have played virtually no role in decision making until now: to begin with, a method for the evaluation of the relation between benefits and costs which needed to be in accordance with the legal requirements had to be developed, the outcome of which was the efficiency frontier approach. Subsequent health care reforms have led to changing objectives and strategies. Currently, price negotiations of newly launched drugs are based on an early benefit assessment of dossiers submitted by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Other reasons might be the presently very comfortable financial situation of the statutory health insurance system as well as a historically grown societal fear and discomfort towards what is perceived to be a rationing of medicinal products. For the time being, it remains open how long the German health care system can afford to continue neglecting the benefits of health economic evaluations for drug and non-drug interventions, and when it will be time to wake this sleeping beauty.

Evaluation of a possible predictor for Federal Joint Committee decisions on early benefit assessments according to the German act on the reform of the market for medicinal products.

OBJECTIVES: As of 1st January 2011 the German drug market is regulated by the act on the reform of the market for medicinal products (AMNOG). Since then the normal procedure for reimbursement of a new pharmaceutical is a benefit assessment by the joint federal committee (G-BA) which determines one of six additional benefit levels. METHODS: In order to evaluate a possible predictor of G-BA decisions, the 'evaluation of pharmaceutical innovations (EVITA)' score was calculated for 40 out of 63 dossiers and compared with published G-BA appraisals. RESULTS: Univariate ordinary least squares (p<0.001) and ordered logit regression (p=0.008) analyses show statistically significant correlations between EVITA scores and the G-BA additional benefit levels. Moreover, for the prediction of an additional benefit level of at least 'minor', an EVITA score cutpoint of ≥3 is associated with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 80%. For the prediction of an additional benefit level of at least 'considerable', an EVITA score cutpoint of ≥7.5 is associated with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 93.1%. CONCLUSION: The present investigation indicates that the EVITA score may have some potential to act as a possible predictor of G-BA decisions related to AMNOG early benefit assessments.

[Perceptions of GPs and community pharmacists on hypnotic prescribing on private prescriptions]. / Privat statt Kasse? Einstellungen von Hausärzten und Apothekern zur Verordnung von Hypnotika.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Zolpidem and zopiclone ("Z-drugs") and benzodiazepine hypnotics are reimbursed by the statutory health insurance for short-term use and in exceptional cases for longer periods. A large proportion is prescribed on private prescriptions. The aim of this study was to assess the perceptions of general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists (CPs) on private prescriptions of hypnotics regarding frequency, reasons and measures for reduction. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 1,350 GPs and 600 CPs in 2012.  Questions were partly identical. Due to multiple testing, only p-values ≤ 0.01 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: 458 GPs and 202 CPs returned questionnaires (response 33.9 % and 33.7 %). According to the CPs, the proportions of private prescriptions was higher for Z-drugs than for benzodiazepines (57.5 vs. 47.4 %; p < 0.0001). The proportion of private prescriptions of Z-drugs was higher in the eastern than in the western part of Germany (78.2 vs. 52.3 %; p < 0.0001). For benzodiazepines no such differences were found. As most relevant reasons for private prescriptions, the specifications of the Arzneimittel-Richtlinie and patients' demands were named. Patients with long-term use receive more often private prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: A switch to private prescriptions for patients with long-term use seems conflicting, because such patients with (iatrogenic) dependence are indicated exceptional cases. Practicable changes of the regulatory framework are needed, their benefits and harms should be evaluated.

Drug coverage insurance as a novel element of private health insurance in Poland.

In recent years, there have been observed increased costs of health care in Poland. The patient's out of pocket expenses on drug have grown too. To the above, the insurance companies have offered patients drug coverage insurance policies since recently. Drug insurance policy covers the cost of purchasing pharmaceutical products not reimbursed by the National Health Fund is a modern product on the Polish health insurance market. The aim of the article is to characterize drug coverage insurance policies on the health insurance market in Poland. The Polish insurance market and entities offered these types of insurance are also presented.

Medicines and the media: news reports of medicines recommended for government reimbursement in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Previous analyses of the listings of trastuzumab on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and HPV vaccine on the National Immunisation Program (NIP) suggest a media influence on policy makers. We examined the timing and content of Australian newspaper reports of medicines in relation to Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) decisions. METHODS: We identified newspaper reports (2005-2008) of medicines recommended for PBS listing in 2006-2007, analysing the content for mentions of the medicine, PBS and medicine costs to the patient and the government and counting the numbers of articles published in the six months before, the month of, and the six months after the relevant PBAC meeting. Case studies examined reporting for infliximab for Crohn's Disease, pemetrexed for mesothelioma, and ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) medicines atomoxetine and methylphenidate. RESULTS: Of 79 eligible medicines, 62 had news reports. Most often reported were HPV vaccine (1230 stories), trastuzumab (410), pemetrexed (83), botulinum toxin (71), lapatinib (65), methylphenidate (57), atomoxetine (54), infliximab (49), rotavirus vaccine (45). Eighteen medicines had ≥20 news reports (total 2350 stories); nine of these cost more than AU$10,000 per course or year of treatment. For these 18 medicines, 31% of stories appeared in the six months prior to the PBAC meeting, 14% in the meeting month and 33% in the six months post-meeting. 38% of the stories had ≥3 medicine mentions, 37% referred to the PBS, 24% to cost to the patient, and 9% cost to Government.There was active patient lobby group campaigning in support of listing of infliximab and pemetrexed; the stories for ADHD were often more negative, referring to the dangers of the medicines and sometimes questioning the appropriateness of treatment and public subsidy. There was little discussion of the PBAC's evidence-based decision-making processes. CONCLUSIONS: While there was no general trend to increased news reporting associated with PBAC meetings, some drugs did attract media attention. With more new and expensive drugs, decisions on public funding will become increasingly difficult. The media have an important role in enhancing public understanding of the issues around resource allocation. Specialist journalists, guidelines and checklists may help reporting.