The Inflation Reduction Act and Out-of-Pocket Drug Costs for Medicare Beneficiaries With Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: High out-of-pocket costs can impede access to guideline-directed cardiovascular drugs. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will eliminate catastrophic coinsurance and cap annual out-of-pocket costs for Medicare Part D patients by 2025. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to estimate the IRA's impact on out-of-pocket costs for Part D beneficiaries with cardiovascular disease. METHODS: The investigators chose 4 cardiovascular conditions that frequently require high-cost guideline-recommended drugs: severe hypercholesterolemia; heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); HFrEF with atrial fibrillation (AF); and cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis. This study included 4,137 Part D plans nationwide and compared projected annual out-of-pocket drug costs for each condition in 2022 (baseline), 2023 (rollout), 2024 (5% catastrophic coinsurance eliminated), and 2025 ($2,000 cap on out-of-pocket costs). RESULTS: In 2022, mean projected annual out-of-pocket costs were $1,629 for severe hypercholesterolemia, $2,758 for HFrEF, $3,259 for HFrEF with AF, and $14,978 for amyloidosis. In 2023, the initial IRA rollout will not significantly change out-of-pocket costs for the 4 conditions. In 2024, elimination of 5% catastrophic coinsurance will lower out-of-pocket costs for the 2 costliest conditions: HFrEF with AF ($2,855, 12% reduction) and amyloidosis ($3,468, 77% reduction). By 2025, the $2,000 cap will lower out-of-pocket costs for all 4 conditions to $1,491 for hypercholesterolemia (8% reduction), $1,954 for HFrEF (29% reduction), $2,000 for HFrEF with AF (39% reduction), and $2,000 for cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis (87% reduction). CONCLUSIONS: The IRA will reduce Medicare beneficiaries' out-of-pocket drug costs for the selected cardiovascular conditions by 8% to 87%. Future studies should assess the IRA's impact on adherence to guideline-directed cardiovascular therapies and health outcomes.

Association Between Industry Marketing Payments and Prescriptions for PCSK9 (Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin Type 9) Inhibitors in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Marketing payments from the pharmaceutical industry to physicians have come under scrutiny due to their potential to influence clinical decision-making. Two proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2015 for reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in high-risk patients, but their initial uptake was limited due to their high-cost and stringent prior authorization requirements. We sought to investigate the association between industry marketing and early adoption of PCSK9i among US physicians. METHODS: We used nationwide databases of primary care physicians, cardiologists, and endocrinologists treating Medicare beneficiaries to examine the association between PCSK9i-related marketing payments in 2016 and the number of filled PCSK9i prescriptions in 2017, after adjusting for physician characteristics. In subgroup analyses, we stratified our analyses by physician specialty and prior experience with prescribing PCSK9i. RESULTS: Among 209 840 physicians included in this analysis, 49 341 (24%) physicians received 292 941 PCSK9i-related marketing payments in 2016. The total value of these payments was $19 million, with a median payment of $61 per physician (interquartile range, $25-$132). Most payments (95%) were for meals, with a median of $14 per meal. The receipt of PCSK9i-related payments in 2016 was associated with increased PCSK9i prescription in 2017 (adjusted risk ratio, 3.18 [95% CI, 2.95-3.42]). This association was larger among primary care physicians (adjusted risk ratio, 6.67 [95% CI, 5.87-7.57]) than cardiologists (adjusted risk ratio, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.84-2.16]) and endocrinologists (adjusted risk ratio, 4.06 [95% CI, 2.95-5.59]). The association was observed across all types of payments. CONCLUSIONS: At a time when few physicians had experience with prescribing PCSK9i under strict prior authorization requirements, industry marketing payments to physicians for PCSK9i, predominantly in the form of meals, were associated with increased PCSK9i prescription in the subsequent year.

Pharmaceutical Industry-Sponsored Meals and Physician Prescribing Patterns for Medicare Beneficiaries.

IMPORTANCE: The association between industry payments to physicians and prescribing rates of the brand-name medications that are being promoted is controversial. In the United States, industry payment data and Medicare prescribing records recently became publicly available. OBJECTIVE: To study the association between physicians' receipt of industry-sponsored meals, which account for roughly 80% of the total number of industry payments, and rates of prescribing the promoted drug to Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional analysis of industry payment data from the federal Open Payments Program for August 1 through December 31, 2013, and prescribing data for individual physicians from Medicare Part D, for all of 2013. Participants were physicians who wrote Medicare prescriptions in any of 4 drug classes: statins, cardioselective ß-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ACE inhibitors and ARBs), and selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs and SNRIs). We identified physicians who received industry-sponsored meals promoting the most-prescribed brand-name drug in each class (rosuvastatin, nebivolol, olmesartan, and desvenlafaxine, respectively). Data analysis was performed from August 20, 2015, to December 15, 2015. EXPOSURES: Receipt of an industry-sponsored meal promoting the drug of interest. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Prescribing rates of promoted drugs compared with alternatives in the same class, after adjustment for physician prescribing volume, demographic characteristics, specialty, and practice setting. RESULTS: A total of 279 669 physicians received 63 524 payments associated with the 4 target drugs. Ninety-five percent of payments were meals, with a mean value of less than $20. Rosuvastatin represented 8.8% (SD, 9.9%) of statin prescriptions; nebivolol represented 3.3% (7.4%) of cardioselective ß-blocker prescriptions; olmesartan represented 1.6% (3.9%) of ACE inhibitor and ARB prescriptions; and desvenlafaxine represented 0.6% (2.6%) of SSRI and SNRI prescriptions. Physicians who received a single meal promoting the drug of interest had higher rates of prescribing rosuvastatin over other statins (odds ratio [OR], 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17-1.18), nebivolol over other ß-blockers (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.69-1.72), olmesartan over other ACE inhibitors and ARBs (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.51-1.53), and desvenlafaxine over other SSRIs and SNRIs (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 2.13-2.23). Receipt of additional meals and receipt of meals costing more than $20 were associated with higher relative prescribing rates. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Receipt of industry-sponsored meals was associated with an increased rate of prescribing the brand-name medication that was being promoted. The findings represent an association, not a cause-and-effect relationship.