Assessing the impact of a financial incentive and refill reminder program on medication adherence and costs.

BACKGROUND: Improving medication adherence remains an important goal to improve therapeutic outcomes and lower health care costs. Point-of-sale prescription costs and forgetfulness remain top reasons why patients do not adhere to medications. Programs using both text message-based reminders and financial incentives may encourage patients to refill their prescriptions on time by reducing copays through discounts at the point of sale. Sempre Health, the subject of our analysis, provides both text message refill reminders and a dynamic discount incentive program to improve medication adherence. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a financial incentive/refill reminder program on medication adherence and total cost of care for patients taking the antithrombotic agents ticagrelor, apixaban, or rivaroxaban in a large regional health plan. METHODS: After propensity-score matching on demographics, socioeconomic status, baseline copay, prior pharmacy/medical spend, and morbidity, we compared-using a difference-in-differences analytic approach-adherence (measured by proportion of days covered), unplanned health care utilization, and costs (total cost of care, medical, and pharmacy cost) of health plan members who did and did not enroll in the financial incentive/refill reminder program between February 1, 2019, and October 31, 2021, over 1 and 2 years. Because of differences in patient characteristics, we analyzed patients on ticagrelor (the antiplatelet group), apixaban, and rivaroxaban (the anticoagulant group) separately. RESULTS: There were a total of 1,292 one-to-one program and control propensity-matched patients: 166 each for the antiplatelet group and 480 each for the anticoagulant group. The average age of the anticoagulant group was 62 years; more than 60% were male, and approximately 45% had no prior unplanned care events. In contrast, the average age of the antiplatelet group was 57 years; more than 70% were male, and approximately 21% had no prior unplanned care events. In the antiplatelet group, the proportions adherent (proportion of days covered ≥80%) were 63.3% vs 42.8% (P = 0.0002) for program vs controls. Similarly, in the anticoagulant group, the proportion adherent was 77.9% vs 60.2% (P < 0.0001) for program vs controls. Reflecting improved adherence, costs of apixaban and rivaroxaban increased by $79 per member per month (PMPM) (P < 0.0001), with no statistically significant differences in other costs. Similarly, the cost of ticagrelor increased by $77 PMPM (P = 0.0102) with no statistically significant differences in other costs. Finally, there was a 16% (P = 0.032) reduction in emergency department use for those in the program. CONCLUSIONS: The financial incentive and refill reminder program was associated with improved adherence to antithrombotic medications, reduced emergency department use, and increased medication costs, but not in total pharmacy, medical, or total cost of care in both subgroups.

Association Between Weight Reduction and Employees' Healthcare Cost.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to assess the impact of ≥15% body mass index (BMI) reduction on employees' health expenditures. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed health risk assessment surveys combined with insurance claims from January 2014 to December 2019. We compared costs of employees with baseline BMI > 30 who reported ≥15% BMI reduction in subsequent health risk assessment reports with employees who lost ≤5% BMI within the same period, matching the two cohorts on demographics and costs. RESULTS: The study cohort of 197 lost an average of 23% of their BMI from baseline. The average age was 44 years with majority females (approximately 80%). Group health insurance payments were similar at baseline; at year 1, the study cohort had a 33% payment reduction compared with 10% reduction in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: A ≥15% BMI reduction was associated with a substantial medical cost savings.

Comparison of hospitalization costs for the same adverse reaction associated with different medications.

PURPOSE: Costs of hospitalization due to severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were previously estimated within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), but additional analyses are needed to infer potential interventions to mitigate these negative outcomes. The objective of this study was to compare specific adverse reaction-related hospitalization costs between medications with similar indications. METHODS: Mean hospitalization costs associated with the same ADR symptom were compared for different drugs with similar indications using adjusted generalized linear models with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons as well as a gamma distribution. RESULTS: Overall, hospitalization costs between medications with similar indications were not significantly different for specific adverse reactions. However, gastrointestinal hemorrhage-associated costs were higher for warfarin versus nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (model estimate of mean cost, $18,114 [range of lower and upper model estimates, $12,522-$26,202] vs $14,255 [estimate range, $9,710-$20,929]). Similarly, the estimated mean hospitalization cost associated with angioedema was higher for losartan versus lisinopril or lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide: $14,591 (range, $9467-$22,488) versus $8,935 (range, $6,301-$12,669) and $8,022 (range, $5,424-$11,865), respectively. CONCLUSION: Although we found few differences in the cost of hospitalization when comparing drugs with similar indications and the same adverse reaction, there were specific drug-ADR pairs that merit attention and consideration of interventions to improve safe and appropriate medication use. Evaluation of the effect of those interventions on the incidence of ADRs is an area for future study.

Real-world impact of empagliflozin on total cost of care in adults with type 2 diabetes: Results from an outcomes-based agreement.

BACKGROUND: Value-based health care is expanding through payment models such as outcomes-based agreements between manufacturers and payers. OBJECTIVE: To describe the total-cost-of-care outcomes of an outcomes-based agreement evaluating the real-world impact of empagliflozin vs other type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) drugs among all patients with T2DM, with and without cardiovascular disease (within and beyond the requirement of the agreement). METHODS: In this prospective real-world analysis, members from the health plan of an integrated health care delivery system from the commercial and Medicare Advantage lines of business, who qualify under the confines of the contract, were included for analysis. Thus, members aged 18 years and older who were continuously enrolled in the identification (January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018) and measurement periods (≤1 year post-index) with a T2DM diagnosis were retained. Patients using empagliflozin and empagliflozin-combination drugs constituted the empagliflozin group; those using all other antihyperglycemics, the nonempagliflozin group. Patients with type 1 diabetes, or those using metformin or insulin monotherapy, at index were excluded. Eligible members were followed for up to the earliest occurrence of disenrollment date, discontinuation (60-day medication fill gap allowed) of empagliflozin (or nonempagliflozin containing) medication, or the end of the measurement period. We compared, using Student's t-test and summary statistics (for reporting the outcomes agreement) and a propensity-matched difference-in-difference model (for the followup evaluation beyond the requirement of the agreement), the mean all-cause total cost of care (pharmacy plus medical) per patient per month (PPPM) between the 2 groups, including a subgroup of members with a baseline cardiovascular disease diagnosis. RESULTS: There were 4,577 (3,069 and 1,508 in the commercial and Medicare) and 33,712 (15,571 and 18,141 in the commercial and Medicare) in the empagliflozin and nonempagliflozin groups, respectively. The difference in mean total cost PPPM was $75 lower for empagliflozin vs nonempagliflozin groups, driven mainly by lower medical costs in the empagliflozin group (-$465 PPPM). However, the difference was not statistically significant in the propensity score-matched model. CONCLUSIONS: Although empagliflozin had higher pharmacy costs, the total cost of care for patients with T2DM and with established cardiovascular disease were comparable to the group of patients with all other T2DM, driven mainly by lower medical costs. DISCLOSURES: The authors report no conflicts of interest beyond being employees of the 2 organizations involved in this outcomes-based agreement. Ms. Palli is a former employee of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., who was affiliated at the time of study conduct.

Trends in add-on medications following metformin monotherapy for type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Although metformin is generally universally recommended as a first-line pharmacologic therapy for most people living with type 2 diabetes, second-line and third-line choices can require a tailored approach to achieve optimal blood glucose and glycated hemoglobin levels. OBJECTIVE: To examine national trends in second- and third-line antihyperglycemic medications following metformin monotherapy, comparing 2015 and 2019. METHODS: This retrospective cohort analysis of deidentified pharmacy claims from a large national pharmacy benefits manager from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015, and again in January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, included adults (aged ≥ 18 years) continuously enrolled in commercial or Medicare insurance plans who filled an index metformin prescription in either year. Proportions of patients by second-line and third-line antihyperglycemic class were calculated. RESULTS: Second-line use of sulfonylureas (-10.1%; P < 0.001), combination drugs (-3.0%; P < 0.001), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (-2.0%; P = 0.031) significantly declined, whereas second-line use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) (+4.9%; P < 0.001) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1Ras) (+10.0%; P < 0.001) significantly increased. Similarly, third-line use of sulfonylureas declined (-5.5%; P = 0.005), whereas third-line use of SGLT2is (+3.4%; P = 0.005) and GLP-1RAs (+8.3%; P < 0.001) increased. Similar trends between 2015 and 2019 were found in commercial and Medicare subgroups. Among all groups in 2015 compared with 2019, sulfonylureas were the most prescribed second-line class and insulins the most common third-line class. Although SGLT2i and GLP-1RA together represented more than one-third of second-line and third-line prescriptions for commercially insured patients in 2019 (34.3% and 35.0%, respectively), these classes were less frequently prescribed in the Medicare subgroup (18% and 25.6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This report provides updated second-line and third-line antihyperglycemic medication prescribing trends in the United States, which suggests that evidence-based guidelines are being used in practice to prevent complications and individualize diabetes care. DISCLOSURES: Ms Swart and Drs Peasah and Good are employed by UPMC Health Plan. Dr Neilson was employed by UPMC Health Plan at the time of the study. Drs Munshi and Henderson were employed by Evernorth at the time of the study.

Comparison of real-world clinical and economic outcomes in patients receiving oral anticoagulants: A retrospective claims analysis.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have become widely used for the prevention of stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Warfarin, the standard of care prior to DOACs, requires monitoring and dose adjustment to ensure patients remain appropriately anticoagulated. DOACs do not require monitoring but are significantly more expensive. We sought to examine real-world effectiveness and costs of DOACs and warfarin in patients with AF and VTE. OBJECTIVE: To examine clinical and economic outcomes. The clinical objectives were to determine the bleeding and thrombotic event rates associated with DOACs vs warfarin. The economic objectives were to determine the cost associated with these events, as well as the all-cause medical and pharmacy costs associated with DOACs vs warfarin. METHODS: This analysis was an observational, propensity-matched comparison of retrospective medical and pharmacy claims data for members enrolled in an integrated health plan between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2020. Members who were older than 18 years of age with at least 1 30-day supply of warfarin or a DOAC filled within 30 days of a new diagnosis of VTE or nonvalvular AF were eligible for the analysis. Cox hazard ratios were used to compare differences in clinical outcomes, where paired t-tests were used to evaluate economic outcomes. RESULTS: After matching, there were 893 patients in each group. Among matched members, warfarin was associated with increased risk of nonmajor bleeds relative to apixaban (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.526; P = 0.0048) and increased risk of pulmonary embolism relative to both DOACs (apixaban: HR = 1.941 [P = 0.0328]; rivaroxaban: HR = 1.833 [P = 0.0489]). No statistically significant difference was observed in hospitalizations or in length of stay between warfarin and either DOAC. The difference-in-difference (DID) in total costs of care per member per month for apixaban and rivaroxaban relative to warfarin were $801.64 (P = 0.0178) and $534.23 (P = 0.0998) more, respectively. DID in VTE-related cost for apixaban was $177.09 less, relative to warfarin (P = 0.0098). DID in all-cause pharmacy costs for apixaban and rivaroxaban relative to warfarin were $342.47 (P < 0.0001) and $386.42 (P < 0.001) more, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Warfarin use was associated with a significant decrease in total cost of care despite a significant increase in VTE-related costs vs apixaban. Warfarin was also associated with a significant increase in other nonmajor bleeds relative to apixaban, as well as a significant increase in pulmonary embolism relative to both DOACs. Warfarin was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause pharmacy cost compared with either DOAC. DISCLOSURES: The authors of this study have nothing to disclose.

Trends in utilization and costs of migraine medications, 2017-2020.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines changes in utilization and costs trends associated with migraine medications. BACKGROUND: Migraine attacks are a burden to many patients. There are many pharmacotherapy options available with newer migraine drug classes entering the market in the past decade. Little is known about the use, associated costs, and the impact of the newer agents. METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional study examined 2017-2020 administrative claims from a large national pharmacy benefits manager. Patients aged ≥ 18 years enrolled in commercial, Medicare, Medicaid, or health insurance exchange insurance plans who filled ≥ 2 prescription claims for triptans, ergotamines, isometheptenes, gepants, ditans, and CGRP mABs were included. A two-sample t-test was conducted to estimate whether differences in mean utilization and costs between 2017 and 2020 were statistically significant for migraine drug classes, except for CGRP mABs, which were estimated between 2018 and 2020. RESULTS: The sample ranged from 161,369 (2017) to 240,330 (2020) patients. 84.5% (n = 203,110; 2020) of patients were women. The number of 30-day adjusted prescription fills for prophylaxis remained stable over the four-year period, except for CGRP mABs, which increased from 0.5% (n = 0.007; 2018) to 5.3% (n = 0.075; 2020). Antiepileptics, antidepressants and beta blockers were the most common prophylaxes, while triptans, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs/non-narcotic analgesics and opioids were the most common treatments utilized. CGRP mABs were the most expensive, while utilization of triptans were the highest. CGRP mABs had the largest increase in utilization (177.5%) and costs (166.3%) PPPM in 2020 ($291.17) compared to 2018 ($109.35), the year they were first available (p < 0.001). Between 2018 and 2020, costs increased overall and for commercial and Medicare enrollees, but remained unchanged for Medicaid and HIX members. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates a shift in migraine medication utilization from 2017-2020, where increased use of CGRP mABs had a significant contribution to increased costs. These increased pharmacy costs must be weighed against the improved tolerability of these agents likely resulting in other healthcare and indirect cost savings.

Comparison of oral anticoagulation use and adherence among Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in stand-alone prescription drug plans vs Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans.

BACKGROUND: For atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, oral anticoagulants (OACs) can reduce the risk of stroke by 60%; however, nearly 50% of patients recommended to receive OACs do not receive therapy. Integrated insurers that cover pharmacy and medical benefits may be incentivized to improve OAC use and adherence because they benefit from offsets in medical costs associated with prevented strokes. OBJECTIVE: To compare OAC use and adherence between AF patients enrolled in Medicare stand-alone prescription drug plans (PDPs), which only cover pharmacy benefits, and those enrolled in Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MAPD) plans, which cover medical and pharmacy benefits. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study, conducted using 2014-2016 Medicare claims data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and a large regional health plan in Pennsylvania. Primary outcomes included OAC use and OAC adherence. OAC use was measured as filling at least 1 prescription for an OAC after AF diagnosis. OAC adherence was defined as having greater than or equal to 80% of days covered with an OAC. We constructed conditional logistic regression models in propensity score-matched samples to test the association between enrollment in PDPs or MAPD plans and outcomes. RESULTS: There were 2,551 AF patients enrolled in PDPs and 4,502 in MAPD plans before propensity score matching. The propensity score-matched sample included 2,537 patients in each group. OAC use was higher among MAPD beneficiaries (74%-76%) compared with PDP beneficiaries (70%; P < 0.001), and 41%-42% of MAPD beneficiaries were adherent to OACs, compared with 34% of PDP beneficiaries (P < 0.001). In adjusted analyses among propensity score-matched samples, PDP enrollment was associated with lower odds of OAC use (OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.56-0.81) and adherence (OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.59-0.78) compared with MAPD enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: AF patients enrolled in MAPD plans were more likely to use and adhere to OACs compared with PDP enrollees. These results may reflect the financial incentives of MAPD plans to improve guideline-recommended OAC use, since MAPD insurers bear the risk of pharmacy and medical costs and thus may benefit from cost savings associated with averted stroke events. As efforts to improve use and adherence of OACs in AF patients increase, focus should be given to how insurance benefit designs can affect medication use. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Hernandez has received personal fees from BMS and Pfizer, unrelated to this study. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Assessing the impact of adding pharmacist management services to an existing discharge planning program on 30-day readmissions.

BACKGROUND: Although hospital readmission rates are declining nationally, avoidable readmissions remain a public health concern. Effective readmission interventions are multifaceted and include discharge planning and transition-of-care coordination. Clinical pharmacists are effective contributors to these processes, bringing expertise to discharge counseling, medication reconciliation, medication adherence, and postdischarge follow-up counseling. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the impact of adding health plan clinical pharmacy management services to an existing discharge program on all-cause readmissions and postdischarge primary physician visits. METHOD: Pharmacy management services by health plan clinical pharmacists of a large regional integrated delivery system were added to an existing optimal discharge planning (ODP) program. Criteria for eligibility for these pharmacists' services included patients who prescribed a new maintenance medication after discharge, received a therapeutic substitution, had a previous discharge within 30 days, or were taking a high-risk medication. A retrospective, observational analysis of a subgroup of patients, who received the pharmacy management services as part of ODP, was performed using a difference-in-difference model, by comparing propensity-matched discharges from February 22, 2016, to January 31, 2017 (preprogram implementation) with discharges from February 22, 2017, to January 31, 2018 (implementation period), to estimate changes in 30-day readmission rates and postdischarge primary physician visits. RESULTS: A total of 111 of the propensity matched received the pharmacy management services; of these, 73% (ODP) versus 64% (non-ODP) were ≥58 years, 60% were females, and 62% (ODP) versus 52% (non-ODP) were Medicare beneficiaries. There was a 16.7% (P = 0.022) statistically significant reduction in combined inpatient and observation 30-day readmissions and a 19.7% increase in 5-day postdischarge follow-up physician visits (P = 0.037) for the subgroup who also received the pharmacy management services. CONCLUSION: Addition of pharmacist management services to an existing hospital discharge program for select at-risk patients was associated with reduced inpatient and observation 30-day readmissions.

Association of Race and Ethnicity and Anticoagulation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Dually Enrolled in Veterans Health Administration and Medicare: Effects of Medicare Part D on Prescribing Disparities.

BACKGROUND: Racial and ethnic disparities in anticoagulation exist in atrial fibrillation management in Medicare and the Veterans Health Administration, but the influence of dual Veterans Health Administration and Medicare enrollment is unclear. We compared anticoagulant initiation by race and ethnicity in dually enrolled patients and assessed the role of Medicare part D enrollment on anticoagulation disparities. METHODS: We identified patients with incident atrial fibrillation (2014-2018) dually enrolled in Veterans Health Administration and Medicare. We assessed any anticoagulant initiation (warfarin or direct-acting oral anticoagulants [DOACs]) within 90 days of atrial fibrillation diagnosis and DOAC use among anticoagulant initiators. We modeled anticoagulant initiation, adjusting for patient, provider, and facility factors, including main effects for race and ethnicity and Medicare part D enrollment and an interaction term for these variables. RESULTS: In 43 789 patients, 8.9% were Black, 3.6% Hispanic, and 87.5% White; 10.9% participated in Medicare part D. Overall, 29 680 (67.8%) patients initiated any anticoagulant, of whom 17 568 (59.2%) initiated DOACs. Lower proportions of Black (65.2%) than Hispanic (67.6%) or White (68.0%) patients initiated any anticoagulant (P=0.001) and, lower proportions of Black (56.3%) and Hispanic (55.9%) than White (59.6%) patients (P=0.001) initiated DOACs. Compared with White patients, Black patients had significantly lower initiation of any anticoagulant (adjusted odds ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.82-0.97]). The adjusted odds ratios for DOAC initiation were significantly lower for Black (0.72 [95% CI, 0.65-0.81]) and Hispanic (0.84 [95% CI, 0.70-1.00]) than White patients. The interaction between race and ethnicity and Medicare part D enrollment was nonsignificant for any anticoagulant (P=0.99) and DOAC (P=0.27) therapies. CONCLUSIONS: In dually enrolled Veterans Health Administration and Medicare patients with atrial fibrillation, Black patients were less likely to initiate any anticoagulant, and Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to initiate DOACs. Medicare part D enrollment did not moderate the associations between race and ethnicity and anticoagulant therapies.

Infection incidence and management in multiple sclerosis patients after initiating disease-modifying therapy.

Disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS) are effective, but frequently cost $70,000+/year and can predispose patients to serious infections. This retrospective cohort analysis (N = 3,204) compared rates of infections over a 24-month period by MS medication route of administration and antimicrobial use. Infection rates were: 38.7% (oral), 37.3% (infused), and 36.8% (injectable). Of those infections, antimicrobials were prescribed in 86.5% (oral), 84.3% (infused), and 85.5% (injectable) cases. We found differences within bacterial and herpes zoster infection rates (and antimicrobial use) among new users by medication route of administration. Our findings suggest that pharmacovigilance may inform the shared-decision processes when choosing MS medications.

Changes in Type 2 Diabetes Medication Utilization and Costs in the United States, 2014-2019.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe national changes in utilization and associated costs of antidiabetic medications in the United States from 2014 to 2019, across different drug classes and insurance plans. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional study examined administrative claims from a large national pharmacy benefits manager from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2019. Patients aged 18 years and above enrolled in commercial, Medicare, or Medicaid health plans who filled ≥1 prescription claim for an antidiabetic medication(s) during the 6-year period were included. Utilization was examined as the total number of 30-day adjusted prescription fills per user per month (PUPM). Gross costs were calculated as the sum of plan costs (net of rebates) and member out-of-pocket costs. Differences in mean utilization and costs PUPM between 2014 and 2019 for each medication class were calculated. RESULTS: The final analytic sample increased from 745,290 patients in 2014 to 1,596,006 in 2019. Antidiabetic medication utilization increased by 8.8% from 2014 to 2019, driven by increases in sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (48.7%; P<0.001), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (11.8%; P<0.001), insulin (8.1%; P<0.001), and metformin (2.9%; P<0.05) utilization. Average costs PUPM rose 47.5% (P<0.001), from $126.52 in 2014 to $186.58 in 2019. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and combination drugs contributed significantly to these increased costs, with 6-year cost differences of 57.3%, 46.9%, and 47.2%, respectively (all P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates a shift in antidiabetic medication class utilization from 2014 to 2019, where associated costs net of rebates significantly increased to a disproportionately greater extent than the significant increase in utilization PUPM.

A decade of increases in Medicare Part B pharmaceutical spending: what are the drivers?

BACKGROUND: Medicare Part B pharmaceutical spending has increased rapidly, more than doubling in 2006-2017. Yet, it is unclear whether this increase was driven by increased utilization or increased cost per claim. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative impact of changes in drug utilization and cost per claim on changes in Medicare Part B pharmaceutical spending in 2008-2016 overall, by drug type (specialty and nonspecialty) and therapeutic category. METHODS: In this retrospective descriptive study, we extracted all claims in 2008-2016 for separately payable Part B drugs from a 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries. Our study included 3 outcomes calculated annually for all included drugs: (1) spending, defined as the sum of total payments; (2) utilization, defined as total number of claims; and (3) cost per claim, defined as spending divided by the number of claims. Estimates of spending and utilization were expressed per beneficiary-year. Spending and cost per claim were adjusted for inflation. For each outcome, we calculated relative changes in 2008-2016. We repeated analyses stratifying by drug type (specialty and nonspecialty) and therapeutic class. RESULTS: Pharmaceutical spending in Medicare Part B increased by 34% from 2008-2016, driven by a 53% increase in the cost per claim. Utilization decreased by 12%. Spending on specialty drugs increased by 56%, driven by a 48% increase in the cost per claim and a 6% utilization increase. Spending on nonspecialty drugs decreased by 32% driven by an 18% reduction in the cost per claim and a 17% reduction in utilization. Spending on ophthalmic preparations increased by 281%, driven by a 238% utilization increase and a 13% increase in the cost per claim. Spending on antiarthritic and immunologic agents increased by 159%, driven by a 117% increase in the cost per claim and a 19% utilization increase. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare Part B pharmaceutical spending grew in recent years, despite decreased utilization, driven by an overall increase in the cost per claim. This was a product of rising drug prices and increased utilization of more expensive specialty drugs. These findings support the development of policies that aim to spur competition and control price growth of provider-administered drugs. DISCLOSURES: The authors acknowledge funding from the Myers Family Foundation. Hernandez was funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (grant number K01HL142847). Shrank is an employee of Humana. Good is an employee of the UPMC Health Plan Insurance Services Division. There are no other potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Health care utilization and costs associated with switching from DPP-4i to GLP-1RA or SGLT2i: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Because of improved clinical outcomes, recent American Diabetes Association guidelines recommend the use of newer antidiabetic agents-glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i)-by those with cardiovascular disease. It is unclear, however, how switching to these newer agents affects health care utilization and costs. OBJECTIVE: To compare health care utilization and costs between users of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) who switch to GLP-1RA or SGLT2i and nonswitchers. METHODS: We used claims data from a large pharmacy benefit manager. Patients included were commercially insured adults with type 2 diabetes and a prescription claim for DPP-4i in 2016 or 2017. Using propensity score methods, we matched patients who switched to SGLT2i or GLP-1RA with those who remained on DPP-4i. Among matched samples, we conducted multivariable negative binomial regression to examine differences in the incidence of inpatient and emergency room (ER) visits and generalized linear regression to examine differences in health care costs. RESULTS: Among 47,953 patients who used DPP-4i in 2016 and 2017, 507 switched to SGLT2i and 808 switched to GLP-1RA. Propensity score matching of 1:6 resulted in 3,042 nonswitchers/507 switchers for the SGLT2i cohort and 4,848 nonswitchers/808 switchers for the GLP-1RA cohort. Switchers to SGLT2i experienced a 39% reduction (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.38-0.96), and GLP-1RA switchers experienced a 29% reduction (IRR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.52-0.97) in inpatient hospitalizations. ER visit rates did not differ significantly between switchers and nonswitchers. Switchers to SGLT2i did not have statistically significant differences in medical or pharmacy costs compared with DPP-4i users, while switchers to GLP-1RA had significantly higher total pharmacy costs (adjusted difference of $2,453.10, 95% CI = $1,837.20-$3,069.00). CONCLUSIONS: Switching from DPP-4i to GLP-1RA or SGLT2i was associated with fewer hospitalizations; however, higher pharmacy costs may outweigh savings from reduced hospitalizations, especially for GLP-1RAs. As newer diabetes guidelines steer specific populations to these drug classes, it is important to optimize drug pricing to realize their true value. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Neilson, Good, Swart, and Huang are employees of UPMC Center for Value-Based Pharmacy Initiatives and High-Value Care. Parekh reports employment at UPMC until July 2019. Munshi and Henderson are employed by Express Scripts. Newman has no disclosures to report.

Economic assessment of changes to an existing medication therapy management program of a large regional health plan.

BACKGROUND: Although medication therapy management (MTM) has specific eligibility criteria and is mandated for specific Medicare Part D enrollees, some health plans have expanded MTM eligibility beyond the minimum criteria to include other Medicare Part D enrollees, Medicaid, and commercial health plan patients. Differences exist in the mode of delivery, location of services, type of personnel involved in managing the service, and the subsequent outcomes. The type and intensity of MTM services delivered have evolved with time to more streamlined and robust interventions, necessitating ongoing evaluation of the effect on clinical and economic outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of changes to an existing MTM program on cost of care, utilization, and medication adherence. METHODS: UPMC Health Plan made changes to an existing MTM program by expanding eligibility (customized by the type of health plan), intervention types, pharmacist involvement, and patient followup contacts. After matching our intervention cohort (identified January 2017-June 2018) with the pre-2016 MTM historical controls (patients identified January 2014-June 2015 who would have been eligible if we used the intervention cohort eligibility criteria), we estimated that the effect of the program changes with a difference-in-difference model (preintervention [2014-2016] and postintervention [2017-2019]). Outcomes of interest included cost (total cost of care including medical, pharmacy, and unplanned care [i.e., unscheduled health care use such as emergency department visits] in 2017 U.S. dollars); utilization; medication adherence (proportion of days covered); and return on investment (ROI). Target population included continuously enrolled patients aged ≥ 21 years in the commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid health plans. RESULTS: Total propensity score-matched members was 10,747, 55% of which were in the historic control group. The average (SD) ages after matching the groups were similar (historical control group: 57.08 years [14.23], intervention group: 56.79 years [14.21]) and the majority was female (57%). Comorbidities identified most for patients included hypertension (77%), dyslipidemia (70%), and diabetes (52%). Forty-one percent were in the commercial, 37% in the Medicaid, and 23% in the Medicare health plans. Proportion of care activities undertaken in the intervention period compared with the control period were significantly different: "sent letter to physician" (67% vs. 87%), "sent letter to member" (15% vs. 0%), "pharmacist phone call to physician" (15% vs. 0.1%), and "pharmacist phone call to member" (13% vs. 7%). There were statistically significant reductions in unplanned care across all health plans especially in the Medicare population, in total cost of care, and increases in medication adherence in 4 therapeutic classes: anticoagulants (OR = 1.25, P = 0.005), cardiac medications (OR = 1.20, P < 0.001), statins (OR = 1.21, P < 0.001), and antidepressants (OR = 1.15, P < 0.001). There was a positive ROI of $18.50 per dollar spent, which equated to a cumulative net savings of $11 million over 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: In a large health plan, expanding MTM eligibility, intensifying patient follow-up contact and pharmacist involvement, and improving provider awareness had favorable clinical and economic benefits. DISCLOSURES: There was no funding for this project except employees' time. All authors are employees of UPMC and have no conflicts of interest to report.

Trends in list prices, net prices, and discounts of self-administered injectable tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: List prices of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors drastically increased during the last decade, but previous research has shown that half of these increases were offset by rising manufacturer discounts. It remains unclear to what extent manufacturers' discounts have offset increases in list prices of each self-administered injectable TNF inhibitor. Evaluating trends in net prices and discounts at the product level will be paramount in understanding the role of competition in the biologic market. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe product-level changes in net prices of each self-administered injectable TNF inhibitor available in 2007-2019 and (b) quantify to what extent manufacturer discounts have offset increases in list prices. METHODS: We obtained 2007-2019 pricing data for etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, and golimumab from the investment firm SSR Health, which uses company-reported sales to estimate net prices and discounts for brand products manufactured by publicly traded companies. For each drug and year, we calculated annual costs of treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis based on list and net prices and discounts in Medicaid and other payers. RESULTS: From 2007-2019, list prices of etanercept and adalimumab increased by 293% and 295%, respectively; however, discounts offset 47% and 45% of these increases, leading to net price increases of 171% and 203%. List prices of golimumab and certolizumab increased by 183% and 182%, respectively, but with discounts offsetting 58% and 59% of these increases, net prices increased by 103% and 109%. Net prices of golimumab started to decrease after 2016, while net prices of adalimumab and certolizumab experienced their first drop in 2019. Across the study period, discounts in Medicaid and in other payers increased, respectively, from 21% to 85% and 6% to 32% for etanercept; from 26% to 88% and 19% to 35% for adalimumab; from 28% to 63% and 22% to 46% for golimumab; and from 29% to 83% and 27% to 47% for certolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Despite growing manufacturer discounts, net prices of self-administered injectable TNF inhibitors still increased at a mean annual rate of 9.6% in 2007-2019. This led to net prices tripling for adalimumab and more than doubling for etanercept, golimumab, and certolizumab. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by the Myers Family Foundation. Hernandez is funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (grant number K01HL142847). Funding sources had no role in design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Hernandez has served on Pfizer's scientific advisory board. The other authors have nothing to disclose.