Trends in Integration Between Physician Organizations and Pharmacies for Self-Administered Drugs.

Importance: Increasing integration across medical services may have important implications for health care quality and spending. One major but poorly understood dimension of integration is between physician organizations and pharmacies for self-administered drugs or in-house pharmacies. Objective: To describe trends in the use of in-house pharmacies, associated physician organization characteristics, and associated drug prices. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study was conducted from calendar years 2011 to 2019. Participants included 20% of beneficiaries enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare Parts A, B, and D. Data analysis was performed from September 15, 2020, to December 20, 2023. Exposures: Prescriptions filled by in-house pharmacies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The share of Medicare Part D spending filled by in-house pharmacies by drug class, costliness, and specialty was evaluated. Growth in the number of physician organizations and physicians in organizations with in-house pharmacies was measured in 5 specialties: medical oncology, urology, infectious disease, gastroenterology, and rheumatology. Characteristics of physician organizations with in-house pharmacies and drug prices at in-house vs other pharmacies are described. Results: Among 8 020 652 patients (median age, 72 [IQR, 66-81] years; 4 570 114 [57.0%] women), there was substantial growth in the share of Medicare Part D spending on high-cost drugs filled at in-house pharmacies from 2011 to 2019, including oral anticancer treatments (from 10% to 34%), antivirals (from 12% to 20%), and immunosuppressants (from 2% to 9%). By 2019, 63% of medical oncologists, 20% of urologists, 29% of infectious disease specialists, 21% of gastroenterologists, and 22% of rheumatologists were in organizations with specialty-relevant in-house pharmacies. Larger organizations had a greater likelihood of having an in-house pharmacy (0.75 percentage point increase [95% CI, 0.56-0.94] per each additional physician), as did organizations owning hospitals enrolled in the 340B Drug Discount Program (10.91 percentage point increased likelihood [95% CI, 6.33-15.48]). Point-of-sale prices for high-cost drugs were 1.76% [95% CI, 1.66%-1.87%] lower at in-house vs other pharmacies. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of physician organization-operated pharmacies, in-house pharmacies were increasingly used from 2011 to 2019, especially for high-cost drugs, potentially associated with organizations' financial incentives. In-house pharmacies offered high-cost drugs at lower prices, in contrast to findings of integration in other contexts, but their growth highlights a need to understand implications for patient care.

Medicare price negotiation and pharmaceutical innovation following the Inflation Reduction Act.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) requires Medicare to negotiate lower prices for some medicines with high Medicare spending. Using historical data from public and proprietary sources to apply the IRA's negotiation criteria retrospectively, we identify all drugs that met the eligibility criteria from 2012 to 2021 to classify drugs that would have had a negotiated price in effect in 2022 and to calculate associated decreases in industry revenues. Our results suggest that the IRA's reduction in overall industry revenue will be modest, will not affect most top-selling drugs and will not likely result in large-scale defunding of research and development. Changes in the net present value of drug-development projects will be concentrated in medicines where Medicare is a notable purchaser and where the ratio between expected revenue and development costs was only marginally positive before the IRA. Policymakers considering narrowing or expanding the scope of Medicare negotiation should carefully consider the tradeoffs across medicines with diverse characteristics.

The Contribution of Price Growth to Pharmaceutical Revenue Growth in the United States: Evidence from Medicines Sold in Retail Pharmacies.

CONTEXT: To what extent does pharmaceutical revenue growth depend on new medicines versus increasing prices for existing medicines? Moreover, does using list prices, as is commonly done, instead of prices net of confidential rebates offered by manufacturers, which are harder to observe, change the relative importance of the sources of revenue growth? METHODS: This study uses data from SSR Health LLC to address these research questions using decomposition methods that analyze list prices, prices net of rebates, and sales for branded pharmaceutical products sold primarily through retail pharmacies. FINDINGS: From 2009 to 2019, retail pharmaceutical revenue growth was primarily driven by new products rather than by price increases on existing products. Failing to account for confidential rebates creates a more prominent role for price increases in explaining revenue growth, because list price inflation during this period was 10.9%, whereas net price inflation was 3.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Policies that restrict price growth on existing medicines likely need to be coupled with policies that reduce launch prices to have a meaningful long-term impact on pharmaceutical revenue growth. Using pharmaceutical list prices is often an inadequate approximation for net prices because the role of rebates has increased and varies by drug class.

Mammographic Surveillance in Older Women With Breast Cancer in Canada and the United States: Are We Choosing Wisely?

PURPOSE: Guidelines on mammographic surveillance after breast cancer treatment have been disseminated internationally and incorporated into Choosing Wisely recommendations to reduce low-value care. However, adherence within different countries before their publication is unknown. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Low-value mammography, defined as "short-interval" (within 6 months of radiation) or "high-frequency" (>1 within 12 months of radiation), was compared in Medicare fee-for-service in the United States and Ontario, Canada. Women ≥65 years diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving therapy with a minimum of 24 months of follow-up were included (n = 19,715 United States; 6479 Ontario). Secondary outcomes were patient and physician characteristics associated with discordance. RESULTS: Short-interval mammography was higher in the United States than in Ontario (55.9% vs 38.0%, P < .001), as was high-frequency (39.6% vs 7.9%, P < .001). In Ontario, younger age (42% ≥85 vs 58% <74 years, P < .001) and chemotherapy (69% vs 51%, P < .001) were associated with short-interval mammography; in the United States, age, earlier diagnosis year, stage, chemotherapy, rurality, and academic center treatment were associated with greater use. Chemotherapy was associated with high-frequency mammography in both countries (13% vs 7% in Ontario, P < .001; 69% vs 51% in United States, P = .02); younger age, earlier diagnosis year, stage, and nonacademic center treatment were associated in the United States. In both countries, radiation oncologists had the highest proportion of providers ordering low-value mammograms. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant evidence guiding surveillance mammography recommendations, there are high rates of short-interval mammography in both the United States and Ontario, and high rates of high-frequency mammography in the United States. Further international efforts, such as Choosing Wisely, are needed to reduce low-value mammography.

Physician and facility drivers of spending variation in locoregional prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common male cancer, with a wide range of treatment options. Payment reform to reduce unnecessary spending variation is an important strategy for reducing waste, but its magnitude and drivers within prostate cancer are unknown. METHODS: In total, 38,971 men aged ≥66 years with localized prostate cancer who were enrolled in Medicare fee-for-service and were included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database from 2009 to 2014 were included. Multilevel linear regression with physician and facility random effects was used to examine the contributions of urologists, radiation oncologists, and their affiliated facilities to variation in total patient spending in the year after diagnosis within geographic region. The authors assessed whether spending variation was driven by patient characteristics, disease risk, or treatments. Physicians and facilities were sorted into quintiles of adjusted patient-level spending, and differences between those that were high-spending and low-spending were examined. RESULTS: Substantial variation in spending was driven by physician and facility factors. Differences in cancer treatment modalities drove more variation across physicians than differences in patient and disease characteristics (72% vs 2% for urologists, 20% vs 18% for radiation oncologists). The highest spending physicians spent 46% more than the lowest and had more imaging tests, inpatient care, and radiotherapy spending. There were no differences across spending quintiles in the use of robotic surgery by urologists or the use of brachytherapy by radiation oncologists. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were observed for patients with similar demographics and disease characteristics. This variation across both physicians and facilities suggests that efforts to reduce unnecessary spending must address decision making at both levels.

Marketwide Price Transparency Suggests Significant Opportunities For Value-Based Purchasing.

The extent of price variation across a local market has important implications for value-based purchasing. Using a new data set containing health care prices for nearly every insurer-provider-service triad across a large local market, we comprehensively examined variation in fee-for-service paid commercial prices in Massachusetts for 291 predominantly outpatient medical services. Prices varied considerably across hospital service areas. Prices for medical services at acute hospitals were, on average, 76 percent higher than at all other providers. The service categories with the widest price variation were ambulance/transportation services, physical/occupational therapy, and laboratory/pathology testing. In this market, simulations suggested that steering patients toward lower-price providers or setting price ceilings could generate potential savings of 9.0-12.8 percent. Marketwide price information at the insurer-provider-service level could help target policy interventions to reduce health care spending.

What drives variation in spending for breast cancer patients within geographic regions?

OBJECTIVE: To estimate and describe factors driving variation in spending for breast cancer patients within geographic region. DATA SOURCE: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database from 2009-2013. STUDY DESIGN: The proportion of variation in monthly medical spending within geographic region attributed to patient and physician factors was estimated using multilevel regression models with individual patient and physician random effects. Using sequential models, we estimated the contribution of differences in patient and disease characteristics or use of cancer treatment modalities to patient-level and physician-level variance in spending. Services associated with high spending physicians were estimated using linear regression. DATA EXTRACTION METHOD: A total of 20 818 women with a breast cancer diagnosis in 2010-2011. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We observed substantial between-patient and between-provider variation in spending following diagnosis and at the end-of-life. Immediately following diagnosis, 48% of between-patient and 31% of between-physician variation were driven by differences in delivery of cancer treatment modalities to similar patients. At the end-of-life, patients of high spending physicians had twice as many inpatient days, double the chemotherapy spending, and slightly more hospice days. CONCLUSIONS: Similar patients receive very different treatments, which yield significant differences in spending. Efforts to reduce unwanted variation may need to target treatment choices within patient-doctor discussions.