Out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for adults with cardiovascular risk factors under Amazon's direct-to-consumer pharmacy service.

BACKGROUND: US adults often overpay for generic prescription medications, which can lead to medication nonadherence that negatively impacts cardiovascular outcomes. As a result, new direct-to-consumer online medication services are growing in popularity nationwide. Amazon recently launched a $5/month direct-to-consumer medication subscription service (Amazon RxPass), but it is unclear how many US adults could save on out-of-pocket drug costs by using this new service. OBJECTIVES: To estimate out-of-pocket savings on generic prescription medications achievable through Amazon's new direct-to-consumer subscription medication service for adults with cardiovascular risk factors and/or conditions. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of adults 18-64 years in the 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. RESULTS: Of the 25,280,517 (SE ± 934,809) adults aged 18-64 years with cardiovascular risk factors or conditions who were prescribed at least 1 medication available in the Amazon RxPass formulary, only 6.4% (1,624,587 [SE ± 68,571]) would achieve savings. Among those achieving savings, the estimated average out-of-pocket savings would be $140 (SE ± $15.8) per person per year, amounting to a total savings of $228,093,570 (SE ± $26,117,241). In multivariable regression models, lack of insurance coverage (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.5, 95%CI 1.9-6.5) and being prescribed a greater number of RxPass-eligible medications (2-3 medications versus 1 medication: OR 5.6, 95%CI 3.0-10.3; 4+ medications: OR 21.8, 95%CI 10.7-44.3) were each associated with a higher likelihood of achieving out-of-pocket savings from RxPass. CONCLUSIONS: Changes to the pricing structure of Amazon's direct-to-consumer medication service are needed to expand out-of-pocket savings on generic medications to a larger segment of the working-age adults with cardiovascular risk factors and/or diseases.

Availability and Cost of Expensive and Common Generic Prescription Drugs: A Cross-sectional Analysis of Direct-to-Consumer Pharmacies.

BACKGROUND: Direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmacies sell generic prescription drugs, often at lower prices than traditional retail pharmacies; however, not all drugs are available, and prices vary. OBJECTIVE: To determine the availability and cost of generic drugs at DTC pharmacies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Five national DTC pharmacies in April and May 2023. PARTICIPANTS: Each qualifying form of 100 generic drugs with the highest cost-per-patient (expensive) and the 50 generic drugs with the highest number of patients (common) in Medicare Part D in 2020 MAIN MEASURES: Availability of these drugs and the lowest DTC pharmacy price for a standardized drug strength and supply (e.g., 30 pills), compared to GoodRx retail pharmacy prices. KEY RESULTS: Of the 118 expensive generic dosage forms, 94 (80%) were available at 1 or more DTC pharmacies; out of 52 common generic dosage forms, 51 (98%) were available (p < 0.001). Of the 88 expensive generics available in comparable quantities and strengths across pharmacies, 42 (47%) had the lowest cost at Amazon, 23 (26%) at Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company, 13 (14%) at Health Warehouse, and 12 (13%) at Costco; for 51 common generic formulations, 16 (31%) had the lowest cost at Costco, 14 (27%) at Amazon, 10 (20%) at Walmart, 6 (12%) at Health Warehouse, and 5 (10%) at Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company. For the 77 expensive generics with available GoodRx retail pharmacy prices, the median cost savings at DTC pharmacies were $231 (95% CI, $129-$792) or 76% (IQR, 53-91%); for 51 common generics, savings were $19 (95% CI, $10-$34) or 75% (IQR, 67-83%). CONCLUSIONS: Many of the most expensive generic drugs are unavailable at direct-to-consumer pharmacies. Meanwhile, less expensive, commonly used generics are widely available, but drug prices vary by pharmacy and savings are modest, requiring patients to shop around for the lowest cost.

Spending on nucleos(t)ide analogues for hepatitis B in medicaid beneficiaries: 2012-2021.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) with nucelos(t)ide analogues (NA) can improve outcomes, but NA treatment is expensive for insurance plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services database was assessed from 2012 to 2021 to assess the use of NA for CHB in patients on Medicaid. Data extracted included the number of claims, units, and costs of each agent stratified by originator and generic. RESULTS: Over the study period, 1.9 billion USD was spent on NA, with spending peaking in 2016 at $289 million US, which has subsequently decreased. Lower expenditures since 2016 have been associated with increased use of generics. The use of generic tenofovir or entecavir led to savings of $669 million US over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Increased generic use has significantly reduced expenditures for NA drugs; policy shifts towards generic drug use may help with sustainability.

Strategies to reduce out-of-pocket medication costs for Canadians with peripheral arterial disease.

BACKGROUND: Given that peripheral arterial disease (PAD) disproportionately affects people of lower socioeconomic status, out-of-pocket expenses for preventive medications are a major barrier to their use. We carried out a cost comparison of drug therapies for PAD to identify prescribing strategies that minimize out-of-pocket expenses for these medications. METHODS: Between March and June 2019, we contacted outpatient pharmacies in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, to assess pricing of pharmacologic therapies at dosages included in the 2016 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline for management of lower extremity PAD. We also gathered pricing information for supplementary charges, including delivery, pill splitting and blister packaging. We calculated prescription prices with and without dispensing fees for 30-day brand-name and generic prescriptions, and 90-day generic prescriptions. RESULTS: Twenty-four pharmacies, including hospital-based, independent and chain, were included in our sample. In the most extreme scenario, total 90-day medication costs could differ by up to $1377.26. Costs were affected by choice of agent within a drug class, generic versus brand-name drug, quantity dispensed, dispensing fee and delivery cost, if any. CONCLUSION: By opting for prescriptions for 90 days or as long as possible, selecting the lowest-cost generic drugs available in each drug class, and identifying dispensing locations with lower fees, prescribers can minimize out-of-pocket patient medication expenses. This may help improve adherence to guideline-recommended therapies for the secondary prevention of vascular events in patients with PAD.

Why sedative hypnotics often fail in development.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Drug development to support anaesthesia and sedation has been slow with few candidates emerging from preclinical discovery and limited innovation beyond attempted reformulation of existing compounds. RECENT FINDINGS: The market is well supported by low-cost generic products and development compounds have not been shown to improve patient outcomes or possess other distinctive characteristics to justify the cost of development. SUMMARY: To make progress in a large-volume, low margin and highly competitive environment requires meaningful advances in relevant basic science. Opportunities exist, but probably require bolder initiatives than further attempts at reformulation or fiddling with the structure of propofol. Extending development ambitions to include nonanaesthesiologist providers challenges professional boundaries but may facilitate cost-effective changes in patterns of care.

[Comparison of Preparation Efficiency and Therapeutic Safety between Brand-Name and Generic Products of Pemetrexed].

At Oita University Hospital, we switched our usage of pemetrexed(PEM)from brand-name to generic drugs. We conducted a comparative study of the preparation efficiency and therapeutic safety with the brand-name product and examined the economic effect thereof. The incidence of adverse drug reactions was investigated retrospectively using electronic medical records for patients who received PEM brand-name and generic drugs at our hospital between April 2021 and December 2022. The preparation time per mg was significantly shorter in the generic group at 0.17(0.08-0.38)seconds compared to 0.34(0.15-0.94)seconds for the brand-name group(p<0.01). Regarding the safety comparison, none of the 13 eligible patients developed new hematologic or non-hematologic toxicities of Grade 2 or higher after switching to the generic product. The switch to generics had an economic impact of 7,369,278 yen during the study period. The results suggest that switching from brand-name to generic products is reasonable from the perspectives of therapeutic safety and economic benefits, as well as the expected improvement in preparation efficiency.

Does Price Really Matter for Generic Alternatives? Supervised learning Approaches in Deciding the Right Price for Acceptable Quality Attributes of Amlodipine Besylate among Generic Alternatives.

The price and safety of finished pharmaceutical preparations are two major concerns while prescribing medicine. In this work, machine learning-based classification models were developed with respect to the quality attributes of 258 samples covering 9 marketed amlodipine (AMLO) formulations. The quantitation of AMLO and its three sulfonate ester genotoxic impurities of besylate counter ion was settled using a validated high-performance liquid chromatography-diode-array detection method. The classification of correlation between dependent and independent variables was exercised using linear discriminant analysis models. The linear dispersion of acceptable quality attributes was significantly different for AMLO besylate formulation with unit price per tablet "<1 Rs." Although the correlations between price and quality are well-understood associations group centroid distance for price group "2-3 Rs." and "1-2 Rs." reveal that acceptable quality dispersion was similar for both groups. Nonetheless, a higher price could allow storage of the finished formulation to be kept on the shelf for a longer period.

Willingness to pay brand premiums for generic medicines in Kenya: A bidding game experiment.

BACKGROUND: Recent growth in the market share of higher priced branded generic medicines in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has raised concerns around affordability and access. We examined consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for branded versus unbranded generic non-communicable disease (NCD) medicines in Kenya. METHODS: We randomly assigned NCD patients to receive a hypothetical offer for either a Novartis Access-branded medicine or for an unbranded generic equivalent. We then analysed WTP data captured using a bidding game methodology. RESULTS: We found that WTP for Novartis Access medicines was on average 23% higher than for unbranded generic equivalents (p = 0.009). The WTP brand premium was driven almost entirely by wealthier patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the dominance of branded generics in LMICs like Kenya reflect in part consumer preferences for these medicines. Governments and other health sector actors may be justified in intervening to improve access to these medicines and equivalent non-branded generics, particularly for the poorest patients who appear to have no preference for branded medicines.

Patents and Regulatory Exclusivities on GLP-1 Receptor Agonists.

Importance: Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists were first approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in 2005. Demand for these drugs has increased rapidly in recent years, as indications have expanded, but they remain expensive. Objective: To analyze how manufacturers of brand-name GLP-1 receptor agonists have used the patent and regulatory systems to extend periods of market exclusivity. Evidence Review: The annual US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations was used to identify GLP-1 receptor agonists approved from 2005 to 2021 and to record patents and nonpatent statutory exclusivities listed for each product. Google Patents was used to extract additional data on patents, including whether each was obtained on the delivery device or another aspect of the product. The primary outcome was the duration of expected protection from generic competition, defined as the time elapsed from FDA approval until expiration of the last-to-expire patent or regulatory exclusivity. Findings: On the 10 GLP-1 receptor agonists included in the cohort, drug manufacturers listed with the FDA a median of 19.5 patents (IQR, 9.0-25.8) per product, including a median of 17 patents (IQR, 8.3-22.8) filed before FDA approval and 1.5 (IQR, 0-2.8) filed after FDA approval. Fifty-four percent of all patents listed on GLP-1 receptor agonists were on the delivery devices rather than active ingredients. Manufacturers augmented patent protection with a median of 2 regulatory exclusivities (IQR, 0-3) obtained at approval and 1 (IQR, 0.3-4.3) added after approval. The median total duration of expected protection after FDA approval, when accounting for both preapproval and postapproval patents and regulatory exclusivities, was 18.3 years (IQR, 16.0-19.4). No generic firm has successfully challenged patents on GLP-1 receptor agonists to gain FDA approval. Conclusions and Relevance: Patent and regulatory reform is needed to ensure timely generic entry of GLP-1 receptor agonists to the market.

Cost-Effectiveness of Hypertension Treatment by Pharmacists in Black Barbershops.

BACKGROUND: In LABBPS (Los Angeles Barbershop Blood Pressure Study), pharmacist-led hypertension care in Los Angeles County Black-owned barbershops significantly improved blood pressure control in non-Hispanic Black men with uncontrolled hypertension at baseline. In this analysis, 10-year health outcomes and health care costs of 1 year of the LABBPS intervention versus control are projected. METHODS: A discrete event simulation of hypertension care processes projected blood pressure, medication-related adverse events, fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events, and noncardiovascular disease death in LABBPS participants. Program costs, total direct health care costs (2019 US dollars), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for the LABBPS intervention and control arms from a health care sector perspective over a 10-year horizon. Future costs and QALYs were discounted 3% annually. High and intermediate cost-effectiveness thresholds were defined as <$50 000 and <$150 000 per QALY gained, respectively. RESULTS: At 10 years, the intervention was projected to cost an average of $2356 (95% uncertainty interval, -$264 to $4611) more per participant than the control arm and gain 0.06 (95% uncertainty interval, 0.01-0.10) QALYs. The LABBPS intervention was highly cost-effective, with a mean cost of $42 717 per QALY gained (58% probability of being highly and 96% of being at least intermediately cost-effective). Exclusive use of generic drugs improved the cost-effectiveness to $17 162 per QALY gained. The LABBPS intervention would be only intermediately cost-effective if pharmacists were less likely to intensify antihypertensive medications when systolic blood pressure was ≥150 mm Hg or if pharmacist weekly time driving to barbershops increased. CONCLUSIONS: Hypertension care delivered by clinical pharmacists in Black barbershops is a highly cost-effective way to improve blood pressure control in Black men.

Differential Effects by Mental Health Status of Filling the Medicare Part D Coverage Gap.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to study how changes in insurance benefit design affect medication use of older adults with mental disorders. DATA SOURCES: US Medicare claims data from 2007 to 2018. STUDY DESIGN: Exploiting the gradual elimination of the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap beginning in 2011, we examine the effects on medication use and out-of-pocket spending by drug type with a difference-in-differences approach. We identify subpopulations by mental disorder and compare the estimates across mental health groups and to the general Medicare population. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Closing the gap substantially reduced individuals' out-of-pocket spending, and the reduction was larger for those with more severe mental disorders. The policy led to a statistically significant increase in branded drugs used for the Medicare population (0.91; P<0.01; 12.12% increase), beneficiaries with severe mental disorders (2.71; P<0.01; 11.13% increase), and common mental disorders (2.63; P<0.01; 11.62% increase), whereas such effect for beneficiaries with Alzheimer disease and dementia (AD) is substantially smaller (0.44; P<0.01; 1.83% increase). In contrast, the policy decreased generic drugs used by about 3%-5% for all groups. Overall, beneficiaries without mental health illness have a statistically significant increase in total medication use (2.05%) following the coverage gap closure, while all 3 mental health groups have either no statistically significant changes or a small reduction in total mediation use (AD, -1.26%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' responses to price changes vary across mental disorders and by drug type. The impact on branded drug utilization among those with AD is particularly small. Our findings suggest that lowering medication costs has differential impacts across diseases and may not be sufficient to improve adherence for all conditions, in particular those with severe mental health disorders such as AD.

Do Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Account for Drug Genericization? A Literature Review and Assessment of Implications.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated how health technology assessment (HTA) organizations around the world have handled drug genericization (an allowance for future generic drug entry and subsequent drug price declines) in their guidelines for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). We also analyzed a large sample of published CEAs to examine prevailing practices in the field. METHODS: We reviewed 43 HTA guidelines to determine whether and how they addressed drug genericization in their CEAs. We also selected a sample of 270 US-based CEAs from the Tufts Medical Center's CEA Registry, restricting the sample to studies on pharmaceuticals published from 1991 to 2019 and to analyses taking a lifetime time horizon. We determined whether each CEA examined genericization (and if so, whether in base case or sensitivity analyses), and how inclusion of genericization influenced the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Fourteen (33%) of the 43 HTA guidelines mention genericization for CEAs and 4 (9%) recommend that base case analyses include assumptions about future drug price changes due to genericization. Most published CEAs (95%) do not include assumptions about future generic prices for intervention drugs. Only 2% include such assumptions about comparator drugs. Most studies (72%) conduct sensitivity analyses on drug prices unrelated to genericization. CONCLUSIONS: The omission of assumptions about genericization means that CEAs may misrepresent the long run opportunity costs for drugs. The field needs clearer guidance for when CEAs should account for genericization, and for the inclusion of other price dynamics that might influence a drug's cost-effectiveness.

Global access to affordable direct oral anticoagulants.

Poor control of cardiovascular disease accounts for a substantial proportion of the disease burden in developing countries, but often essential anticoagulant medicines for preventing strokes and embolisms are not widely available. In 2019, direct oral anticoagulants were added to the World Health Organization's WHO Model list of essential medicines. The aims of this paper are to summarize the benefits of direct oral anticoagulants for patients with cardiovascular disease and to discuss ways of increasing their usage internationally. Although the cost of direct oral anticoagulants has provoked debate, the affordability of introducing these drugs into clinical practice could be increased by: price negotiation; pooled procurement; competitive tendering; the use of patent pools; and expanded use of generics. In 2017, only 14 of 137 countries that had adopted national essential medicines lists included a direct oral anticoagulant on their lists. This number could increase rapidly if problems with availability and affordability can be tackled. Once the types of patient likely to benefit from direct oral anticoagulants have been clearly defined in clinical practice guidelines, coverage can be more accurately determined and associated costs can be better managed. Government action is required to ensure that direct oral anticoagulants are covered by national budgets because the absence of reimbursement remains an impediment to achieving universal coverage. Tackling cardiovascular disease with the aid of direct oral anticoagulants is an essential component of efforts to achieve the World Health Organization's target of reducing premature deaths due to noncommunicable disease by 25% by 2025.

L'absence de lutte efficace contre les maladies cardiovasculaires contribue grandement à la charge de morbidité pesant sur les pays en développement. Pourtant, les anticoagulants essentiels permettant d'éviter les accidents vasculaires cérébraux et les embolies sont souvent difficiles à obtenir. En 2019, les anticoagulants oraux directs ont été ajoutés à la Liste modèle des médicaments essentiels publiée par l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé. Le présent document vise à résumer les avantages des anticoagulants oraux directs pour les patients souffrant d'une maladie cardiovasculaire, et à évoquer les moyens d'encourager leur utilisation au niveau international. Bien que le coût des anticoagulants oraux directs ait fait débat, intégrer ces médicaments dans la pratique clinique les rendrait plus abordables grâce à diverses méthodes: négociation des prix; achats groupés; appels d'offres concurrentiels; communautés de brevets; et recours accru aux alternatives génériques. En 2017, seulement 14 des 137 pays ayant adopté des listes nationales de médicaments essentiels y avaient inclus des anticoagulants oraux directs. Ce chiffre pourrait augmenter rapidement si les problèmes de disponibilité et d'accessibilité peuvent être résolus. Dès que les profils des patients susceptibles d'être traités par des anticoagulants oraux directs sont clairement établis dans les directives de pratique clinique, la couverture peut être définie avec plus de précision et les dépenses correspondantes, mieux gérées. Les gouvernements doivent s'assurer que ces médicaments sont bien pris en compte dans les budgets nationaux, car l'absence de remboursement demeure un obstacle à la couverture maladie universelle. La lutte contre les maladies cardiovasculaires à l'aide des anticoagulants oraux directs est un élément essentiel des efforts destinés à atteindre l'objectif de l'OMS: faire baisser de 25% d'ici 2025 les décès prématurés dus aux maladies non transmissibles de 25% d'ici 2025.

El mal control de las enfermedades cardiovasculares representa una proporción importante de la carga de enfermedades en los países en desarrollo, y a menudo los medicamentos anticoagulantes esenciales para prevenir los accidentes cerebrovasculares y las embolias no son fácilmente accesibles. En 2019, los anticoagulantes orales directos se añadieron a la lista modelo de medicamentos esenciales de la Organización Mundial de la Salud. Los objetivos del presente artículo son resumir los beneficios de los anticoagulantes orales directos para los pacientes con enfermedades cardiovasculares y discutir las formas de aumentar su uso a nivel internacional. Aunque el coste de los anticoagulantes orales directos ha suscitado debate, la asequibilidad de introducir estos medicamentos en la práctica clínica podría aumentarse al: negociar precios; hacer adquisiciones conjuntas; hacer licitaciones competitivas; utilizar consorcios de patentes; y ampliar el uso de genéricos. En 2017, solo 14 de los 137 países que habían adoptado listas nacionales de medicamentos esenciales incluían un anticoagulante oral directo en sus listas. Este número podría aumentar rápidamente si se pueden abordar los problemas de disponibilidad y asequibilidad. Cuando los tipos de pacientes que pueden beneficiarse de los anticoagulantes orales directos se hayan definido claramente en las directrices de la práctica clínica, la cobertura podrá determinarse con mayor precisión y los costes asociados podrán gestionarse mejor. Es necesario que los gobiernos actúen para garantizar que los anticoagulantes orales directos estén cubiertos por los presupuestos nacionales, ya que la ausencia de reembolso sigue siendo un impedimento para lograr la cobertura universal. La lucha contra las enfermedades cardiovasculares con la ayuda de los anticoagulantes orales directos es un componente esencial de los esfuerzos por alcanzar el objetivo de la OMS de reducir las muertes prematuras debidas a enfermedades no transmisibles en un 25 % para 2025.

The Evolution of Supply and Demand in Markets for Generic Drugs.

Policy Points Much concern about generic drug markets has emerged in recent policy debates. Important changes in regulations, the structure of purchasing, and the length of the drug supply chain have affected generic drug markets. Effective price competition remains the rule in generic markets for large-selling drugs. Smaller markets and those for injectable products often have less price competition and are more susceptible to supply disruptions. CONTEXT: The image of generic drugs as a commodity sold in competitive markets is an oversimplification, as evidenced by increasing accounts of price spikes, sustained high price-cost margins, and market disruptions. The mismatch between the canonical economic model of generic drug markets and reality motivated our empirical project. METHODS: To explore recent changes in those factors impacting the supply and demand for generic drugs, we studied, from a variety of sources, the data on price, competition, supply disruptions and recalls, changes to the supply chain, and buy-side concentration. We examined quarterly data through 2018 for a cohort of 77 molecules that lost patent protection during the so-called patent cliff between 2010 and 2013. FINDINGS: On the supply side, we found that for large-market oral solids, generic entry and price declines were consistent with past studies showing a significant number of market entrants and substantial reductions in the average price of a molecule. In smaller markets for oral solids and injectable products, we observed fewer entrants, higher rates of exit, smaller price reductions, and, in some cases, considerable price instability. The number of reported shortages increased across all generic market types over time, with the rate of shortage increases especially pronounced in markets for injectable products. The number of product recalls also rose over our study period. Although we did not estimate causal effects, we did find several changes in the market environment for generic drugs that may contribute to these phenomena. The demand side for generics has become more concentrated. Supply chains rely more on producers outside the United States (particularly from China and India). Contracting practices have undergone changes that may inhibit competition in product supply. FDA regulatory scruitiny has increased. CONCLUSIONS: Competition in generic drug markets varies widely by market size and product form. Recent changes in demand-side market structure imply more downward pressure on prices stemming from buy-side concentration. The FDA's greater regulatory oversight puts upward pressure on costs, and the lengthening of the supply chain increases production uncertainty for producers. Demand and supply-side changes point to further market instabilities across all generic markets due to producers' changing economic position.

Nationwide survey of the availability and affordability of asthma and COPD medicines in Nigeria.

OBJECTIVE(S): To determine the availability and affordability of asthma and COPD medicines across Nigeria. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey conducted in 128 pharmacies (51 in public sector hospitals, 51 private sector community pharmacies and 26 charity or big private hospitals) across the six geopolitical zones of Nigeria using the WHO/Health Action Initiative method. The proportion of pharmacies where medicines were available, the median retail prices of originator and generics and affordability were analysed. A medicine was available if found in ≥ 80% of surveyed pharmacies. Unaffordability was defined as paying> 1 day's wage (> US$1.68) for a standard 30-day supply of the medicine. RESULTS: The available medicines were oral corticosteroids and oral salbutamol which are not on the WHO Essential Medicine List. Medicines were found more frequently in private than public pharmacies and in the southern than northern zones. Inhalable corticosteroid was not available at any public pharmacy nationwide. None of the EML medicines were affordable. The least number of days' wages for a 30-day supply of any inhalable corticosteroid-containing medication was 3.5 days. CONCLUSIONS: There are very limited availability and affordability of recommended asthma and COPD medicines across Nigeria with disparity across regions. Medicines that were available and affordable are not recommended and are harmful for long-term use. This underpins the need for engagement of all stakeholders for the review of existing policies regarding access to asthma and COPD medicines to improve availability and affordability.

Factors Associated With Generic Drug Uptake in the United States, 2012 to 2017.

OBJECTIVES: In the United States, brand-name prescription drugs remain expensive until market exclusivity ends and lower-cost generics become available. Delayed generic drug uptake may increase spending and worsen medication adherence and patient outcomes. We assessed recent trends and factors associated with generic uptake. METHODS: Among 227 drugs facing new generic competition from 2012 to 2017, we used a national claims database to measure generic uptake in the first and second year after generic entry, defined as the proportion of claims for a generic version of the drug. Using linear regression, we evaluated associations between generic uptake and key drug characteristics. RESULTS: Mean generic uptake was 66.1% (standard deviation 22.1%) in the first year and 82.7% (standard deviation 21.6%) in the second year after generic entry. From 2012 to 2017 generic uptake decreased 4.3% per year in the first year (95% confidence interval, 2.8%-5.8%, P < .001) and 3.2%/year in the second year (95% confidence interval, 1.2%-5.1%). Generic uptake was lower for injected than oral drugs in the first year (38.5% vs 70.0%, P < .001) and second year (50.3% vs 86.9%, P < .001). In the second year, generic uptake was higher among drugs with an authorized generic (86.1 vs 80.1%, P = .045) and those with ≥3 generic competitors (87.7% vs 78.6%, P = .055). CONCLUSION: Early generic uptake decreased over the past several years. This trend may adversely affect patients and increase prescription drug spending. Policies are needed to encourage generic competition, particularly among injected drugs administered in a hospital or clinic setting.

Factors Affecting Buprenorphine Utilization and Spending in Medicaid, 2002-2018.

OBJECTIVE: Buprenorphine is an essential medication for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD), but studies show it has been underused over the last 2 decades. We sought to evaluate utilization of and spending on buprenorphine formulations in Medicaid and to evaluate the impact of key market and regulatory factors affecting availability of different formulations and generic versions. METHODS: We first identified all buprenorphine formulations approved by the Food and Drug Administration for OUD using Drugs@FDA. We then used National Drug Codes to identify each drug in the Medicaid State Drug Utilization Data and extracted annual utilization rates and spending between 2002 and 2018 by drug and according to whether a brand-name or generic version was dispensed. We compared these trends to market and regulatory factors that affected competition, which we identified through searching the Federal Register, Westlaw, PubMed, and Google News. RESULTS: Brand-name buprenorphine-naloxone sublingual tablet and film formulations (Suboxone) were dispensed 2.7 times more (n = 634 213 140) and reimbursed 4.4 times more (n = $4 440 556 473) than all other formulations combined (n = 237 769 689; $1 018 988 133). We identified numerous market and regulatory factors that contributed to an estimated 9-year delay in generic versions of the tablet formulation and 6-year delay for generic versions of the film formulation. CONCLUSIONS: Brand-name buprenorphine formulations have been widely used in Medicaid, leading to substantial costs, in part because generic versions were delayed by multiple years owing to market and regulatory factors. Timely availability of low-cost generics could have helped encourage OUD treatment with buprenorphine during the height of the opioid crisis.