Developing Prioritization Criteria to Identify Target Drugs for CalRx, the California Generic Drugs Initiative.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to establish criteria to identify priority drugs for CalRx, a California-sponsored initiative to support the manufacture and distribution of affordable generic drugs. METHODS: A web-based ranking exercise was implemented with key stakeholders in August 2020, using pricing, spending, and public health criteria identified through a review of academic literature and public health agency reports. A total of 39 of 40 invited stakeholders in 4 different categories-patient advocates, healthcare providers, health insurers, and health policy and economic experts-participated in this study (98% response rate). RESULTS: Drugs that treat large populations, drugs that represent high cost to payors, and drugs that represent high cost to consumers were ranked a priority, receiving > 10% of ranking weights. Drugs that treat conditions with high morbidity or mortality, drugs without therapeutic alternatives, and drugs treating vulnerable populations represented criteria of further interest (9%-10% of weights). Shortage risk and curative effect (8%-9% of the weights), high price increases, communicable disease treatments, and high unit prices (< 8% of the weights) represented the bottom of the priority distribution. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that drugs that treat large populations, drugs that represent large costs to payors, and drugs that represent large costs to consumers should be the priority for California's CalRx generic drug initiative. A prioritizing algorithm will assist California in determining top drugs to target from a public health and spending perspective as it plans the rollout of the CalRx initiative and negotiates with drug manufacturers.

Incorporating Added Therapeutic Benefit and Domestic Reference Pricing Into Medicare Payment for Expensive Part B Drugs.

OBJECTIVES: Identify expensive Part B drugs and evidence for each drug's added benefit and model a reimbursement policy for Medicare that integrates added benefit assessment and domestic reference pricing. METHODS: A retrospective analysis using a 20% nationally representative sample of 2015 to 2019 traditional Medicare Part B claims. Expensive drugs were defined as having average annual spending per beneficiary exceeding the average annual social security benefit ($17 532 in 2019). For expensive drugs identified in 2019, added benefit assessments conducted by the French Haute Autorité de Santé were collected. For expensive drugs with a low added benefit rating, comparator drugs were identified in French Haute Autorité de Santé reports. For each comparator, average annual spending per beneficiary in Part B was computed. Potential savings from 2 reference pricing scenarios were calculated: reimbursing expensive Part B drugs with low added benefit at the level of each drug's (1) lowest cost comparator and (2) beneficiary-weighted-average cost of all comparators. RESULTS: The number of expensive Part B drugs grew from 56 in 2015 to 92 in 2019. Of the 92 expensive drugs in 2019, 34 offer low added benefit. Implementing reference pricing for these expensive drugs with low added benefit could have saved an estimated $2.1 billion if prices were set based on spending for their lowest cost comparator, or $1 billion if prices were set based on the weighted average of spending for comparators. CONCLUSION: Reference pricing based on added benefit assessment could be used to address the launch prices for expensive Part B drugs with low added benefit.

Misinformation in nutrition through the case of coconut oil: An online before-and-after study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite recent scientific evidence indicating absence of cardiometabolic benefit resulting from coconut oil intake, its consumption has increased in recent years, which can be attributed to a promotion of its use on social networks. We evaluated the patterns, reasons and beliefs related to coconut oil consumption and its perceived benefits in an online survey of a population in southern Brazil. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a before-and-after study using an 11-item online questionnaire that evaluated coconut oil consumption. In the same survey, participants who consumed coconut oil received an intervention to increase literacy about the health effects of coconut oil intake. We obtained 3160 valid responses. Among participants who consumed coconut oil (59.1%), 82.5% considered it healthy and 65.4% used it at least once a month. 81.2% coconut oil consumers did not observe any health improvements. After being exposed to the conclusions of a meta-analysis showing that coconut oil does not show superior health benefits when compared to other oils and fats, 73.5% of those who considered coconut oil healthy did not change their opinion. Among individuals who did not consume coconut oil, 47.6% considered it expensive and 11.6% deemed it unhealthy. CONCLUSIONS: Coconut oil consumption is motivated by the responders' own beliefs in its supposed health benefits, despite what scientific research demonstrates. This highlights the difficulty in deconstructing inappropriate concepts of healthy diets that are disseminated in society.

Bipartisan Federal Legislation to Address Insulin Access and Affordability.

Insulin access and affordability affect the well-being of millions of Americans. In the 116th Congress (2019-2020), seven bipartisan bills were introduced to address this issue. In this article, the authors group the seven bills into five categories (enhancing price transparency, limiting cost-sharing, changing biosimilar regulations, certifying prices, and permitting importation), summarize the main content of these bills, and discuss their implications. Understanding the bipartisan insulin pricing policy proposals can facilitate the development of a feasible legislative agenda to improve insulin access and affordability.

Comparative Approaches to Drug Pricing.

The United States relies primarily on market forces to determine prices for drugs, whereas most other industrialized countries use a variety of approaches to determine drug prices. Branded drug companies have patents and market exclusivity periods in most industrialized countries. During this period, pharmaceutical companies are allowed to set their list price as high as they prefer in the United States owing to the absence of government price control mechanisms that exist in other countries. Insured patients often pay a percentage of the list price, and cost sharing creates some pressure to lower the list price. Pharmacy benefit managers negotiate with drug companies for lower prices by offering the drug company favorable formulary placement and fewer utilization controls. However, these approaches appear to be less effective, compared with other countries' approaches to containing branded drug prices, because prices are substantially higher in the United States. Other industrialized countries employ various forms of rate setting and price regulation, such as external reference pricing, therapeutic valuation, and health technology assessment to determine the appropriate price.

Older Americans' Preferences Between Lower Drug Prices and Prescription Drug Plan Choice, 2019.

Objectives. To assess older Americans' willingness to trade off the possibility of choosing or changing their prescription drug plan for lower drug spending.Methods. We used data from the Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking Poll on prescription drugs carried out in February 2019. This nationwide telephone survey oversampled participants aged 65 years and older who, when weighted, were representative of the US older adult population.Results. Older adults were strongly in favor of the government negotiating drug prices in Medicare Part D (82% support); 60% of older adults would trade off the possibility of choosing or switching their drug plan in favor of lower drug prices. All groups preferred lower spending over plan choice, but this preference was stronger among individuals who were in poorer health, had lower education and income, and found it very difficult to afford the drugs they needed.Conclusions. The results suggest that Medicare beneficiaries could support policies that limit plan choice, as long as drug prices actually decrease.

Modifying the Criteria for Granting Orphan Drug Market Exclusivity.

OBJECTIVES: To examine policy options to deny orphan drug exclusivity after drugs exceed a target population of 200 000 across all orphan indications (combined prevalence threshold) or once drugs receive a nonorphan approval (market approval threshold). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of drugs with 2 or more orphan approvals from 1983 to July 01, 2017 examining prevalence of orphan indications and approval years of orphan and nonorphan indications. Characteristics of drugs crossing either threshold are described. A budget impact analysis of Medicare and Marketscan® claims databases estimated potential savings from generic or biosimilar entry as a result of foregone market exclusivity periods determined by these policies. RESULTS: Out of 86 drugs with 2 or more orphan approvals, 21 drugs would be denied orphan drug exclusivity periods under the prevalence threshold and 18 drugs would be denied orphan drug exclusivity periods under the market approval threshold. Drugs with orphan approvals after 2010 were more likely to be denied orphan drug exclusivity. In 2017, Medicare could have saved about $2 billion on 8 drugs under the prevalence threshold policy and $1.3 billion on 12 drugs under the market approval threshold policy). Private insurers could have saved $814 and $919 million, respectively. Over half of the savings would come from 9 drugs that first entered the market for a nonorphan indication. CONCLUSIONS: Modifying the criteria for granting orphan drug exclusivity would affect a small number of orphan drugs but could generate large savings through increased competition. Other incentives such as grants or tax credits for clinical trials could be explored to incentivize research for new orphan indications for drugs that crossed either threshold.

Biosimilar Uptake in Medicare Part B Varied Across Hospital Outpatient Departments and Physician Practices: The Case of Filgrastim.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the uptake of filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio), the first biosimilar to launch in the United States, in the Medicare Part B fee-for-service program from its launch in September 2015 to December 2017 and compare characteristics of patients and facilities that used filgrastim-sndz or originator filgrastim (Neupogen). METHODS: The 20% sample of Medicare Part B fee-for-service administrative claims data was used to extract information on claims for any filgrastim product between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017. RESULTS: The utilization of filgrastim-sndz in Medicare Part B increased sharply between January and August 2016, surpassing filgrastim by November 2017, contributing to a 30% decrease in overall spending on this drug since 2015. Uptake was faster and larger in physician practices compared with hospital outpatient departments. About 77% of patients receiving filgrastim-sndz were new users. Utilization patterns indicated that product selection occurred at the facility level, rather than being at the discretion of the prescribing physician or driven by patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Uptake of biosimilar filgrastim in the Medicare Part B program occurred despite multiple challenges to the adoption of biosimilars in the US market, suggesting that substantial potential savings could be generated by improving biosimilar uptake. Our findings indicated that physician practices and hospital outpatient departments have distinctive biosimilar uptake patterns. Thus policy makers aiming to contain Medicare Part B spending might consider focusing on incentivizing biosimilar uptake among hospital outpatient departments.

Naming Convention, Interchangeability, and Patient Interest in Biosimilars.

Although biosimilars may offer cost savings over their comparable biologics, use of biosimilars in the United States remains relatively low. This study investigates two barriers to uptake of biosimilars in the United States. First, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires that four-letter suffixes be added to the nonproprietary names of all biosimilars, as well as to the nonproprietary names of all biologics approved after March 2020. Second, biosimilars are not interchangeable with their reference biologic product at the pharmacy counter; a new prescription is needed for the biosimilar to be dispensed in place of the biologic. We conducted two behavioral experiments to examine the effects of the naming convention and interchangeability designation on patients' interest in biosimilars. We found that, absent the mention of needing a new prescription, adding four-letter suffixes to biosimilars' nonproprietary names decreased participants' likelihood of using the biosimilars. When participants were told whether a biosimilar required a new prescription, they were more interested in the biosimilar when it did not require a new prescription, and this effect was driven by participants' perceived similarity of the biosimilar to the biologic. The effect of interchangeability dominated the suffix effect. Our results suggest that both biosimilar suffixes and interchangeability issues provide signals to patients regarding the perceived similarity of biosimilars to their reference biologics and influence patient usage of biosimilars.

Global Production of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients for US Generic Drugs Experiencing Shortages.

This study evaluates the characteristics of generic active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) used to manufacture drugs with shortages in the US and facilities producing APIs worldwide.

Spending on Dual Over-the-Counter and Prescription Drugs in the Medicare Part D Program.

This study compares Medicare and patient spending for dual over-the-counter and prescription drugs with their over-the-counter cash prices.

Role of Registries in Medicare Coverage of New Alzheimer Disease Drugs.

This Viewpoint discusses how the design of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) registry could impact Medicare's ability to evaluate whether monoclonal antibodies are reasonable and necessary for patients with Alzheimer disease and help physicians understand when the drug is most beneficial.