Employer-sponsored behavioral health program impacts on care utilization and cost.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of an employer-sponsored behavioral health (BH) program on all-cause health care utilization and cost. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of health insurance claims data obtained from a large employer in western New York covering a 25-month period between 2016 and 2018. Those employees treated by the employer-sponsored BH program were compared against a contemporaneous comparison group of employees of the same employer who had eligible BH diagnoses for the program but were treated elsewhere. METHODS: A difference-in-differences method was used to estimate the program's impact on all-cause care utilization (physician office visits and acute care utilization) and total cost of care, including prescription drug costs. RESULTS: Program participation was associated with a reduction of approximately 28% in total cost of care including prescription drug costs (P = .043) over an 18-month period following the initial program encounter, as well as 27% reductions in primary care provider (PCP) visits (P = .001) and non-BH specialist visits (P = .005). No significant impacts were observed for acute care utilization and BH specialist visit rates. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the employer-sponsored BH program implementation may have shifted treatments of certain BH conditions away from PCPs and non-BH specialists who may not have the proper training or resources to manage such conditions. Therefore, these results are consistent with the expectation that improved access to BH care is likely to improve efficiency in the health care system via provision of more appropriate care for those who need it.

National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2023.

PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2023 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2023 were reviewed, including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, diabetes medications, generics, COVID-19 pandemic influence, and specialty drugs. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2023 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2022, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the US grew 9.4% compared to 2021, for a total of $633.5 billion. Utilization (a 5.9% increase), price (a 1.7% increase) and new drugs (a 1.8% increase) drove this increase. Adalimumab was the top-selling drug in 2022, followed by semaglutide and apixaban. Drug expenditures were $37.2 billion (a 5.9% decrease) and $116.9 billion (a 10.4% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and clinics, respectively. In clinics, new products and increased utilization growth drove growth, with a small impact from price changes. In nonfederal hospitals, a drop in utilization led to a decrease in expenditures, with price changes and new drugs contributing to growth in spending. Several new drugs that will influence spending have been or are expected to be approved in 2023. Specialty and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures along with the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: For 2023, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 6.0% to 8.0%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate increases of 8.0% to 10.0% and 1.0% to 3.0%, respectively, compared to 2022. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any particular health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.

Price Comparison of Human and Veterinary Formulations of Common Medications.

This cross-sectional study compares prices of commonly prescribed medications used to treat both humans and pets.

Does India need a new pharmaceutical policy? Examining the implications of the drug price control order.

OBJECTIVES: This article aims to analyse the impact of the pharmaceutical policy on the availability, accessibility and affordability of medicines to the Indian populace. The article delves into the shortcomings of the Drug Price Control Order 2013 and highlights its real-world implications. METHODS: Published literature in the form of scientific articles on the proposed reforms that took place in the pharmaceutical policy was reviewed. The study used the memorandums, laws and government decisions published by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority|National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authorities. RESULTS: The pharmaceutical policy in India underwent several changes during 2013-2020 to enhance the affordability and accessibility of drugs. The stringent policy hampered innovation due to the lack of profitability to the Multinational Companies. Moreover, it was found that the impact of the price control order on the low-cost local generic manufacturers affected much of the country's price-sensitive population. CONCLUSION: The pharmaceutical policy of India needs to be amended to extend its benefit to its stakeholders. The government should shift its attention to improving the quality of drugs, increasing competition amongst manufacturers and enhancing the accessibility of medicines through state/centre sponsored initiatives.

Navigating the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme: federal versus state government funding for high-cost medicines – a problem for public hospitals.

The funding of medication supply in Australian public hospitals is divided between the federal government's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and thestate or territory government who pay for the remaining medications not covered under the PBS. For some high-cost medications, such as the monoclonal antibody blinatumomab, the current criteria for PBS funding in public hospitals are challenging. The strict requirement for inpatient admission, due to the risk of potentially serious adverse effects, alongside a lack of PBS reimbursement, while a hospital inpatient, may result in the state bearing the cost. A retrospective review of five patients receiving blinatumomab at our hospital found that, on average, patients remained inpatients for longer than that stipulated to meet PBS funding criteria, predominantly due to adverse effects associated with the medication. This resulted in the state government paying for the medication in full. The upcoming National Medicines Policy review should address the increasing complexity of new medications and their access and funding.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with psoriasis treated with ixekizumab or adalimumab over 2 years of follow-up in real-world settings.

AIMS: To compare long-term healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among patients who initiated ixekizumab (IXE) or adalimumab (ADA) for treatment of psoriasis in the United States. METHODS: Adult patients with psoriasis who had ≥1 claim for IXE or ADA were identified from IBM MarketScan claims databases prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (1 March 2016-31 October 2019). The index date was the date of first claim for the index drug of interest. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was employed to balance treatment cohorts. All-cause and psoriasis-related HCRU and costs were examined for 24 months of follow-up. Costs were reported as per patient per month. Costs of psoriasis-related biologics were adjusted using published Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) discount factors. Index drug costs were adjusted for adherence and ICER discount rates. RESULTS: The analyses included 407 IXE and 2,702 ADA users. IXE users had significantly higher inpatient admission rate (all-cause HCRU: 14.9% vs. 11.0%; p =0.012) and greater mean length of stay per admission (days, 6.6 vs. 4.1; p =0.004) than ADA users. ICER-adjusted costs were significantly higher in IXE than ADA users (all-cause costs: $4,132 vs. $3,610; p <0.001; psoriasis-related costs $3,077 vs. $2,700; p <0.001). After adjusting for ICER and adherence, IXE and ADA drug costs were comparable ($3,636 vs. $3,677; p =0.714). LIMITATIONS: Study relied on administrative claims data, subjected to data coding limitations and data entry errors. Rebates, patient assistance programs, and commission to wholesalers are not always captured in claims. Adjustment made by ICER discount factors may lead to double-discounting if the discounts have been applied in claim payments. CONCLUSIONS: All-cause HCRU was higher in IXE than ADA users. Healthcare costs were also higher in IXE than ADA users after ICER adjustment, over 24 months. Cost differences were largely driven by higher treatment adherence associated with IXE. Index drug costs were comparable after ICER and adherence adjustments.

Ensuring a high-quality and resilient supply chain of essential medications means paying more.

DISCLOSURES: Dr Mattingly reports consulting fees from Arnold Ventures, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and research support from the US Food and Drug Administration unrelated to this article.

Adjusting vasopressin availability and formulation: A cost-savings initiative.

PURPOSE: The increase in vasopressin price has required many healthcare systems to consider cost-saving strategies. To combat rising medication costs, our institution changed formulations from 50 units/250 mL to 20 units/100 mL and removed vasopressin from automated dispensing cabinets (ADCs). METHODS: This retrospective review occurred at a 545-bed academic medical center with 97 adult intensive care unit beds. Adult patients receiving a continuous vasopressin infusion were included with no exclusion criteria. A 1-month period was assessed before and after changing the formulation (pre and post groups, respectively). Duplicate bags compounded by pharmacy and bedside teams were also assessed in the pre group. The primary outcome was the estimated annual cost savings due to formulation change with a secondary outcome of estimated annual cost savings due to removal of vasopressin from ADCs. Each 20-unit vial of vasopressin cost $183.21 (wholesale acquisition cost) at the time of the study. RESULTS: In the pre group, 39 patients requiring a vasopressin infusion were allocated an average of 2 bags each costing $1,099.26 per patient. In the post group, 41 patients required an average of 4 bags each costing $732.84 per patient. With respect to the primary outcome, a savings of $366.42 per patient and an average of 40 patients per month would lead to an annual cost savings of $175,881.60. Secondary outcome analysis identified 9 duplicate bags prepared in the pre group; therefore, removal of vasopressin from ADCs is estimated to provide additional cost savings of $59,360.04. The estimated annual cost savings from both initiatives is $235,241.64. CONCLUSION: Changing the vasopressin formulation and removing it from ADCs resulted in a significant cost savings to the health system.

Access Denied? The Unintended Consequences of Pending Drug Pricing Rules.

The government of Canada now plans to bring into force new federal drug pricing regulations on 1 July 2022. We do not take issue with the goal of medication affordability, which is vital in healthcare the world over. Our concern is that the new guidelines are being implemented without due consideration for three major unintended consequences: regulatory changes will lower the number of clinical trials for new medications in Canada, fewer clinical trials will mean lower research and development investments, and changes will reduce patients' access to new medications. Access to effective medications is a cornerstone of healthcare for Canadian patients. As physicians, our duty to patient care demands that we tell the government to protect the right of Canadians to timely access to life-changing medicines.

National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2022.

PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2022 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2022 were reviewed-including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, generics, COVID-19 pandemic influence, and specialty drugs. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2022 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2021, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the US grew 7.7% compared to 2020, for a total of $576.9 billion. Utilization (a 4.8% increase), price (a 1.9% increase) and new drugs (a 1.1% increase) drove this increase. Adalimumab was the top drug in terms of overall expenditures in 2021, followed by apixaban and dulaglutide. Drug expenditures were $39.6 billion (a 8.4% increase) and $105.0 billion (a 7.7% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and in clinics, respectively. In clinics and hospitals, new products and increased utilization growth drove growth, with decreasing prices for both sectors acting as an expense restraint. Several new drugs that are likely to influence spending are expected to be approved in 2022. Specialty and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures along with the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: For 2022, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 4.0% to 6.0%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate increases of 7.0% to 9.0% and 3.0% to 5.0%, respectively, compared to 2021. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any particular health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.