Determinants of cancer drug pricing and how to overcome the cancer premium.

The high and increasing prices of cancer drugs are a public health challenge. To disrupt the cancer premium and improve patient access to cancer drugs, different action steps are indicated: more transparency on the price determination process and actual prices, value-based pricing, and "price with evidence development."

How Much Longer Will We Put Up With $100,000 Cancer Drugs?

The spiraling cost of new drugs mandates a fundamentally different approach to keep lifesaving therapies affordable for cancer patients. We call here for the formation of new relationships between academic drug discovery centers and commercial partners, which can accelerate the development of truly transformative drugs at sustainable prices.

The cost of living.

The new biologics have great potential to help patients with hitherto uncurable diseases. But their exorbitant costs challenges the basis of health care systems based on equity.

Clinical benefit, reimbursement outcomes, and prices of FDA-approved cancer drugs reviewed through Project Orbis in the USA, Canada, England, and Scotland: a retrospective, comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Project Orbis is a global initiative that aims to streamline regulatory review processes across international regulators in the USA, Canada, Australia, UK, Israel, Brazil, Singapore, and Switzerland to bring promising cancer drugs to patients earlier. We explored the clinical benefit, time to regulatory approval and health technology assessment recommendations, reimbursement outcomes, and monthly treatment prices of cancer drugs reviewed through this initiative. METHODS: For this retrospective, comparative analysis, we identified cancer drug approvals reviewed through Project Orbis in the USA, Canada, and the UK between May 1, 2019, and Nov 1, 2023. Approvals of cancer drugs reviewed Project Orbis were extracted from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Oncology Centre of Excellence and all other FDA approvals from the Drugs@FDA database. The co-primary outcomes were time of regulatory review, time from regulatory approval to health technology assessment recommendation (England, Scotland, and Canada), reimbursement outcomes, clinical benefit (defined as median gains in progression-free survival and overall survival) between cancer drug approvals reviewed by Project Orbis and other FDA approval processes, and monthly treatment prices. The Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher's Exact tests were used to examine statistical significance between approvals reviewed through Project Orbis and other FDA approvals during the same period. FINDINGS: Between May 1, 2019 and Nov 1, 2023, 81 (33%) of 244 cancer drugs approved by the FDA were reviewed through Project Orbis. The median overall survival gains were 4·1 months (IQR 3·3-5·1) compared with 2·7 months (2·1-3·9) for other FDA approvals. Similarly, progression-free survival gains were 2·6 months (IQR 1·7-4·9) for Project Orbis compared with 2·6 months (0·6-5·1) for other FDA approvals. Neither overall survival (p=0·11) nor progression-free survival (p=0·44) gains were significantly different between the two cohorts of approvals. Of the 14 UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) approvals reviewed by the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), the agency gave positive recommendations for all 14 (100%). Of the 15 MHRA approvals reviewed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the agency gave positive recommendations for six (40%). Of the 49 approvals reviewed by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), the agency conditionally recommended 44 (90%). The time between regulatory approval to NICE recommendation increased from a median of 137 days (IQR 102-172) in 2021 to 302 days (184-483) in 2023, SMC recommendation increased from 185 days (in 2021 for one drug only) to 368 days (IQR 313-476) in 2023, and CADTH decision increased from 97 days (in 2020 for one drug only) to 202 days (IQR 153-304) in 2023. The median monthly price of approvals reviewed through Project Orbis was US$20 000 per month (IQR 13 000-37 000). INTERPRETATION: Clinical outcomes of Project Orbis were no different than other FDA approvals during the same time, and access, after a successful health technology assessment, was considerably delayed or absent, raising questions about whether Project Orbis participation translates into faster patient access to medicines with high clinical benefit and sustainable costs. Although future challenges might benefit from regulatory harmonisation, the advantages are currently unclear. FUNDING: None.

Towards ethical drug pricing: the European Orphan Genomic Therapies Fund.

An increasing number of novel genomic therapies are expected to become available for patients with rare or ultra-rare diseases. However, the primary obstacle to equal patient access to these orphan genomic therapies are currently very high prices charged by manufacturers in the context of limited healthcare budgets. Taking into account ethical pricing theories, the paper proposes the implementation of a pricing infrastructure covering all European member states, which has the potential to promote distributive justice while maintaining the attractiveness of genomic therapy development.

Price negotiation and pricing of anticancer drugs in China: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: While China has implemented reimbursement-linked drug price negotiation annually since 2017, emphasizing value-based pricing to achieve a value-based strategic purchase of medical insurance, whether drug prices became better aligned with clinical value after price negotiation has not been sufficiently established. This study aimed to assess the changes in prices and their relationship with the clinical value of anticancer drugs after the implementation of price negotiations in China. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this observational study, anticancer drug indications that were negotiated successfully between 2017 and 2022 were identified through National Reimbursement Drug Lists (NRDL) of China. We excluded extensions of indications for drugs already listed in the NRDL, indications for pediatric use, and indications lacking corresponding clinical trials. We identified pivotal clinical trials for included indications by consulting review reports or drug labels issued by the Center for Drug Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration. We calculated treatment costs as outcome measures based on publicly available prices and collected data on clinical value including safety, survival, quality of life, and overall response rate (ORR) from publications of pivotal clinical trials. The associations between drug costs and clinical value, both before and after negotiation, were analyzed using regression analyses. We also examined whether price negotiation has led to a reduction in the variation of treatment costs for a given value. We included 103 anticancer drug indications, primarily for the treatment of blood cancer, lung cancer, and breast cancer, with 76 supported by randomized controlled trials and 27 supported by single-arm clinical trials. The median treatment costs over the entire sample have been reduced from US$34,460.72 (interquartile range (IQR): 19,990.49 to 55,441.66) to US$13,688.79 (IQR: 7,746.97 to 21,750.97) after price negotiation (P < 0.001). Before price negotiation, each additional month of survival gained was associated with an increase in treatment costs of 3.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) [2.1, 4.8], P < 0.001) for indications supported by randomized controlled trials, and a 10% increase in ORR was associated with a 6.0% (95% CI [1.6, 10.3], P = 0.009) increase in treatment costs for indications supported by single-arm clinical trials. After price negotiation, the associations between costs and clinical value may not have changed significantly, but the variation of drug costs for a given value was reduced. Study limitations include the lack of transparency in official data, missing data on clinical value, and a limited sample size. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that the implementation of price negotiation in China has led to drug pricing better aligned with clinical value for anticancer drugs even after substantial price reductions. The achievements made in China could shed light on the price regulation in other countries, particularly those with limited resources and increasing drug expenditures.

Addressing financial toxicity in cancer treatment-An opportunity for the 340B drug pricing program.

Cancer treatment has become increasingly expensive, partially due to the use of specialty drugs. The costs of these drugs are often passed down to patients, who may face the consequences of paying for more than they can afford, leading to financial toxicity. The 340B drug pricing program is a health care policy that may provide an opportunity to mitigate the financial consequences of cancer care. The 340B program requires manufacturers to sell outpatient drugs at a discount to hospitals caring for a significant number of socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals. The program intended for hospitals to use savings from discounted purchases to expand their safety net to vulnerable patients. Some studies have shown that participating hospitals do this by offering more charity and discounted care, whereas others have demonstrated that hospitals fail to sufficiently expand their safety net. A potential flaw of the program is the lack of guidance from governing bodies on how hospitals should use savings from discounted purchases. There has been growing discussion among stakeholders to reform the 340B program given the mixed findings of its effectiveness. With the rising costs of specialty drugs and associated prevalence of financial toxicity in patients with cancer, there is an opportunity to address these issues through reform that improves the program. Directing hospitals to offer specific safety net opportunities, such as passing along discounted drug prices to vulnerable populations, could help the growing number of patients who are financially burdened by medications at the core of the 340B program.

Availability, cost and affordability of essential medicines for chronic respiratory diseases in low-income and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study.

Contemporary data on the availability, cost and affordability of essential medicines for chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) across low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are missing, despite most people with CRDs living in LMICs. Cross-sectional data for seven CRD medicines in pharmacies, healthcare facilities and central medicine stores were collected from 60 LMICs in 2022-2023. Medicines for symptomatic relief were widely available and affordable, while preventative treatments varied widely in cost, were less available and largely unaffordable. There is an urgent need to address these issues if the Sustainable Development Goal 3 is to be achieved for people with asthma by 2030.

Potential Cost Savings in Medicare Part D Across Gastroenterology: An Assessment of Alternative Drug Sourcing.

INTRODUCTION: Until recently, the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid were restricted from negotiating drug cost. We assessed the potential impact of alternative drug sourcing models on Medicare Part D spending. METHODS: Twenty-seven drugs were extracted from 2021 Medicare Part D claims. Drug-specific/total spending was compared against cost at Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs Company, Costco Member Prescription Program, and Veterans Health Administration price point. RESULTS: Potential Part D savings were $798.99 million, $573.84 million, and $1.02 billion (Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs Company, Costco Member Prescription Program, and Veterans Health Administration, respectively). DISCUSSION: Disproportionate Part D spending likely reflects less competitive acquisition cost. Provider awareness of medications with advantaged price may promote targeted prescribing with potentially tremendous health care savings.

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.

Liothyronine (LT3) prescribing in England: Are cost constraints inhibiting guideline implementation?

BACKGROUND: Primary hypothyroidism affects about 3% of the general population in Europe. In most cases people with hypothyroidism are treated with levothyroxine. In the context of the 2023 British Thyroid Association guidance and the 2020 Competitions and Marketing Authority (CMA) ruling, we examined prescribing data for levothyroxine, Natural desiccated thyroid (NDT) and liothyronine by dose, regarding changes over the years 2016-2022. DESIGN: Monthly primary care prescribing data for each British National Formulary code were analysed for levothyroxine, liothyronine and NDT. PATIENTS AND MEASUREMENTS: The rolling 12-month total/average of cost or prescribing volume was used to identify the moment of change. Results included number of prescriptions, the actual costs, and the cost/prescription/mcg of drug. RESULTS: Liothyronine: In 2016 94% of the total 74,500 prescriptions were of the 20 mcg dose. In 2020 the percentage prescribed in the 5 mcg and 10 mcg doses started to increase so that by 2022 each reached nearly 27% of total liothyronine prescribing. The average cost/prescription in 2016 of 20 mcg was £404/prescription and this fell by 80% to £101 in 2022; while the 10 mcg cost of £348/prescription fell by only 35% to £255 and the 5 mcg cost of £355/prescription fell by 38% to £242/prescription. The total prescriptions of liothyronine in 2016 were 74,605, falling by 30% up to 2019 when they started to grow again - most recently at 60,990-15% lower than the 2016 figure, with the result that total costs fell by 70% to £9 m/year. CONCLUSIONS: Liothyronine costs fell after the CMA ruling but remain orders of magnitude higher than for levothyroxine. The remaining 0.2% of patients with liothyronine treated hypothyroidism are still absorbing 16% of medication costs. The lower liothyronine 5cmg and 10 mcg doses as recommended by BTA are 240% the costs of the 20 mcg dose. Thus, following latest BTA guidance which recommends the lower liothyronine doses still incurs substantial additional costs vs the prescribing liothyronine in the no longer recommended treatment regime. High drug price continues to impact clinical decisions, potentially limiting liothyronine therapy availability to a considerable number of patients who could benefit from this treatment.

Trends in direct health care costs among US adults with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease with and without diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Population-based national data on the trends in expenditures related to coexisting atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD) and diabetes is scarce. We assessed the trends in direct health care expenditures for ASCVD among individuals with and without diabetes, which can help to better define the burden of the co-occurrence of diabetes and ASCVD. METHODS: We used 12-year data (2008-2019) from the US national Medical Expenditure Panel Survey including 28,144 U.S individuals aged ≥ 18 years. Using a two-part model (adjusting for demographics, comorbidities and time), we estimated mean and adjusted incremental medical expenditures by diabetes status among individuals with ASCVD. The costs were direct total health care expenditures (out-of-pocket payments and payments by private insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, and other sources) from various sources (office-based visits, hospital outpatient, emergency room, inpatient hospital, pharmacy, home health care, and other medical expenditures). RESULTS: The total direct expenditures for individuals with ASCVD increased continuously by 30% from $14,713 (95% confidence interval (CI): $13,808-$15,619) in 2008-2009 to $19,145 (95% CI: $17,988-$20,301) in 2008-2019. Individuals with diabetes had a 1.5-fold higher mean expenditure that those without diabetes. A key driver of the observed increase in direct costs was prescription drug costs, which increased by 37% among all individuals with ASCVD. The increase in prescription drug costs was more pronounced among individuals with ASCVD and diabetes, in whom a 45% increase in costs was observed, from $5184 (95% CI: $4721-$5646) in 2008-2009 to $7501 (95% CI: $6678-$8325) in 2018-2019. Individuals with ASCVD and diabetes had $5563 (95% CI: $4643-$6483) higher direct incremental expenditures compared with those without diabetes, after adjusting for demographics and comorbidities. Among US adults with ASCVD, the estimated adjusted total direct excess medical expenditures were $42 billion per year among those with diabetes vs. those without diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of ASCVD, diabetes is associated with significantly increased health care costs, an increase that was driven by marked increase in medication costs.

The cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis medications for preventing periprosthetic fractures following femoral neck fracture indicated hip arthroplasty: a break-even analysis.

Osteoporosis treatment following arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture (FNF) is associated with lower rates of periprosthetic fracture (PPF). Our study evaluated the economic viability of treatment in patients following arthroplasty and demonstrates that treatment with oral bisphosphonates can be cost-effective in preventing PPF. INTRODUCTION: Osteoporosis treatment following arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture (FNF) is associated with lower rates of periprosthetic fracture (PPF). Although cost-effective in reducing the rate of secondary fragility fracture, the economic viability of osteoporosis treatment in preventing PPF has not been evaluated. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to use a break-even analysis to determine whether and which current osteoporosis medications are cost-effective in preventing PPF following arthroplasty for FNFs. METHODS: Three-year average cost of osteoporosis medication (oral bisphosphonates, estrogen hormonal therapy, intravenous (IV) bisphosphonates, denosumab, teriparatide, and abaloparatide), costs of PPF care, and PPF rates in patients who underwent hip arthroplasty for FNFs without osteoporosis treatment were used to perform a break-even analysis. The absolute risk reduction (ARR) related to osteoporosis treatment and sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this intervention and break-even PPF rates. RESULTS: Oral bisphosphonate therapy following arthroplasty for hip fractures would be economically justified if it prevents one out of 56 PPFs (ARR, 1.8%). Given the current cost and incidence of PPF, overall treatment can only be economically viable for PPF prophylaxis if the 3-year costs of these agents are less than $1500. CONCLUSION: The utilization of lower cost osteoporosis medications such as oral bisphosphonates and estrogen hormonal therapy as PPF prophylaxis in this patient population would be economically viable if they reduce the PPF rate by 1.8% and 1.5%, respectively. For IV bisphosphonates and newer agents to be economically viable as PPF prophylaxis in the USA, their costs need to be significantly reduced.

Cost-effectiveness of romosozumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Belgium.

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with romosozumab-to-alendronate compared to alendronate monotherapy and teriparatide-to-alendronate, in postmenopausal osteoporotic women from a Belgian healthcare perspective. Romosozumab-to-alendronate was found to be cost-effective compared to alendronate monotherapy and dominant compared to teriparatide-to-alendronate for osteoporotic women at high risk of fracture in Belgium. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with romosozumab followed by alendronate compared to alendronate monotherapy and teriparatide followed by alendronate, in postmenopausal osteoporotic women at high risk of fracture, from a Belgian healthcare perspective. Romosozumab is reimbursed in Belgium since December 2021. METHODS: A Markov microsimulation model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of romosozumab-to-alendronate compared to alendronate monotherapy and to teriparatide-to-alendronate over a lifetime horizon. Patients transition between five different health states every 6 months based on fracture risks or death. The model was populated with Belgium-specific epidemiological and cost data, where available. The fracture risk reduction of romosozumab treatment was collated from the ARCH study, and from a published network meta-analysis. Costs were included from a healthcare perspective (NIHDI). Cost-effectiveness was reported in terms of costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), reported in Euro (€) 2022. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed. RESULTS: Romosozumab-to-alendronate was associated with 0.12 additional QALYs at an additional cost of €2314 compared to alendronate monotherapy, resulting in an ICER of €19,978. Compared to teriparatide-to-alendronate, romosozumab-to-alendronate was found to be dominant, with higher QALYs and lower costs. The base-case results were robust to uncertainty in the input parameters when conducting the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: Sequential treatment with romosozumab followed by alendronate was found to be cost-effective compared to alendronate monotherapy and dominant compared to teriparatide followed by alendronate for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Belgium.

Treatment patterns in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis using abaloparatide: a real-world observational study.

Review of medical records from 173 women with osteoporosis who received abaloparatide treatment revealed that 96.0% had at least one visit for osteoporosis management and 55.5% had medication support group access. The most common reasons for discontinuing treatment were financial (31.2%) and tolerability (22.8%). Most patients (64.8%) completed treatment as prescribed. PURPOSE: Abaloparatide is approved for the treatment of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at high risk for fracture. This study evaluated real-world treatment patterns for patients new to abaloparatide, regardless of osteoporosis treatment history. METHODS: Data for patients with ≥ 1 prescription for abaloparatide were collected retrospectively from six academic and clinical practice settings across the US. RESULTS: A total of 173 patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 69.8 [7.4] years). At the time of abaloparatide treatment initiation, 78.6% had received other osteoporosis medications. Mean (SD) time from discontinuation of osteoporosis medications prior to initiation of abaloparatide was 1.7 (3.2) years. Twenty-four months of follow-up data from the initiation date of abaloparatide was collected from 94.0% of patients and 6.0% of patients had 12-24 months of follow-up. During the follow-up period, 96.0% of patients had at least one visit for osteoporosis management and 55.5% had access to a medication support program. The median duration of therapy was 18.6 months and 105/162 (64.8%) completed abaloparatide treatment as prescribed. The most common reasons for treatment discontinuation were financial (31.2%) and tolerability (22.8%). Following completion of a course of treatment with abaloparatide, 82/162 (50.6%) patients transitioned to another osteoporosis medication. The median time between abaloparatide treatment course completion and the initiation of follow-on medication was 21 days. CONCLUSION: Most patients completed treatment with abaloparatide as prescribed, and over half continued with an antiresorptive agent. This favorable conduct may be the result of regular follow-up visits and accessibility to both medication and patient support services.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab for cerebral radiation necrosis treatment based on real-world utility value in China.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab shows superior efficacy in cerebral radiation necrosis (CRN) therapy, but its economic burden remains heavy due to the high drug price. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab for CRN treatment from the Chinese payers' perspective. METHODS: A decision tree model was developed to compare the costs and health outcomes of bevacizumab and corticosteroids for CRN therapy. Efficacy and safety data were derived from the NCT01621880 trial, which compared the effectiveness and safety of bevacizumab monotherapy with corticosteroids for CRN in nasopharyngeal cancer patients, and demonstrated that bevacizumab invoked a significantly higher response than corticosteroids (65.5% vs. 31.5%, P < 0.001) with no significant differences in adverse events between two groups. The utility value of the "non-recurrence" status was derived from real-world data. Costs and other utility values were collected from an authoritative Chinese network database and published literature. The primary outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The uncertainty of the model was evaluated via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Bevacizumab treatment added 0.12 (0.48 vs. 0.36) QALYs compared to corticosteroid therapy, along with incremental costs of $ 2010 ($ 4260 vs. $ 2160). The resultant ICER was $ 16,866/QALY, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $ 38,223/QALY in China. The price of bevacizumab, body weight, and the utility value of recurrence status were the key influential parameters for ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of bevacizumab being cost-effectiveness was 84.9%. CONCLUSION: Compared with corticosteroids, bevacizumab is an economical option for CRN treatment in China.

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.

Assessing the Impact of the 340B Drug Pricing Program: A Scoping Review of the Empirical, Peer-Reviewed Literature.

Policy Points The 340B Drug Pricing Program accounts for roughly 1 out of every 100 dollars spent in the $4.3 trillion US health care industry. Decisions affecting the program will have wide-ranging consequences throughout the US safety net. Our scoping review provides a roadmap of the questions being asked about the 340B program and an initial synthesis of the answers. The highest-quality evidence indicates that nonprofit, disproportionate share hospitals may be using the 340B program in margin-motivated ways, with inconsistent evidence for increased safety net engagement; however, this finding is not consistent across other hospital types and public health clinics, which face different incentive structures and reporting requirements. CONTEXT: Despite remarkable growth and relevance of the 340B Drug Pricing Program to current health care practice and policy debate, academic literature examining 340B has lagged. The objectives of this scoping review were to summarize i) common research questions published about 340B, ii) what is empirically known about 340B and its implications, and iii) remaining knowledge gaps, all organized in a way that is informative to practitioners, researchers, and decision makers. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the peer-reviewed, empirical 340B literature (database inception to March 2023). We categorized studies by suitability of their design for internal validity, type of covered entity studied, and motivation-by-scope category. FINDINGS: The final yield included 44 peer-reviewed, empirical studies published between 2003 and 2023. We identified 15 frequently asked research questions in the literature, across 6 categories of inquiry-motivation (margin or mission) and scope (external, covered entity, and care delivery interface). Literature with greatest internal validity leaned toward evidence of margin-motivated behavior at the external environment and covered entity levels, with inconsistent findings supporting mission-motivated behavior at these levels; this was particularly the case among participating disproportionate share hospitals (DSHs). However, included case studies were unanimous in demonstrating positive effects of the 340B program for carrying out a provider's safety net mission. CONCLUSIONS: In our scoping review of the 340B program, the highest-quality evidence indicates nonprofit, DSHs may be using the 340B program in margin-motivated ways, with inconsistent evidence for increased safety net engagement; however, this finding is not consistent across other hospital types and public health clinics, which face different incentive structures and reporting requirements. Future studies should examine heterogeneity by covered entity types (i.e., hospitals vs. public health clinics), characteristics, and time period of 340B enrollment. Our findings provide additional context to current health policy discussion regarding the 340B program.

Treatment sequences and drug costs from diagnosis to death in multiple myeloma.

Novel therapies for multiple myeloma (MM) have improved patient survival, but their high costs strain healthcare budgets. End-of-life phases of treatment are generally the most expensive, however, these high costs may be less justifiable in the context of a less pronounced clinical benefit. To manage drug expenses effectively, detailed information on end-of-life drug administration and costs are crucial. In this retrospective study, we analysed treatment sequences and drug costs from 96 MM patients in the Netherlands who died between January 2017 and July 2019. Patients received up to 16 lines of therapy (median overall survival: 56.5 months), with average lifetime costs of €209 871 (€3111/month; range: €3942-€776 185) for anti-MM drugs. About 85% of patients received anti-MM treatment in the last 3 months before death, incurring costs of €20 761 (range: €70-€50 122; 10% of total). Half of the patients received anti-MM treatment in the last 14 days, mainly fully oral regimens (66%). End-of-life treatment costs are substantial despite limited survival benefits. The use of expensive treatment options is expected to increase costs further. These data serve as a reference point for future cost studies, and further research is needed to identify factors predicting the efficacy and clinical benefit of continuing end-of-life therapy.