US Commercial Plans Increase Choice Of Biosimilar And Originator Products; Market Net Prices Decrease.

Biosimilars drugs are almost identical copies of original biologic products. Early biosimilars had slower adoption and savings than expected; however, biosimilars launched in recent years have had more success. With several biosimilar launches planned in the next few years, it is important to understand how the state of the market might foretell significant market savings in the future. To do so, we explored how the introduction of biosimilars affected originator-biosimilar markets during the period 2017-22. We found that after biosimilar availability, payers increasingly allowed choice of preferred products. By 2022, 76 percent of commercial payers' coverage policies listed two or more products (originator or biosimilar) as first-line options. Biosimilar market shares exceeded those of originators a mean of three years after first biosimilar launch, and originator-biosimilar market average sales price declined substantially. Taken together, these findings provide evidence of a functioning competitive market.

Consumer Out-Of-Pocket Drug Prices Grew Faster Than Prices Faced By Insurers After Accounting For Rebates, 2007-20.

The rising price of branded drugs has garnered considerable attention from the public and policy makers. This article investigates the complexities of pharmaceutical pricing, with an emphasis on the overlooked aspects of manufacturer rebates and out-of-pocket prices. Rebates granted by pharmaceutical manufacturers to insurers reduce the actual prices paid by insurers, causing the true prices of prescriptions to diverge from official statistics. We combined claims data on branded retail prescription drugs with estimates on rebates to provide new price index measures based on pharmacy prices, negotiated prices (after rebates), and out-of-pocket prices for the commercially insured population during the period 2007-20. We found that although retail pharmacy prices increased 9.1 percent annually, negotiated prices grew by a mere 4.3 percent, highlighting the importance of rebates in price measurement. Surprisingly, consumer out-of-pocket prices diverged from negotiated prices after 2016, growing 5.8 percent annually while negotiated prices remained flat. The concern over drug price inflation is more reflective of the rapid increase in consumer out-of-pocket expenses than the stagnated inflation of negotiated prices paid by insurers after 2016.

Pharmacoeconomic implications of preference toward reference- versus generic-brand antidepressants in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of depression is gradually increasing worldwide with an increasing utilization of antidepressants. Nevertheless, despite their lower costs, generic-brand antidepressants were reported to be less prescribed. We aimed to examine the costs of reference- versus generic-brand antidepressant prescriptions in primary care practice. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included electronic prescriptions for adult patients that contained antidepressants (World Health Organization's Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) code: N06A), which were generated by a systematically selected sample of primary care doctors (n = 1431) in Istanbul in 2016. We examined the drug groups preferred, the reference- versus generic-brand status, and pharmacotherapy costs. FINDINGS: The majority of the prescriptions were prescribed for women (71.8%), and the average age of the patients was 53.6 ± 16.2 years. In prescriptions with a depression-related indication (n = 40 497), the mean number and cost of drugs were 1.5 ± 1.0 and 22.7 ± 26.4 United States Dollar ($) per prescription, respectively. In these prescriptions, the mean number and cost of antidepressants per encounter were 1.1 ± 0.2 and $17.0 ± 13.2, respectively. Reference-brand antidepressants were preferred in 58.2% of depression-related prescriptions, where the mean cost per prescription was $18.3 ± 12.4. The mean cost per prescription of the generics, which constituted 41.8% of the antidepressants in prescriptions, was $15.1 ± 11.4. We found that if the generic version with the lowest cost was prescribed instead of the reference-brand, the mean cost per prescription would be $12.9 ± 11.2. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlighted the substantial pharmacoeconomic impact of generic-brand antidepressant prescribing, whose preference over reference-brands could reduce the cost of antidepressant medication treatment by 17.5% in primary care, which could be approximately doubled if the cheapest generic antidepressant had been prescribed.

[Twenty years since the publication of medication price regulation in Brazil: time to update?] / Vinte anos da publicação da regulamentação de preços de medicamentos no Brasil: momento de atualizar?

Criteria for setting medication prices in Brazil are set forth in CMED Resolution n. 2/2004 of the (Medicines Market Regulation Chamber). The stipulated prices influence the private and public markets, which makes it challenging to review pricing policies due to the need to harmonize social and economic interests. A proposal for reviewing this Resolution was made available through the SEAE Public Consultation n. 2/2021 of the Competition and Competitiveness Advocacy Secretariat/Brazilian Ministry of Economy; however, so far without publication of the consolidated results. Recent recommendations from the World Health Organization regarding the adoption of different thresholds for setting medication prices are adopted in this Resolution, although it was published 20 years ago. To interpret and describe the alignment, possible advances and setbacks between the legal texts related to medication price regulation, we conducted an analytical-descriptive and exploratory documentary research. As a result, the list of reference countries for international price verification and the thresholds for internal and external price referencing were maintained. The normative omissions of the Resolution remain in the Public Consultation, such as the absence of criteria for pricing radiopharmaceuticals, advanced therapies and medication without international and comparator prices in the Brazilian market, to revise prices and transpose provisional to definitive prices. A critical point was the creation of a 35% bonus above the stipulated price for medication that present additional clinical benefit without, however, defining clear contours as to the acceptable scientific evidence to prove such benefit. In short, few advances were noticed in the Public Consultation.

Os critérios para definir os preços de medicamentos no Brasil estão previstos na Resolução CMED nº 2/2004 da Câmara de Regulação do Mercado de Medicamentos. Os preços estipulados influenciam o mercado privado e público, o que torna desafiador a revisão de políticas de preços devido a necessidade de harmonizar interesses sociais e econômicos. Uma proposta de revisão dessa Resolução foi disponibilizada por meio da Consulta Pública SEAE nº 2/2021 da Secretaria de Advocacia da Concorrência e Competitividade/Ministério da Economia, porém, até o momento sem publicação dos resultados consolidados até o momento. Recomendações recentes da Organização Mundial da Saúde em relação à adoção de diferentes limiares para definição de preços de medicamentos são adotadas nessa Resolução, embora essa tenha sido publicada há 20 anos. Com o objetivo de interpretar e descrever o alinhamento e os possíveis avanços e retrocessos nos textos legais relacionados à regulação de preços de medicamentos, foi utilizado o método da pesquisa documental analítica-descritiva, de cunho exploratório. Como resultado, foram mantidas a lista de países referência para conferência de preço internacional e os limiares de referenciamento interno e externo de preços. As omissões normativas da Resolução permanecem na Consulta Pública, como a ausência de critérios para precificar radiofármacos, terapias avançadas e medicamentos sem preço internacional, e sem comparadores no mercado brasileiro para revisar preços e transpor preço provisório para definitivo. Um ponto crítico foi a criação de bônus de 35% acima do preço estipulado para medicamentos que apresentem benefício clínico adicional sem, contudo, definir contornos claros quanto às evidências científicas aceitáveis para a comprovação desse benefício. Em suma, poucos avanços foram percebidos na Consulta Pública.

Los criterios para definir los precios de los medicamentos en Brasil están establecidos en la Resolución CMED nº 2/2004 de la Cámara de Regulación del Mercado de Medicamentos. Los precios estipulados influyen en el mercado público y privado, lo que dificulta la revisión de las políticas de precios debido a la necesidad de armonizar los intereses sociales y económicos. Una propuesta para revisar esta Resolución se puso a disposición mediante la Consulta Pública SEAE nº 2/2021 de la Secretaría de Competencia y Promoción de la Competitividad/Ministerio de Economía, sin embargo, hasta el momento no se han publicado los resultados consolidados. En esta Resolución se adoptan recomendaciones recientes de la Organización Mundial de la Salud sobre la adopción de diferentes umbrales para fijar los precios de los medicamentos, aunque fue publicada hace 20 años. Con el objetivo de interpretar y describir el alineamiento, posibles avances y retrocesos, entre los textos legales relacionados con la regulación de precios de medicamentos, se utilizó el método de investigación documental analítica-descriptiva, de carácter exploratorio. Como resultado, se mantuvieron la lista de países de referencia para la verificación de precio internacional y los umbrales para la referenciación interna y externa de precios. Quedan en Consulta Pública las omisiones normativas de la Resolución, como la ausencia de criterios de fijación de precios de radiofármacos, terapias avanzadas y medicamentos sin precio internacional y comparadores en el mercado brasileño, para revisar precios y transponer el precio provisional al definitivo. Un punto crítico fue la creación de una bonificación del 35% sobre el precio estipulado para los medicamentos que presenten un beneficio clínico adicional sin definir, sin embargo, contornos claros sobre las evidencias científicas aceptables para demostrar dicho beneficio. En definitiva, se percibieron pocos avances en la Consulta Pública.

A review of biosimilars in psoriasis: impacts on efficacy, safety, access, and a first-hand look at biosimilar cost savings within the department of veterans affairs.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated systemic disease whose treatment has been revolutionized due to the induction of monoclonal antibody-based biologics. However, access to these drugs has been limited due to their high cost. Biosimilars utilize reverse engineering to create a highly similar product to an originator drug following patent expiration and provide an avenue to reduce costs of biologic treatment. This review seeks to synthesize current knowledge about the development, efficacy, and established benefits of biosimilars, including cost savings and increased access to biologic medicines. RESULTS: In 2023, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) generated a cost avoidance of over 67 million dollars through use of 6 currently adopted biosimilars across all indications. There is an opportunity for further cost avoidance, with the pre-set percent discount of statutory contract prices necessary for the adoption of future biosimilars, including adalimumab and etanercept, set at over 50%. CONCLUSIONS: Biosimilars appear to offer an overall effective, safe, and well-tolerated treatment method for patients with psoriasis and are already providing substantial cost savings within the VA. Additional education is needed to address sources of ambivalence for both patients and providers to assist in further uptake of biosimilars for the treatment of psoriasis.

Short- and long-term impacts of the National Essential Medicines Policy on drug availability, price, and usage in a deprived rural county in southwestern China: an interrupted time series analysis across 8 years.

Background: China's National Essential Medicines Policy (NEMP) has been implemented for over 15 years; yet empirical evidence on its long-term impacts is lacking, particularly in remote and rural regions. This study aims to assess the short-and long-term effects of NEMP on the drug availability, price, and usage in a deprived rural county in southwestern China. Methods: A quasi-experimental design was employed, featuring a single-group pre-and-post comparison. We gathered 74,436 procurement records spanning from 2009 to 2016 from the drug warehouses of local medical institutions. Pharmaceutical data were analyzed quarterly, considering various policy and therapeutic attributes. Fisher's Drug Price Index (DPI-F) was calibrated for the retail and wholesale prices of a consistent collection of 405 medications. We conducted interrupted time-series analysis to examine the immediate and enduring impacts of NEMP's initial (commencing in January 2011) and second (starting from December 2015) stages. Results: After initiation of NEMP, the number of available essential medicines surged by 115 but subsequently faced a steady quarterly decline (-9.1) in township healthcare centers (THCs, primary care). Conversely, county hospitals (secondary care) initially saw a reduction of 40 in drug availability but later exhibited a steady increase (+4.2 per quarter) up to the second-stage NEMP. Regarding price, THCs encountered abrupt (-26.1%/-15.9% in retail/wholesale price) and sustained (-0.2%/-0.3% per quarter) price drops after NEMP. The immediate price change after NEMP in county hospitals were milder but significant in non-essential medicines, and long-term declines were also observed in all drugs. As for total sales, a significant long-term disparity emerged between THCs (+0.9% per quarter) and county hospitals (+3.3% per quarter). Following the second-stage NEMP, retail prices in county hospitals further decreased, although wholesale prices did not; however, following price upward trends were observed in both THCs and county hospitals. Lastly, the influences of NEMP varied across different therapeutical categories of medicines. Conclusion: NEMP has successfully regulated drug prices in primary and secondary healthcare facilities in remote and rural areas, both short-term and long-term. However, a remarkable disparity in medicine availability and utilization was observed between different levels of facilities over time. Continuous monitoring is essential, with increased attention needed on the uneven impacts of the policy on diverse drugs, facilities, regions, and demographics.

Prescription Drug Costs Among People With Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias.

This cross-sectional study examines the association of Alzheimer disease and related dementias with prescription drug expenditures across cost distributions.

Federal Funding for Expensive Drugs for Rare Diseases: How Do We Pick and Choose?

The number of expensive drugs for rare diseases (EDRDs) approved by Health Canada and their contribution to healthcare costs have been rapidly increasing. The federal government has announced a three-year funding commitment of $1.4 billion for EDRDs, but principles need to be developed for how that funding will be allocated, especially in cases where insufficient data are available to guide decision making. Here, we review the role of evidence quality in making choices and draw on the experience from other countries to put forward five principles about how the money should be spent.

Cost of Pegfilgrastim for the Prophylaxis of Chemotherapy-induced Febrile Neutropenia in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Perioperative Chemotherapy in Daily Practice in Japan: A Posthoc Analysis in a Single-center Retrospective Study.

This study aimed to estimate the medical costs associated with febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim and evaluate its impact on survival outcomes in daily practice in Japan. In this single-center retrospective study, we obtained data from 296 Japanese patients with breast cancer receiving fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC)-100 chemotherapy; the patients were divided into the pegfilgrastim and non-pegfilgrastim groups. We analyzed the median costs of chemotherapy, drugs for all adverse events (AEs) and FN, and hospitalization due to FN. We also assessed the survival outcomes. The pegfilgrastim group showed a significantly higher median total cost (JPY 872320.0 vs. JPY 466715.0, p<0.001). This difference was associated with the prophylactic use of pegfilgrastim. The median costs of the drugs for all AE treatments were JPY 9030.4 and JPY 24690.6, with the non-pegfilgrastim group showing a significantly higher cost (p<0.001). In 11 patients hospitalized for FN management, no significant difference in hospitalization cost was observed between the pegfilgrastim and non-pegfilgrastim groups (JPY 512390.0 vs. JPY 307555.0, p=0.102). No significant difference in the 3-year overall survival was observed between the pegfilgrastim and non-pegfilgrastim groups (79.9% vs. 88.3%, p=0.672). In this study, although the total medical cost in daily practice increased because of primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim, the 3-year overall survival was not impacted by the use of pegfilgrastim. Our study data suggested that the primary prophylaxis pegfilgrastim should be used during FEC-100 chemotherapy based on the patient-related FN risk factors, instead of routine use.

Polypharmacy in primary care: A population-based retrospective cohort study of electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy, prescription of multiple medications to a patient, is a major challenge for health systems. There have been no peer-reviewed studies of polypharmacy prevalence and medication cost at a population level in England. AIMS: To determine prevalence and medication cost of polypharmacy, by patient characteristics. Design and setting: Retrospective cohort study of North West London electronic health records. METHOD: We quantified prevalence and direct cost of polypharmacy (five or more regular medications), stratified by demographics and frailty. We fitted a mixed-effects logistic regression for polypharmacy. RESULTS: Of 1.7 million adults, 167,665 (9.4%) were on polypharmacy. Age and socio-economic deprivation were associated with polypharmacy (OR 9.24 95% CI 8.99 to 9.50, age 65-74 compared with 18-44; OR 0.68 95% CI 0.65 to 0.71, least deprived compared with most). Polypharmacy prevalence increased with frailty (OR 1.53 95% CI 1.53 to 1.54 per frailty component, for White women). Men had higher odds of polypharmacy than women at average frailty (OR 1.26 95% CI 1.24 to 1.28) and with additional frailty components (OR 1.10 95% CI 1.09 to 1.10). Black people had lower odds of polypharmacy at average frailty (OR 0.82 95% CI 0.79 to 0.85, compared with White), but along with other ethnicities, saw greater odds increases with increasing frailty (OR 1.02 95% CI 1.01 to 1.03). Annual medication cost 8.2 times more for those on polypharmacy compared with not (£370.89 and £45.31). CONCLUSION: Demographic characteristics are associated with polypharmacy, after adjusting for frailty. Further research should explore why, to reduce health inequities and optimise cost associated with polypharmacy.

The Neurologist's Guide to Drug Pricing in the United States.

ABSTRACT: As newer, innovative neurology drugs enter the US health care system, neurologists should consider the cost of these treatments in addition to their efficacy, safety, and tolerability. To do so thoughtfully requires an understanding of how prescription drugs are priced in the United States. The process of drug pricing is linked to the distribution supply chain and the many stakeholders involved. Stakeholders include pharmaceutical manufacturers; wholesalers; pharmacies; pharmacy benefit managers; payers, including health insurers; hospital systems; neurologists and other clinicians; and patients. Drug pricing has taken center stage as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 has set maximum out-of-pocket expenses for Medicare beneficiaries for the first time in the program's history and limits drug price increases for a select group of Medicare Part D drugs. This article describes the US drug distribution supply chain and its stakeholders and introduces key drug pricing terms; a brief description of how rebates are generally estimated will also be discussed. Finally, as newer neurology outpatient drugs enter the market, the "value" of drugs will be described through cost-effectiveness terminology and their utility for the clinical neurologist.

Disparity in Guideline-Based Antidiabetic Drugs Prescribing for Type 2 Diabetes Patients in Primary Healthcare Facilities Across China, 2017-2019.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the pattern, appropriateness, and cost of antidiabetic drugs prescribed for patients with Type 2 diabetes at primary healthcare facilities (PHFs) in China. METHODS: We collected outpatient-visit prescriptions from 363 PHFs in 31 cities covering eastern, central, and western regions of China. The visits of adult patients with Type 2 diabetes diagnosis were collected and classified the antidiabetic medication pattern of each patient use as recommended or non-recommended according to Chinese guidelines. We then calculated the proportion of guideline-recommended patterns and the average monthly cost for each pattern, overall and by region. RESULTS: Of 33 519 prescriptions for Type 2 diabetes, most (73.9%) were for guideline-recommended antidiabetic treatments. The proportion of guideline-recommended prescriptions varied by region (eastern [75.9%], central [87.5%], and western [59.7%]). Metformin monotherapy was the most common guideline-recommended treatment in all three regions (eastern [20.1%], central [28.0%], and western [24.6%]). The most common non-guideline-recommended treatments were monotherapy of insulin (eastern [16.5%], central [5.1%], and western [25.7%]) and traditional Chinese antidiabetic medicines (eastern [5.6%], central [5.7%], and western [11.1%]). The average monthly costs were lower for guideline-recommended treatments compared to non-recommended treatments in all regions (eastern [13.6 ± 15.4 USD vs. 28.1 ± 22.0 USD], central [9.8 ± 10.9 USD vs. 28.7 ± 19.4 USD], and western [17.9 ± 21.4 USD vs. 30.3 ± 23.6 USD]). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with Type 2 diabetes received guideline-recommended antidiabetic medications at PHFs in China, with only half of the prescriptions containing guideline-recommended metformin. Utilization of guideline-recommended therapies differed across regions. Tailored interventions to promote evidence-based antidiabetic prescribing are urgently needed, especially in the undeveloped western region.

Drug Prices After Patent Expirations in High-Income Countries and Implications for Cost-Effectiveness Analyses.

Importance: Understanding how patent expirations affect drug prices is crucial because price changes directly inform accurate cost-effectiveness assessments. This study investigates the association between patent expirations and drug prices in 8 high-income countries and evaluates how the changes affect cost-effectiveness assessments. Objective: To analyze how the expiration of drug patents is associated with drug price changes and to assess the implications of these price changes for cost-effectiveness evaluations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study performed an event study design using data from 8 high-income countries to assess the association between patent expiration and drug prices, and created a simulation model to understand the implications for cost-effectiveness analyses. The simulation cost-effectiveness model analyzed the implications of including or ignoring postpatent price dynamics. Exposure: Drug patent expiration. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in drug prices and differences in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios when considering vs ignoring postpatent price dynamics. Results: The sample comprised 505 drugs undergoing patent expiration in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, UK, and US. Price decreases were statistically significant over the 8 years after patent expiration, with the fastest price declines observed in the US: 32% (95% CI, 24%-39%) in year 1 after patent expiration and 82% (95% CI, 71%-89%) in the 8 years after patent expiration. Estimates for other nations ranged from a decrease of 64% in Australia to 18% in Switzerland in the 8 years after expiration. The cost-effectiveness simulation model indicated that not accounting for generic entry into the market may produce biased incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 40% to -40%, depending on the scenario. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study demonstrate that drug prices were reduced substantially after patent expirations in high-income countries. Therefore, incorporating information on patent status and pricing dynamics in cost-effectiveness assessment analyses is necessary for producing accurate economic evaluations of new drugs.

Evaluating Unmet Needs in Large-Volume Subcutaneous Drug Delivery: US Payer Perspectives on a Novel, Large-Volume On-Body Delivery System.

This research sought to evaluate payer perspectives around OBDS's through semi-structured interviews with 17 US payers representing approximately 227 million covered lives. When asked about the perceived advantages of the novel on-body delivery system (OBDS), 70.6% of payers independently cited simplicity, ease-of-use, and convenience as the most beneficial features, with the potential to replace IV infusion by facilitating at-home HCP- or self-administration being the second most frequent response. Most payers (88.2%) believed that the novel OBDS could fulfill unmet needs such as cost of IV infusion, convenient administration, and improved patient compliance in large-volume SC delivery by enabling safe, easy, self-administration. Nearly all payers (88.2%) stated they would consider covering and managing pharmaceutical products packaged with the novel OBDS, with the remaining payers considering the total cost compared to other routes. A significant proportion of payers (82.4%) acknowledged that a drug delivered via the novel OBDS could warrant a price premium above the cost of the standalone SC drug vial, with half stating the premium would range from 5% to 20% and the other half citing an unspecified premium dependent on the individual drug situation.Conclusions: Given the ability to help address critical unmet needs for the patient and healthcare system, a large proportion of the payers stated that the novel OBDS would fulfill unmet needs and warrant a price premium versus the cost of the standalone SC vial and certainly over the IV counterpart. Future research to quantify the value that OBDS efficiencies could bring to healthcare delivery is warranted.

[Evaluation of Health Economics in Oncology Drug Therapy].

Cancer treatment has made remarkable progress in recent years, particularly in the field of drug therapy. However, the high-cost of new drugs has led to active discussions about cost-effectiveness in cancer treatment. This article examines the pharmacoeconomics of drug therapy in cancer treatment from both macro and micro perspectives. From a macro perspective, Japan's drug pricing system determines prices based on the presence or absence of similar drugs. The system aims to balance the incentives for developing innovative new drugs with the sustainability of healthcare costs. The increasing share of drug costs in overall healthcare expenditure, especially for anticancer drugs, poses a significant challenge. From a micro perspective, hospitals face challenges in managing their revenue structure due to the low profit margins on anticancer drugs and the complex diagnosis-related group(DPC)classification system. The use of expensive anticancer drugs, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, increases the drug cost burden on hospitals. While the high-cost medical care benefit system sets an upper limit on patient out-of-pocket expenses, the increasing use of high-priced drugs remains a concern for both patients and healthcare providers. Balancing patient access to innovative treatments with the sustainability of healthcare costs is a critical issue in cancer drug therapy. Addressing this challenge requires a comprehensive approach that considers both macro and micro perspectives.