Medicaid Spending on Antiretrovirals From 2007 Through 2019.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral (ARV) medications to treat human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are a major contributor to Medicaid prescription drug spending. Despite having been used for over 3 decades, the first generic ARVs only recently became available, and many newer versions continue to be sold at high prices despite within-class competition. We estimated Medicaid spending on ARVs from 2007 through 2019. METHODS: Using public Medicaid State Drug Utilization data, we identified trends in ARV spending and use from 2007 through 2019. We estimated net spending and average prices (spending per 30-day supply), accounting for statutory Medicaid rebates, including a 15%-23% base rebate plus additional rebates if a drug's price increased faster than inflation. RESULTS: Among 48 ARVs, estimated net Medicaid spending from 2007 through 2019 was $25 billion for 17 million 30-day supplies. Annual use increased 118%, from 0.7 million 30-day supplies in 2007 to 1.6 million in 2019. During this time, estimated annual net spending increased 178%, from $1.1 billion to $3.0 billion, and average net prices increased 28%, from $1432 to $1830 per 30-day supply. CONCLUSIONS: Annual Medicaid net spending on ARVs nearly tripled from 2007 to 2019, due to a combination of expanded use and rising prices. Medicaid did not extract expected benefits from its mandatory inflationary rebates because they were offset by use of newer, more expensive ARVs. To better control spending related to products with incremental innovation, the US government should be authorized to assure that launch prices for new drugs are aligned with the added benefit they offer over existing therapies.

Indication-Specific Generic Uptake of Imatinib Demonstrates the Impact of Skinny Labeling.

PURPOSE: Generic competition can be delayed if brand-name manufacturers obtain additional patents on supplemental uses. The US Food and Drug Administration allows generic drug manufacturers to market versions with skinny labels that exclude patent-protected indications. This study assessed whether use of generic versions of imatinib varied between indications included and excluded from the skinny labels. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we identified adult patients covered by commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage plans who initiated imatinib from February 2016 (first generic availability) to September 2020. Generic versions were introduced with skinny labels that included indications covering treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) but excluded treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) because of remaining patent protections. Logistic regression was used to determine whether use of generic versus brand-name imatinib differed between patients with a diagnosis of CML or GIST, adjusting for demographics, insurance type, prior use of brand-name drugs, and calendar month. RESULTS: Among 2,000 initiators, 934 (47%) had CML and 686 (34%) had GIST. Within 3 years after generics entered the market, more than 90% of initiators in both groups used generic imatinib. Initiation of generic imatinib was slightly lower among patients with GIST than among patients with CML (85% v 88%; adjusted odds ratio 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.80; P ≤ .001). CONCLUSION: Generic versions of imatinib were dispensed frequently for indications both included (CML) and excluded (GIST) from the skinny labeling, although patients with GIST were slightly less likely to receive a generic version. The skinny labeling pathway allowed generics to enter the market before patent protection for treating patients with GIST expired, facilitating lower drug prices.

CAAP rule and prescription drug prices.

In response to brand-name drug manufacturers developing co-pay assistance programs to help patients pay high out-of-pocket costs for expensive brand-name drugs, insurers have developed co-pay accumulator adjustment programs (CAAPs) that exclude payments made by drug manufacturer assistance programs when calculating whether beneficiaries have met their yearly out-of-pocket maximums. By doing so, these programs are intended to drive beneficiaries to lower-priced generic alternatives. A rule finalized in July 2020 makes such programs permissible even when a brand-name drug does not have a generic or medically appropriate alternative, while not requiring transparency from payers about the existence of such programs. This commentary explains how CAAPs work and how this finalized rule may affect spending on prescription drugs.