Changes in Use of Hepatitis C Direct-Acting Antivirals After Access Restrictions Were Eased by State Medicaid Programs.

Importance: Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are safe and highly effective for curing hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, but their high cost led certain state Medicaid programs to impose coverage restrictions. Since 2015, many of these restrictions have been lifted voluntarily in response to advocacy or because of litigation. Objective: To estimate how the prescribing of DAAs to Medicaid patients changed after states eased access restrictions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This modified difference-in-differences analysis of 39 state Medicaid programs included Medicaid beneficiaries who were prescribed a DAA from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019. DAA coverage restrictions were measured based on a series of cross-sectional assessments performed from 2014 through 2022 by the US National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable and the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation. Exposure: Calendar quarter when states eased or eliminated 3 types of DAA coverage restrictions: limiting treatment to patients with severe liver disease, restricting use among patients with active substance use, and requiring prescriptions to be written by or in consultation with specialists. States with none of these restrictions at baseline were excluded. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quarterly number of HCV DAA treatment courses per 100 000 Medicaid beneficiaries. Results: Of 39 states, 7 (18%) eliminated coverage restrictions, 25 (64%) eased restrictions, and 7 (18%) maintained the same restrictions from 2015 to 2019. During this period, the average quarterly use of DAAs increased from 669 to 3601 treatment courses per 100 000 Medicaid beneficiaries. After states eased or eliminated restrictions, the use of DAAs increased by 966 (95% CI, 409-1523) treatment courses per 100 000 Medicaid beneficiaries each quarter compared with states that did not ease or eliminate restrictions. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study suggest that there was greater use of DAAs after states relaxed coverage restrictions related to liver disease severity, sobriety, or prescriber specialty. Further reductions or elimination of these rules may improve access to a highly effective public health intervention for patients with HCV.

Spending on Targeted Therapies for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.

This study estimates public and private spending on genetically targeted treatments for Duchenne muscular dystrophy during years in which the drugs were marketed without completed confirmatory studies.

Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs for Biologic Drugs After Biosimilar Competition.

Importance: Biologic drugs account for a growing share of US pharmaceutical spending. Competition from follow-on biosimilar products (subsequent versions that have no clinically meaningful differences from the original biologic) has led to modest reductions in US health care spending, but these savings may not translate to lower out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for patients. Objective: To investigate whether biosimilar competition is associated with lower OOP spending for patients using biologics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used a national commercial claims database (Optum Clinformatics Data Mart) to identify outpatient claims for 1 of 7 clinician-administered biologics (filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, epoetin alfa, bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab) from January 2009 through March 2022. Claims by commercially insured patients younger than 65 years were included. Exposure: Year relative to first biosimilar availability and use of original or biosimilar version. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients' annual OOP spending on biologics for each calendar year was determined, and OOP spending per claim between reference biologic and biosimilar versions was compared. Two-part regression models assessed for differences in OOP spending, adjusting for patient and clinical characteristics (age, sex, US Census region, health plan type, diagnosis, and place of service) and year relative to initial biosimilar entry. Results: Over 1.7 million claims from 190 364 individuals (median [IQR] age, 53 [42-59] years; 58.3% females) who used at least 1 of the 7 biologics between 2009 and 2022 were included in the analysis. Over 251 566 patient-years of observation, annual OOP costs increased before and after biosimilar availability. Two years after the start of biosimilar competition, the adjusted odds ratio of nonzero annual OOP spending was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.12; P < .001) and average nonzero annual spending was 12% higher (95% CI, 10%-14%; P < .001) compared with the year before biosimilar competition. After biosimilars became available, claims for biosimilars were more likely than reference biologics to have nonzero OOP costs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.11-1.16]; P < .001) but had 8% lower mean nonzero OOP costs (adjusted mean ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.93; P < .001). Findings varied by drug. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this cohort study suggest that biosimilar competition was not consistently associated with lower OOP costs for commercially insured outpatients, highlighting the need for targeted policy interventions to ensure that the savings generated from biosimilar competition translate into increased affordability for patients who need biologics.

State Coverage and Reimbursement of Antiobesity Medications in Medicaid.

This study examines state Medicaid coverage policies for antiobesity medications and their trends in Medicaid reimbursement from 2011 to 2022.

Use of Efficiency Frontiers to Align Prices and Clinical Benefits of Biologic Therapies for Plaque Psoriasis.

Importance: The US lacks a systematic approach for aligning drug prices with clinical benefit, and traditional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) faces political obstacles. The efficiency frontier (EF) method offers policymakers an alternative approach. Objective: To assess how the EF approach could align prices and clinical benefits of biologic medications for plaque psoriasis and estimate price reductions in the US vs 4 peer countries: Australia, Canada, France, and Germany. Design and Setting: This health economic evaluation used the EF approach to compare the prices and clinical benefits of 11 biologics and 2 biosimilars for plaque psoriasis in the US, Australia, Canada, France, and Germany. Data were collected from February to March 2023 and analyzed from March to June 2023. Main Outcome Measures: EFs were constructed based on each biologic's efficacy, measured using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response rate, and annual treatment cost as of January 2023; US costs were net of estimated manufacturer rebates. Prices based on the EF were compared with traditional CEA-based prices calculated by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review at a threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Among 13 biologics, PASI 90 response rates ranged from 17.9% (etanercept) to 71.6% (risankizumab); US net annual treatment costs ranged from $1664 (infliximab-dyyb) to $79 277 (risankizumab). The median (IQR) net annual treatment cost was higher in the US ($34 965 [$20 493-$48 942]) than prerebate costs in Australia ($9179 [$6691-$12 688]), Canada ($15 556 [$13 017-$16 112]), France ($9478 [$6637-$11 678]), and Germany ($13 829 [$13 231-$15 837]). The US EF included infliximab-dyyb (PASI 90: 57.4%; annual cost: $1664), ixekizumab (PASI 90: 70.8%; annual cost: $33 004), and risankizumab (PASI 90: 71.6%; annual cost: $79 277). US prices for psoriasis biologics would need to be reduced by a median (IQR) of 71% (31%-95%) to align with those estimated using the EF; the same approach would yield smaller price reductions in Canada (41% [6%-57%]), Australia (36% [0%-65%]), France (19% [0%-67%]), and Germany (11% [8%-26%]). Except for risankizumab, the EF-based prices were lower than the prices based on traditional CEA. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation showed that for plaque psoriasis biologics, using an EF approach to negotiate prices could lead to substantial price reductions and better align prices with clinical benefits. US policymakers might consider using EFs to achieve prices commensurate with comparative clinical benefits, particularly for drug classes with multiple therapeutic alternatives for which differences can be adequately summarized by a single outcome measurement.

Direct-to-Consumer Drug Company Pharmacies.

The recent launch of direct-to-consumer pharmacy LillyDirect prompts the author of this Viewpoint to consider why it was created and also to raise concerns about allowing manufacturers to sell their drugs directly to patients.

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.

Association between changes in prices and out-of-pocket costs for brand-name clinician-administered drugs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether annual changes in prices for clinician-administered drugs are associated with changes in patient out-of-pocket costs. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: National commercial claims database, 2009 to 2018. STUDY DESIGN: In a serial, cross-sectional study, we calculated the annual percent change in manufacturer list prices and net prices after rebates. We used two-part generalized linear models to assess the relationship between annual changes in price with (1) the percentage of individuals incurring any out-of-pocket costs and (2) the percent change in median non-zero out-of-pocket costs. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We created annual cohorts of privately insured individuals who used one of 52 brand-name clinician-administered drugs. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: List prices increased 4.4%/yr (interquartile range [IQR], 1.1% to 6.0%) and net prices 3.3%/yr (IQR, 0.3% to 5.5%). The median percentage of patients with any out-of-pocket costs increased from 38% in 2009 to 48% in 2018, and median non-zero annual out-of-pocket costs increased by 9.6%/yr (IQR, 4.1% to 15.4%). There was no association between changes in prices and out-of-pocket costs for individual drugs. CONCLUSIONS: From 2009 to 2018, prices and out-of-pocket costs for brand-name clinician-administered drugs increased, but these were not directly related for individual drugs. This may be due to changes to insurance benefit design and private insurer drug reimbursement rates.

Cost of Exempting Sole Orphan Drugs From Medicare Negotiation.

Importance: The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) requires Medicare to negotiate prices for some high-spending drugs but exempts drugs approved solely for the treatment of a single rare disease. Objective: To estimate Medicare spending and global revenues for drugs that might have been exempt from negotiation from 2012 to 2021. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed drugs that met the IRA threshold for price negotiation (Medicare spending >$200 million/y) in any year from 2012 to 2021 and had an Orphan Drug Act designation. We stratified drugs into 4 mutually exclusive categories: approved for a single rare disease (sole orphan), approved for multiple rare diseases (multiorphan), initially approved for a rare disease and subsequently approved for a nonrare disease (orphan first), and initially approved for a nonrare disease and subsequently approved for a rare disease (non-orphan first). Outcomes: The primary outcomes were the number of sole orphan drugs, estimated Medicare spending on those drugs from 2012 to 2021, and global revenue since launch. Results: Among 282 drugs, 95 (34%) were approved to treat at least 1 rare disease, including 25 sole orphan drugs (26%), 20 multiorphan drugs (21%), 13 orphan first drugs (14%), and 37 non-orphan first drugs (39%). From 2012 to 2021, Medicare spending on sole orphan drugs increased from $3.4 billion to $10.0 billion. Each year, a median (IQR) of $2.5 ($1.9-$2.6) billion in Medicare spending would have been excluded from price negotiation because of the sole orphan exemption. The cumulative global revenue of the median (IQR) sole orphan drug was $11 ($6.6-$19.2) billion. Conclusions and Relevance: The sole orphan exemption will exclude billions of dollars of Medicare drug spending from price negotiation. The high level of global revenues achieved by these drugs, however, suggests that special exemption is unnecessary for them to achieve financial success. Congress could consider removing the sole orphan exemption to obtain additional savings for patients and taxpayers and to eliminate any potential disincentive for developing additional indications for these drugs.

Potential Medicare and Medicaid Savings on Anti-CD20 Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis.

This cross-sectional study compares price data for ocrelizumab and rituximab to estimate the savings to Medicare and Medicaid if rituximab were used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis instead of the higher-priced ocrelizumab.

Identifying therapeutic alternatives in Medicare drug price negotiation: The case of etanercept.

As the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) navigates the process of negotiating drug prices, it plans to compare the cost, safety, and effectiveness of each drug with its therapeutic alternatives. How CMS selects therapeutic alternatives is a consequential decision, and there remains uncertainty about their methodology. To understand the challenges CMS will face in selecting therapeutic alternatives, we developed a methodology that leverages clinical guidelines by US medical professional associations to identify potential therapeutic alternatives for etanercept, one of the first 10 drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation. For each of etanercept's 5 US Food and Drug Administration-approved indications, we identified all drugs with the same mechanism of action as etanercept and considered drugs with different mechanisms if they were recommended in place of etanercept at the same treatment stage, or if there was no strong comparative safety or effectiveness evidence that the drug differed from etanercept. We identified 22 potential therapeutic alternatives to etanercept, including 4 drugs with the same mechanism, 10 biologics with different mechanisms, and 8 small-molecule drugs. We faced several challenges in selecting therapeutic alternatives using clinical guidelines, such as how to reconcile strong recommendations that were based on weak evidence and how to consider combination therapies. This exercise demonstrates the complex considerations that CMS will face as it negotiates drug prices based on therapies' cost, safety, and effectiveness relative to therapeutic alternatives.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guideline Recommendations of Cancer Drugs With Accelerated Approval.

Importance: Many cancer drugs are approved under the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accelerated approval pathway based on preliminary evidence. It is unclear how this limited evidence is integrated into the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, which are common references for clinicians and are used by public and private payers to determine reimbursement for oncology treatments. Objective: To analyze the NCCN guidelines' assessments for cancer drug indications that received FDA accelerated approval compared with cancer drug indications that received FDA regular approval. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzes FDA-approved indications for cancer drugs that were granted accelerated approval from program inception in 1992 to June 30, 2022. For each drug, the FDA-approved labeling was reviewed to identify all indications. All analyses were performed at the drug-indication level. Exposure: The exposure was FDA regulatory status as of October 2022, including regular approval, accelerated approval, accelerated approval converted to regular approval, and withdrawn accelerated approval. Main Outcomes and Measures: The level of evidence and consensus (category 1, 2A, 2B, and 3) and treatment preference (preferred, alternative preferred, other recommended, and useful in certain circumstances) ratings assigned by NCCN committees as of February 2023. Results: A total of 315 oncology indications for 100 drugs were analyzed. These indications included 156 (50%) with regular approval, 60 (38%) with accelerated approval, 78 (49%) with accelerated approval that was converted to regular approval, and 21 (13%) with withdrawn accelerated approvals. Among all indications, 105 (33%) were rated by the NCCN as having category 1 evidence, 185 (59%) with category 2A, 6 (2%) with category 2B, and 2 (1%) with category 3 evidence. Compared with indications with regular approval, those with accelerated approval were less frequently assigned category 1 evidence (47% vs 3%; P < .001) and were less often listed as preferred treatment options (58% vs 40%; P = .008). Among the 21 withdrawn accelerated approval indications, 8 (38%) remained in the NCCN guidelines, with most having level 2A evidence ratings. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that cancer drug indications with accelerated approval were less likely to be assigned high-level evidence ratings and preferred status in the NCCN guidelines compared with indications with regular approval; most accelerated and regular approval drugs had low-quality evidence ratings but high levels of consensus among oncologists on NCCN committees. Greater clarity on the thresholds and definitions of evidence levels would make the NCCN guidelines more useful to clinicians, patients, and payers.

Changes in Induced Medical and Procedural Abortion Rates in a Commercially Insured Population, 2018 to 2022 : An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, access to in-person care was limited, and regulations requiring in-person dispensing of mifepristone for medical abortions were relaxed. The effect of the pandemic and accompanying regulatory changes on abortion use is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate changes in the incidence rate of induced medical and procedural abortions. DESIGN: Serial cross-sectional study with interrupted time-series analyses. SETTING: Commercially insured persons in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Reproductive-aged women. INTERVENTION: Onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 and subsequent regulatory changes affecting the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone. MEASUREMENTS: Monthly age-adjusted incidence rates of medical and procedural abortions were measured among women aged 15 to 44 years from January 2018 to June 2022. Medical abortions were classified as in-person or telehealth. Linear segmented time-series regression was used to calculate changes in abortion rates after March 2020. RESULTS: In January 2018, the estimated age-adjusted monthly incidence rate of abortions was 151 per million women (95% CI, 142 to 161 per million women), with equal rates of medical and procedural abortions. After March 2020, there was an immediate 14% decrease in the monthly incidence rate of abortions (21 per million women [CI, 7 to 35 per million women]; P = 0.004), driven by a 31% decline in procedural abortions (22 per million women [CI, 16 to 28 per million women]; P < 0.001). Fewer than 4% of medical abortions each month were administered via telehealth. LIMITATION: Only abortions reimbursed by commercial insurance were measured. CONCLUSION: The incidence rate of procedural abortions declined during the COVID-19 pandemic, and this lower rate persisted after other elective procedures rebounded to prepandemic rates. Despite removal of the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone, the use of telehealth for insurance-covered medical abortions remained rare. Amid increasing state restrictions, commercial insurers have the opportunity to increase access to abortion care, particularly via telehealth. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Health Resources and Services Administration.

The Inflation Reduction Act and Access to High-Cost Cardiovascular Therapies.

This Viewpoint discusses how the price negotiation for certain drugs under the Inflation Reduction Act will provide a unique opportunity to enhance access to therapies for older patients with cardiovascular conditions and diabetes.

Inflationary Rebates For Generic Drugs Sold Through Medicaid Saved Billions During 2017-20.

State Medicaid programs cover nearly all Food and Drug Administration-approved prescription drugs in exchange for mandatory manufacturer rebates, including rebates that offset price increases beyond inflation. These inflationary rebates originally applied to brand-name drugs only, but in 2017 Congress expanded them to include generics. Using public Medicaid medication spending and utilization data and three different measures of drug prices, we found that nearly half of generic drugs were subject to inflationary rebates during the period 2017-20, offsetting 2-12 percent of the $53.6 billion in generic drug spending during that time. Rebates were larger among non-orally administered drugs and those with the highest prices. Generic inflationary rebates offset substantial Medicaid spending during that period, suggesting that many generic prices increased above inflation despite the new policy. This might change now that inflationary rebates have been expanded to Medicare under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, although additional policies that ensure competitive markets would better protect all US patients from rising generic drug prices.

Congress' Misguided Plan to Ban QALYs.

This Viewpoint discusses the flawed assumptions and potential negative impacts of a proposed federal bill that would ban government health care programs from using the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and "similar measures" when determining insurance coverage or negotiating prices.