Trends in antidiabetic drug use and expenditure in public hospitals in Northwest China, 2012-21: a case study of Gansu Province.

BACKGROUND: Since the twenty-first century, the prevalence of diabetes has risen globally year by year. In Gansu Province, an economically underdeveloped province in northwest China, the cost of drugs for diabetes patients accounted for one-third of their total drug costs. To fundamentally reduce national drug expenditures and the burden of medication on the population, the relevant departments of government have continued to reform and improve drug policies. This study aimed to analyse long-term trends in antidiabetic drug use and expenditure in Gansu Province from 2012 to 2021 and to explore the role of pharmaceutical policy. METHODS: Data were obtained from the provincial centralised bidding and purchasing (CBP) platform. Drug use was quantified using the anatomical therapeutic chemistry/defined daily dose (ATC/DDD) method and standardised by DDD per 1000 inhabitants per day (DID), and drug expenditure was expressed in terms of the total amount and defined daily cost (DDC). Linear regression was used to analyse the trends and magnitude of drug use and expenditure. RESULTS: The overall trend in the use and expenditure of antidiabetic drugs was on the rise, with the use increasing from 1.04 in 2012 to 16.02 DID in 2021 and the expenditure increasing from 48.36 in 2012 to 496.42 million yuan in 2021 (from 7.66 to 76.95 million USD). Some new and expensive drugs changed in the use pattern, and their use and expenditure shares (as the percentage of all antidiabetic drugs) increased from 0 to 11.17% and 11.37%, but insulins and analogues and biguanides remained the most used drug class. The DDC of oral drugs all showed a decreasing trend, but essential medicines (EMs) and medical insurance drugs DDC gradually decreased with increasing use. The price reduction of the bid-winning drugs was over 40%, and the top three drugs were glimepiride 2mg/30, acarbose 50mg/30 and acarbose 100mg/30. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of pharmaceutical policies has significantly increased drug use and expenditure while reducing drug prices, and the introduction of novel drugs and updated treatment guidelines has led to changes in use patterns.

The increasing costs of medicines and their implications for patients, physicians and the health system.

Most new medicines entering the market are high-cost speciality drugs. These drugs can cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars per course of treatment and in some cases millions of dollars per dose. Approximately half of all spending on medicines is projected to target only 2-3% of patients, raising important questions about resource allocation. While there is no doubt that breakthrough innovations have transformed clinical care in some disciplines, it is also true that cost is becoming one of the primary barriers to treatment access and that many new medicines do not provide value commensurate with their prices. This article examines pricing trends, the reasons for high prices and their implications for access and clinical practice.

Institutional Priority-Setting for Novel Drugs and Therapeutics: A Qualitative Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of guidance on approaches to formulary management and funding for high-cost drugs and therapeutics by individual healthcare institutions. The objective of this review was to assess institutional approaches to resource allocation for such therapeutics, with a particular focus on paediatric and rare disease populations. METHODS: A search of Embase and MEDLINE was conducted for studies relevant to decision-making for off-formulary, high-cost drugs and therapeutics. Abstracts were evaluated for inclusion based on the Simple Multiple-Attribute Rating Techniques (SMART) criteria. A framework of 30 topics across 4 categories was used to guide data extraction and was based on findings from the initial abstract review and previous health technology assessment (HTA) publications. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted using QSR NVivo 12 software. RESULTS: A total of 168 studies were included for analysis. Only 4 (2%) focused on paediatrics, while 21 (12%) centred on adults and the remainder (85%) did not specify. Thirty-two (19%) studies discussed the importance of high-cost therapeutics and 34 (23%) focused on rare/orphan drugs. Five themes were identified as being relevant to institutional decision-making for high-cost therapeutics: institutional strategy, substantive criteria, procedural considerations, guiding principles and frameworks, and operational activities. Each of these themes encompassed several sub-themes and was complemented by a sixth category specific to paediatrics and rare diseases. CONCLUSION: The rising cost of novel drugs and therapeutics underscores the need for robust, evidence-based, and ethically defensible decision-making processes for health technology funding, particularly at the hospital level. Our study highlights practices and themes to aid decision-makers in thinking critically about institutional, substantive, procedural, and operational considerations in support of legitimate decisions about institutional funding of high-cost drugs and therapeutics, as well as opportunities and challenges that exist for paediatric and rare disease populations.

Adjusting starting points for initial price offers: the example of ibrutinib.

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) allows the Medicare program to negotiate drug prices beginning in 2024. Based on the guidance in the statute, CMS has selected specific data items to use to adjust initial price offers for 10 drugs in the decision-making process. Although much of the data are publicly available, some of these data items will need to be collected directly from drug companies. A 2019 US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Accountability investigative report collected a wide range of data from manufacturers of 12 high-revenue drugs that show what is available from the drug companies, including development costs, marketing, pricing, competition, and patent status. This article focuses on the data obtained for ibrutinib, an oral medication for treating hematologic malignancies, which is one of the only drugs reviewed by the committee that also has been selected for Medicare price negotiation. We examine data that can be obtained only from the drug manufacturer that the IRA has explicitly identified as being used to determine the price and suggest potential negotiation strategies for CMS in response.

Pricing above value: Selling to a market with selection problems.

This paper shows that selection incentives in downstream markets distort upstream prices. It is possible for inputs to be priced above the value that the good has for final consumers. We apply this idea to pharmaceutical companies selling drugs to a health insurance market with selection problems. We specify the conditions under which drugs are sold at prices exceeding treatment value. Another feature of the model is an excessive private incentive to reduce market size, e.g. in the form of personalized medicine.

Cost-effectiveness of the top 100 drugs by public spending in Canada, 2015-2021: a repeated cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the distribution and spending by cost-effectiveness category among those drugs with the highest public spending levels in Canada. DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional study. SETTING: The Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness assessments by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) for top-100 brand-name outpatient drugs by gross public plan spending in any year between 2015 and 2021 in Canada Institute for Health Information's National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System data. Gross public plan spending by cost-effectiveness category. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2021, 152 brand-name drugs occupied a top-100 rank and were included in the analysis. Of those, 117 had been assessed by CADTH. During the 7-year period, there was an increase in both top-100 drugs with cost-effective (from 18 to 24) and cost-ineffective (from 29 to 41) assessments, while drugs not assessed or with an unclear assessment declined (from 31 to 19 and from 22 to 16, respectively). As a share of spending on top-100 drugs with an assessment, spending on cost-effective drugs was mostly stable at 40%-46% from 2015 to 2021, while spending on cost-ineffective drugs increased from 30% to 45%. CONCLUSION: A large and growing share of public drug spending has been allocated to cost-ineffective drugs in Canada. Dedicating large budgets to such treatments prevents spending with greater health impact elsewhere in the healthcare system and could restrain the capacity to pay for groundbreaking pharmaceutical innovation in the future.

Evaluation of Potential Urologic Prescription Drug Savings With Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company.

INTRODUCTION: Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC) launched in 2022 with a goal to decrease prescription drug costs. Thus far, research has focused on possible savings if Medicare purchased its annual volume of drugs at MCCPDC prices. The aim of this study is to analyze if MCCPDC can offer savings directly to urologic patients compared with other mail-order pharmacies, local pharmacies, and with patients using health insurance. METHODS: Twelve drugs used to treat urological diseases available on MCCPDC were analyzed. Pricing data of 30-tab and 90-tab prescriptions from MCCPDC, other mail-order pharmacies, and local in-person pharmacies near our zip code 40508 (Lexington, Kentucky) were compiled. To compare if MCCPDC could offer savings to patients using health insurance to fill their prescriptions, out-of-pocket drug costs for patients from the 2020 and 2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and the 2021 Medicare Part D spending data were extracted. RESULTS: Greater savings at MCCPDC were found at 90-tab prescriptions, but overall variability in prices existed. When comparing without health insurance, 9 of 12 drugs at MCCPDC were cheaper at 90 tabs with solifenacin and tadalafil saving $20 and $12 per prescription. When considering patients using insurance, abiraterone, sildenafil, and tadalafil offered savings on out-of-pocket costs at 30- and 90-tab prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: MCCPDC may offer cheaper prices for patients filling urologic medications, especially at 90-tab prescriptions. This study is the first to show patients could save money using MCCPDC and has implications for physician counseling when prescribing common urologic drugs.

Patents on Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies for Prescription Drugs and Generic Competition.

This cross-sectional study identifies the prevalence of patents on risk evaluation and mitigation strategies and their association with delaying generic competition.

Applying a cost-based pricing model for innovative cancer treatments subject to indication expansion: A case study for pembrolizumab and daratumumab.

BACKGROUND: Expanding the indication of already approved immuno-oncology drugs presents treatment opportunities for patients but also strains healthcare systems. Cost-based pricing models are discussed as a possibility for cost containment. This study focuses on two drugs, pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and daratumumab (Darzalex), to explore the potential effect of indication broadening on the estimated price when using the cost-based pricing (CBP) model proposed by Uyl-de Groot and Löwenberg (2018). METHODS: The model was used to calculate cumulative yearly prices, cumulative prices per indication, and non-cumulative indication-based prices using inputs such as research and development (R&D) costs, manufacturing costs, eligible patient population, and a profit margin. A deterministic stepwise analysis and scenario analysis were conducted to examine how sensitive the estimated price is to the different input assumptions. RESULTS: The yearly cumulative cost-based prices (CBPs) ranged from €52 to €885 for pembrolizumab per vial and €823 to €31,941 for daratumumab per vial. Prices were higher in initial years or indications due to smaller patient populations, decreased over time or after additional indications. Sensitivity analysis showed that the number of eligible patients had the most significant impact on the estimated price. In the scenario analysis the profit margin contributed most to a higher CBPs for both drugs. Lower estimates resulted from assumed lower R&D costs. DISCUSSION: The estimated CBPs are consistently lower than Dutch list prices for pembrolizumab (€2,861), mainly resulting from larger patient populations in registered indications. However, daratumumab's list prices fall within the range of modeled CBPs depending on the year or indication (€4,766). Both CBPs decrease over time or with additional indications. The number of eligible patients and initial R&D costs have the most significant influence on the CBPs. These findings contribute to the ongoing discussions on pharmaceutical pricing, especially concerning cancer drugs with expanding indications.

Integrated budget impact model to estimate the impact of introducing selpercatinib as a tumor-agnostic treatment option for patients with RET-altered solid tumors in the US.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the potential budget impact on US third party payers (commercial or Medicare) associated with addition of selpercatinib as a tumor-agnostic treatment for patients with Rearranged during Transfection (RET)-altered solid tumors. METHODS: An integrated budget impact model (iBIM) with 3-year (Y) time horizon was developed for 19 RET-altered tumors. It is referred to as an integrated model because it is a single model that integrated results across multiple tumor types (as opposed to tumor-specific models developed traditionally). The model estimated eligible patient populations and included tumor-specific comparator treatments for each tumor type. Estimated annual total costs (2022USD, $) included costs of drug, administration, supportive care, and toxicity. For a one-million-member plan, the number of patients with RET-altered tumors eligible for treatment, incremental total costs, and incremental per-member per-month (PMPM) costs associated with introduction of selpercatinib treatment were estimated. Uncertainty associated with model parameters was assessed using various sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Commercial perspective estimated 11.68 patients/million with RET-altered tumors as treatment-eligible annually, of which 7.59 (Y1), 8.17 (Y2), and 8.76 (Y3) patients would be selpercatinib-treated (based on forecasted market share). The associated incremental total and PMPM costs (commercial) were estimated to be: $873,099 and $0.073 (Y1), $2,160,525 and $0.180 (Y2), and $2,561,281 and $0.213 (Y3), respectively. The Medicare perspective estimated 55.82 patients/million with RET-altered tumors as treatment-eligible annually, of which 36.29 (Y1), 39.08 (Y2), and 41.87 (Y3) patients would be selpercatinib-treated. The associated incremental total and PMPM costs (Medicare) were estimated to be: $4,447,832 and $0.371 (Y1), $11,076,422 and $0.923 (Y2), and $12,637,458 and $1.053 (Y3), respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses across both perspectives identified drug costs, selpercatinib market share, incidence of RET, and treatment duration as significant drivers of incremental costs. CONCLUSIONS: Three-year incremental PMPM cost estimates suggest a modest impact on payer-budgets associated with introduction of tumor-agnostic selpercatinib treatment.

Why are our medicines so expensive? Spoiler: Not for the reasons you are being told .

Often described as a natural economic trend, the prices that pharmaceutical companies charge for new medicines have skyrocketed in recent years. Companies claim these prices are justified because of the 'value' new treatments represent or that they reflect the high costs and risks associated with the research and development process. They also claim that the revenues generated through these high prices are required to pay for continued innovation.This paper argues that high prices are not inevitable but the result of a societal and political choice to rely on a for-profit business model for medical innovation, selling medicines at the highest price possible. Instead of focusing on therapeutic advances, it prioritises profit maximisation to benefit shareholders and investors over improving people's health outcomes or equitable access.As a result, people and health systems worldwide struggle to pay for the increasingly expensive health products, with growing inequities in access to even life-saving medicines while the biopharmaceutical industry and its financiers are the most lucrative business sectors.As the extreme COVID-19 vaccine inequities once again highlighted, we urgently need to reform the social contract between governments, the biopharmaceutical industry, and the public and restore its original health purpose. Policymakers must redesign policies and financing of the pharmaceutical research and development ecosystem such that public and private sectors work together towards the shared objective of responding to public health and patients' needs, rather than maximising financial return because medicines should not be a luxury.

Pharmacy Benefit Managers in the Eye of the Storm: Growing Multipartite Scrutiny.

The high cost of prescription drugs in the U.S. remains an ongoing national challenge. A recurring focal point in discussions over this distressing steady state is the role(s) played by Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) who negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers, conduct drug utilization reviews, engage in disease management, and see to formulary creation. At their inception, the multiple newly established PBMs were arguably intent on constraining the rise of prescription drug prices. At the time of this writing, however, the lion share of a far less competitive PBM market is controlled by CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and OptumRx. It is this evolving reality which could be interpreted to mean that the PBMs may have become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. Expanded scrutiny of the PBMs by Federal and State authorities as well as by Professional Medical Associations must not be delayed with an eye toward affording the public with relief from the high cost of prescription drugs.