Hospital Prices for Physician-Administered Drugs for Patients with Private Insurance.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals can leverage their position between the ultimate buyers and sellers of drugs to retain a substantial share of insurer pharmaceutical expenditures. METHODS: In this study, we used 2020-2021 national Blue Cross Blue Shield claims data regarding patients in the United States who had drug-infusion visits for oncologic conditions, inflammatory conditions, or blood-cell deficiency disorders. Markups of the reimbursement prices were measured in terms of amounts paid by Blue Cross Blue Shield plans to hospitals and physician practices relative to the amounts paid by these providers to drug manufacturers. Acquisition-price reductions in hospital payments to drug manufacturers were measured in terms of discounts under the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program. We estimated the percentage of Blue Cross Blue Shield drug spending that was received by drug manufacturers and the percentage retained by provider organizations. RESULTS: The study included 404,443 patients in the United States who had 4,727,189 drug-infusion visits. The median price markup (defined as the ratio of the reimbursement price to the acquisition price) for hospitals eligible for 340B discounts was 3.08 (interquartile range, 1.87 to 6.38). After adjustment for drug, patient, and geographic factors, price markups at hospitals eligible for 340B discounts were 6.59 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.02 to 7.16) as high as those in independent physician practices, and price markups at noneligible hospitals were 4.34 times (95% CI, 3.77 to 4.90) as high as those in physician practices. Hospitals eligible for 340B discounts retained 64.3% of insurer drug expenditures, whereas hospitals not eligible for 340B discounts retained 44.8% and independent physician practices retained 19.1%. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that hospitals imposed large price markups and retained a substantial share of total insurer spending on physician-administered drugs for patients with private insurance. The effects were especially large for hospitals eligible for discounts under the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program on acquisition costs paid to manufacturers. (Funded by Arnold Ventures and the National Institute for Health Care Management.).

Incentivizing Prescription Drug Switching to Reduce Patient and Health Plan Spending: A Microsimulation Model.

OBJECTIVES: Most spending for prescription drugs is on branded drugs that do not have direct generic equivalents but many of these drugs do have therapeutic alternatives within class. We estimate the potential savings from providing patients a financial incentive to switch from a higher cost drug to a lower cost, therapeutic alternative drug. METHODS: We used individual state-transition microsimulations to model medication use and spending with and without financial incentives over a 12-month time horizon with a healthcare sector perspective. Costs and utilization inputs were from individuals on branded insulins or multiple sclerosis drugs enrolled in a regional mixed-model health maintenance organization. Base-case model used a one-time financial incentive of $83 and $250 offered to patients on higher cost insulin and multiple sclerosis treatments, respectively, to switch to lower cost drugs within class. RESULTS: Savings per individual offered an incentive in the insulin and multiple sclerosis classes were, respectively, $84 (95% CI $46-$122) and $2,127 (95% CI $267-$3,987). Varying the incentive size and switch probability resulted in maximum savings of $712 at elasticity of 0.2 and incentive size $250 for the insulin drug class. For the multiple sclerosis drug class, maximum savings of $5945 was at elasticity of 0.2 and incentive size of $1000. Short time horizon makes our savings estimates conservative. CONCLUSIONS: If programs such as financial incentives could encourage even a small proportion of patients to switch among drugs within therapeutic class, then substantial savings could be generated.

Real-world pharmacological treatment patterns of patients with threatened miscarriage in China from 2014 to 2020: A cross-sectional analysis.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Approximately half of the patients with threatened miscarriage suffer an abortion, and consistent medication therapy to prevent threatened miscarriage is lacking. Our goal was to investigate the real-world pharmacological treatment patterns of patients with threatened miscarriage in China, with a focus on the trend and rationality of progestogen use over the last 7 years. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of data from the Hospital Prescription Analysis Cooperation Project that is overseen by the Chinese Pharmaceutical Association. Information was extracted from prescriptions of outpatients with threatened miscarriage between January 2014 and December 2020. We quantified the types of medications using the first level anatomical therapeutic chemical (ATC) classification code and the frequency of use of medicines classified as category X by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We also calculated the prevalence of the most frequently used progestogens by assessing prescription rates, determined the sum of the defined daily doses (DDDs) and defined daily cost (DDC) and evaluated the rationality of progestogens according to drug labels and guidelines. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Of the 91,464 patients included in this study, 69.4% were from the eastern region, 92.5% were from tertiary hospitals, and 72.9% were between 25 and 34 years old. The average number of medications per patient was 1.4. The following types of medicines were the most prevalent: "genitourinary system and sex hormones" (90.7%), "alimentary tract and metabolism" (10.8%) and "blood and blood-forming organs" (9.9%). Progestogens were prescribed for 81,080 patients (88.6%), among which oral progesterone (39.7%) was the most commonly used, followed by oral dydrogesterone (34.4%), progesterone injection (26.0%), oral allylestrenol (0.7%) and progesterone gel (0.4%). In other words, 10,991 (12.0%) patients used more than one progestogen, and the top three combinations were oral dydrogesterone plus progesterone injection (5.6%), oral progesterone plus progesterone injection (4.7%) and oral dydrogesterone plus oral progesterone (1.1%). The prescription rate of dydrogesterone increased gradually, whereas that of progesterone, especially progesterone injection, obviously decreased. Among 34,760 prescriptions of progestogens with complete usage information, the primary errors of progestogen use were "low frequency" (18.4%), "high single dose" (15.9%) and "low single dose" (11.3%). In addition, 137 prescriptions were identified with drug-progestogen interactions, and 61 were identified with contraindications for progestogens. A total of 4.5% of prescriptions included FDA category X medicines. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Our findings are the first to provide information on medication use in patients with threatened miscarriage over the last seven years in China. Medicines targeting the "genitourinary system and sex hormones," especially progestogens, were the most commonly prescribed medications, among which dydrogesterone was the most prevalent. However, it is remarkable that the use of progestogens for the treatment of threatened abortion is still controversial; thus, high-quality large sample studies are still required, especially among Chinese patients. Since usage errors in progestogen records and exposure to category X medicines were common, more efforts are needed to guarantee the safety and rationality of medicines used in pregnant women.

Impact of financial medication assistance on medication adherence: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of financial medication assistance (FMA), including patient assistance programs, coupons/copayment cards, vouchers, discount cards, and programs/pharmacy services that help patients apply for such programs, has increased. The impact of FMA on medication adherence and persistence has not been synthesized. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to review published studies evaluating the impact of FMA on the three phases of medication adherence (initiation [or primary adherence], implementation [or secondary adherence], and discontinuation) and persistence. Among these studies, the secondary objective was to report the impact of FMA on patient out-of-pocket costs and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using MEDLINE and Web of Science. RESULTS: Of 656 articles identified, eight studies met all inclusion criteria. Seven studies examined FMA for medications treating cardiovascular diseases, while one study assessed FMA for cancer medications. Among included studies, FMA had a positive impact on medication adherence or persistence, and most measured this impact over one year or less. Of the three phases of medication adherence, implementation (5 of 8) was most commonly reported, followed by discontinuation (3 of 8), and then initiation (1 of 8). Regarding implementation, users of FMA had a higher mean medication possession ratio (MPR) than nonusers, ranging from 7 to 18 percentage points higher. The percentage of patients who discontinued medication was 7 percentage points lower in users of FMA versus nonusers for cardiovascular disease states. In one cancer study, FMA had a larger impact on initiation than discontinuation, ie, compared to nonusers, users of FMA were less likely to abandon an initial prescription (risk ratio= 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.08-0.18), and this effect was larger than the decreased likelihood of discontinuing the medication (hazard ratio = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66-0.88). In 3 of 8 studies reporting on medication persistence, FMA increased the odds of medication persistence for one year ranged from 11% to 47%, depending on the study. In addition to adherence, half of the studies reported on FMA impacts on patient out-of-pocket costs and 3 of 8 studies reported on clinical outcomes. Impacts on patient out-of-pocket costs were mixed; two studies reported that out-of-pocket costs were higher for users of a coupon or a voucher versus nonusers, one study reported the opposite, and one study reported null effects. Impacts on clinical outcomes were either positive or null. CONCLUSIONS: We found that FMA has positive impacts on all phases of medication adherence as well as medication persistence over one year. Future studies should assess whether FMA has differential impacts based on phase of medication adherence and report on its longer-term (ie, beyond one year) impacts on medication adherence. DISCLOSURES: This work was sponsored by a grant from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). PhRMA had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Hung reports past employment by Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and CVS Health and a grant from PhRMA outside of the submitted work. Zullig reports research funding from Proteus Digital Health and the PhRMA Foundation. consulting fees from Novartis. Reed reports receiving research support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Janssen Research & Development, Monteris, PhRMA Foundation, and TESARO and consulting fees from Sanofi/Regeneron, NovoNordisk, SVC Systems, and Minomic International, Inc. Bosworth reports research grants from the PhRMA Foundation, Proteus Digital Health, Otsuka, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Improved Patient Outcomes, Boehinger Ingelheim, NIH, and VA, as well as consulting fees from Sanofi, Novartis, Otsuka, Abbott, Xcenda, Preventric Diagnostics, and the Medicines Company. The other authors have nothing to report. This work was presented as a poster presentation at the ESPACOMP Annual Meeting in November 2020.

Real-world biologic and apremilast treatment patterns and healthcare costs in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

Plaque psoriasis is a chronic disease requiring long-term therapy. However, long-term real-world treatment patterns and costs are not well characterized. This study examined treatment patterns and healthcare costs among patients newly initiating a biologic or apremilast for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Included patients had ?1 prescription for secukinumab, ixekizumab, adalimumab, ustekinumab, etanercept, or apremilast between 01/01/2015 and 08/31/2018, no prior use of the index medication, and continuous enrolment 12 months pre-index and 24 months post-index. Treatment adherence, non-persistence, discontinuation, switching, use of combination therapy, and re-initiation were assessed at 12, 18, and 24 -months post-index. In addition, total and psoriasis-related healthcare costs were evaluated at 24 months. A total of 7,773 patients with 24-month follow-up were included. Overall, adherence was low (21.3%-33.5%) and non-persistence was high (58.4%-86.5%) over 24 months. Discontinuation (38.4%-51.3%), switching (29.7%-52.6%), combination therapy (27.6%-42.9%), and re-initiation of the index medication (19.3%-44.5%) were common. Healthcare costs were high and mostly contributed by psoriasis treatment. Therefore, maintaining disease control on long-term therapy is still challenging for many patients.

Impact of a commercial accountable care organization on prescription drugs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the long-run impact of a commercial accountable care organization (ACO) on prescription drug spending, utilization, and related quality of care. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) health maintenance organization (HMO) member enrollment data and pharmacy benefit claims, including both retail and mail-order generic and brand-name prescription drugs. STUDY DESIGN: We applied a longitudinal retrospective cohort study design and propensity-weighted difference-in-differences regression models. We examined the relative changes in outcome measures between two ACO cohorts and one non-ACO cohort before and after the ACO implementation in 2010. The ACO directed provider prescribing patterns toward generic substitution for brand-name prescription drugs to maximize shared savings in pharmacy spending. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The study sample included members continuously enrolled in a CalPERS commercial HMO from 2008 through 2014 in the Sacramento area. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The cohort differences in baseline characteristics of 40 483 study participants were insignificant after propensity-weighting adjustment. The ACO enrollees had no significant differential changes in either all or most of the five years of the ACO operation for the following measures: (1) average total spending and (2) average total scripts filled and days supplied on either generic or brand-name prescription drugs, or the two combined; (3) average generic shares of total prescription drug spending, scripts filled or days supplied; (4) annual rates of 10 outpatient process quality of care metrics for medication prescribing or adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in the commercial ACO was associated with negligible differential changes in prescription drug spending, utilization, and related quality of care measures. Capped financial risk-sharing and increased generics substitution for brand names are not enough to produce tangible performance improvement in ACOs. Measures to increase provider financial risk-sharing shares and lower brand-name drug prices are needed.

Варианты политики в сфере возмещения стоимости лекарственных средств в Европе

Настоящий доклад содержит обзор и анализ различных вариантов политики, используемых в странах Европейского региона ВОЗ в сфере возмещения стоимости лекарственных средств. В рамках исследования применялись смешанные методы, в том числе сбор первичных данных с помощью вопросников, адресованных компетентным органам власти, входящим в Информационную сеть по ценообразованию и возмещению стоимости лекарственных средств (PPRI); обзор научной литературы; содержательные собеседования с представителями органов власти и исследовательского сообщества в отдельных странах, где проводились ситуационные исследования; а также межстрановой анализ реального финансового бремени для пациентов. В ходе исследования выяснилось, что в то время, как почти все страны обеспечивают полное возмещение стоимости лекарств в секторе стационарной медицинской помощи, пациентам в амбулаторном секторе может быть предложено вносить сооплату за возмещаемые лекарственные средства. Широко применяется сооплата, при которой пациенты возмещают определенную часть стоимости лекарств. Помимо этого, в некоторых странах осуществляется отпуск лекарств по льготным рецептам и/или применяются налоговые вычеты по расходам на медикаменты. В странах Европейского региона ВОЗ созданы механизмы для защиты определенных групп населения от чрезмерно высокой сооплаты за лекарства. Главными основаниями для снижения уровня сооплаты или освобождения от нее являются низкие доходы, определенные заболевания, инвалидность, а также пожилой возраст. Анализ реального финансового бремени показал, что сооплата может создавать существенную финансовую нагрузку для пациентов, особенно в странах с низким уровнем дохода. В докладе представлены некоторые принципиально важные меры по улучшению ценовой доступности лекарственных препаратов и защите населения от чрезмерно высокой сооплаты из собственных средств. К ним относятся четкая расстановка приоритетов, принятие решений на основе фактических данных, обеспечение транспарентности всех процессов, учет интересов уязвимых групп населения, использование менее дорогих лекарственных средств в случае их эффективности, проведение регулярных оценок, а также выработка мер политики с учетом стратегической концепции.

Racial disparities in medication use: imperatives for managed care pharmacy.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the social unrest pervading U.S. cities in response to the killings of George Floyd and other Black citizens at the hands of police are historically significant. These events exemplify dismaying truths about race and equality in the United States. Racial health disparities are an inexcusable lesion on the U.S. health care system. Many health disparities involve medications, including antidepressants, anticoagulants, diabetes medications, drugs for dementia, and statins, to name a few. Managed care pharmacy has a role in perpetuating racial disparities in medication use. For example, pharmacy benefit designs are increasingly shifting costs of expensive medications to patients, creating affordability crises for lower income workers, who are disproportionally persons of color. In addition, the quest to maximize rebates serves to inflate list prices paid by the uninsured, among which Black and Hispanic people are overrepresented. While medication cost is a foremost barrier for many patients, other factors also propagate racial disparities in medication use. Even when cost sharing is minimal or zero, medication adherence rates have been documented to be lower among Blacks as compared with Whites. Deeper understandings are needed about how racial disparities in medication use are influenced by factors such as culture, provider bias, and patient trust in medical advice. Managed care pharmacy can address racial disparities in medication use in several ways. First, it should be acknowledged that racial disparities in medication use are pervasive and must be resolved urgently. We must not believe that entrenched health system, societal, and political structures are impermeable to change. Second, the voices of community members and their advocates must be amplified. Coverage policies, program designs, and quality initiatives should be developed in consultation with those directly affected by racial disparities. Third, the industry should commit to dramatically reducing patient cost sharing for essential medication therapies. Federal and state efforts to limit annual out-of-pocket pharmacy spending should be supported, even though increased premiums may be an undesirable (yet more equitable) consequence. Finally, information about race should be incorporated into all internal and external reporting and quality improvement activities. DISCLOSURES: No funding was received for the development of this manuscript. Kogut is partially supported by Institutional Development Award Numbers U54GM115677 and P20GM125507 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, which funds Advance Clinical and Translational Research (Advance-CTR), and the RI Lifespan Center of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBRE) on Opioids and Overdose, respectively. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

[Regulation of drug prices in nineteenth-century Bazilian pharmacy]. / O Regimento dos preços dos medicamentos... na farmácia brasileira oitocentista.

On November 5th, 1808, D. João de Bragança issued a license about the practice of druggists and the price of drugs and ordered the creation of a regulation to tax the cost of medicines marketed in Brazil. First published on 1809, the Regimento dos preços dos medicamentos... gained new editions in the following years and became an indispensable working tool for those involved in the making and trading of drugs at this time. This paper situates historically and sheds light on a document briefly explored by the researchers of the history of the Brazilian pharmacy, taking into account that it was one of the first initiatives of the Luso-Brazilian government in line with the pharmaceutical activity in Brazil in the nineteenth century.

Em 5 de novembro de 1808, dom João de Bragança promulgou um alvará sobre o exercício dos boticários e o preço das drogas e ordenou a criação de um regulamento para taxar o custo dos medicamentos comercializados no Brasil. Publicado pela primeira vez em 1809, o Regimento dos preços dos medicamentos... ganhou novas edições nos anos subsequentes e tornou-se um indispensável instrumento de trabalho para os envolvidos com a feitura e o comércio dos remédios. Este texto situa historicamente e destaca esse documento brevemente explorado pelos pesquisadores da história da farmácia brasileira, visto ter sido uma das primeiras iniciativas do governo luso-brasileiro condizentes com a atividade farmacêutica no Brasil no século XIX.

O Regimento dos preços dos medicamentos... na farmácia brasileira oitocentista / Regulation of drug prices in nineteenth-century Bazilian pharmacy

Resumo Em 5 de novembro de 1808, dom João de Bragança promulgou um alvará sobre o exercício dos boticários e o preço das drogas e ordenou a criação de um regulamento para taxar o custo dos medicamentos comercializados no Brasil. Publicado pela primeira vez em 1809, o Regimento dos preços dos medicamentos... ganhou novas edições nos anos subsequentes e tornou-se um indispensável instrumento de trabalho para os envolvidos com a feitura e o comércio dos remédios. Este texto situa historicamente e destaca esse documento brevemente explorado pelos pesquisadores da história da farmácia brasileira, visto ter sido uma das primeiras iniciativas do governo luso-brasileiro condizentes com a atividade farmacêutica no Brasil no século XIX.

Abstract On November 5th, 1808, D. João de Bragança issued a license about the practice of druggists and the price of drugs and ordered the creation of a regulation to tax the cost of medicines marketed in Brazil. First published on 1809, the Regimento dos preços dos medicamentos... gained new editions in the following years and became an indispensable working tool for those involved in the making and trading of drugs at this time. This paper situates historically and sheds light on a document briefly explored by the researchers of the history of the Brazilian pharmacy, taking into account that it was one of the first initiatives of the Luso-Brazilian government in line with the pharmaceutical activity in Brazil in the nineteenth century.

A Survey of American Psychiatrists Concerning Medication Prior Authorization Requirements.

This study examined opinions of American psychiatrists regarding prior authorization (PA) requirements for third-party payer coverage of medications and quantified perceived impact of these requirements on clinical practice. One thousand selected psychiatrist members of the American Psychiatric Association were invited to participate in a survey. Response rate was 33.1%. Respondents predominantly believed the obligation to obtain PA reduces job satisfaction and negatively impacts patient care. A total of 59.9% of respondents reported employing either diagnosis modification or falsification of previous medication trials at least occasionally in order to obtain PA. A total of 66.6% refrained at least occasionally from prescribing preferred medications due to PA requirement or expectation of one. On multivariate analysis, risk factors for refraining at higher frequency included seeing 300 or more patients in the previous 3 months, engaging more frequently in diagnosis modification, and reporting increased perception that obtaining PA reduces time for patient care.

Impact of a change of bronchodilator medications in a hospital drug formulary on intra- and out-of-hospital drug prescriptions: interrupted time series design with comparison group.

BACKGROUND: Hospital drug formularies are reduced lists of drugs designed to optimise inpatient care. Adherence to the drugs included in such formularies is not always 100% but is generally very high. Little research has targeted the impact of a change in these formularies on outpatient drug prescriptions. This study therefore sought to evaluate the impact of a change affecting bronchodilator medications in a hospital drug formulary on intra- and out-of-hospital drug prescriptions in a region in north-western Spain. Two new drugs belonging to this same class were brought onto the out-of-hospital market, overlapping with the intervention. METHODS: We used a natural before-after quasi-experimental design with control group based on monthly data. The intervention evaluated was the modification of a hospital drug formulary, which involved withdrawing salmeterol/fluticasone in order to retain formoterol/budesonide as the sole inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist (ICS/LABA). Using official data sources, we extracted the following dependent variables: defined daily doses (DDD) per 1000 inhabitants per day, DDD per 100 bed-days, and cost per DDD. RESULTS: Intra-hospital use showed a 173.2% rise (95% CI 47.3-299.0%) in the medication retained in the formulary, formoterol/budesonide, and a 94.9% drop (95% CI 77.9-111.9%) in the medication withdrawn from the formulary, salmeterol/fluticasone. This intervention led to an immediate reduction of 75.9% (95% CI 82.8-68.9%) in the intra-hospital cost per DDD of ICS/LABA. No significant changes were observed in out-of-hospital use. CONCLUSIONS: Although this intervention was cost-effective in the intra-hospital setting, the out-of-hospital impact of a change in the drug formulary cannot be generalised to all types of medications and situations.

Ultra-low price of generic agents in China may weaken patients' drug recognition and compliance.

Drug quantity purchase in China has reshaped the pattern of drug market with lower price of generic drugs and relatively higher price of original brand-name drugs. However, most Chinese people do not trust the safety and efficacy of the generic drugs that sold at a very low price. Ultra-low price of generic agents may weaken patients' drug recognition and compliance, and affect the implementation of drug quantity purchase policy.

Changes in List Prices, Net Prices, and Discounts for Branded Drugs in the US, 2007-2018.

Importance: Most studies that have examined drug prices have focused on list prices, without accounting for manufacturer rebates and other discounts, which have substantially increased in the last decade. Objective: To describe changes in list prices, net prices, and discounts for branded pharmaceutical products for which US sales are reported by publicly traded companies, and to determine the extent to which list price increases were offset by increases in discounts. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective descriptive study using 2007-2018 pricing data from the investment firm SSR Health for branded products available before January 2007 with US sales reported by publicly traded companies (n = 602 drugs). Net prices were estimated by compiling company-reported sales for each product and number of units sold in the US. Exposures: Calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included list and net prices and discounts in Medicaid and other payers. List prices represent manufacturers' price to wholesalers or direct purchasers but do not account for discounts. Net prices represent revenue per unit of the product after all manufacturer concessions are accounted for (including rebates, coupon cards, and any other discount). Means of outcomes were calculated each year for the overall sample and 6 therapeutic classes, weighting each product by utilization and adjusting for inflation. Results: From 2007 to 2018, list prices increased by 159% (95% CI, 137%-181%), or 9.1% per year, while net prices increased by 60% (95% CI, 36%-84%), or 4.5% per year, with stable net prices between 2015 and 2018. Discounts increased from 40% to 76% in Medicaid and from 23% to 51% for other payers. Increases in discounts offset 62% of list price increases. There was large variability across classes. Multiple sclerosis treatments (n = 4) had the greatest increases in list (439%) and net (157%) prices. List prices of lipid-lowering agents (n = 11) increased by 278% and net prices by 95%. List prices of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (n = 3) increased by 166% and net prices by 73%. List prices of insulins (n = 7) increased by 262%, and net prices by 51%. List prices of noninsulin antidiabetic agents (n = 10) increased by 165%, and net prices decreased by 1%. List price increases were lowest (59%) for antineoplastic agents (n = 44), but discounts only offset 41% of list price increases, leading to 35% increase in net prices. Conclusions and Relevance: In this analysis of branded drugs in the US from 2007 to 2018, mean increases in list and net prices were substantial, although discounts offset an estimated 62% of list price increases with substantial variation across classes.