Patient and Plan Spending after State Specialty-Drug Out-of-Pocket Spending Caps.

BACKGROUND: Specialty drugs are used to treat complex or life-threatening conditions, often at high financial costs to both patients and health plans. Three states - Delaware, Louisiana, and Maryland - passed legislation to cap out-of-pocket payments for specialty drugs at $150 per prescription. A concern is that these caps could shift costs to health plans, increasing insurance premiums. Estimates of the effect of the caps on patient and health-plan spending could inform future policies. METHODS: We analyzed a sample that included 27,161 persons under 65 years of age who had rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, hepatitis C, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis and who were in commercial health plans from 2011 through 2016 that were administered by three large nationwide insurers. The primary outcome was the change in out-of-pocket spending among specialty-drug users who were in the 95th percentile for spending on specialty drugs. Other outcomes were changes in mean out-of-pocket and health-plan spending for specialty drugs, nonspecialty drugs, and nondrug health care and utilization of specialty drugs. We compared outcomes in the three states that enacted caps with neighboring control states that did not, 3 years before and up to 3 years after enactment of the spending cap. RESULTS: Caps were associated with an adjusted change in out-of-pocket costs of -$351 (95% confidence interval, -554 to -148) per specialty-drug user per month, representing a 32% reduction in spending, among users in the 95th percentile of spending on specialty drugs. This finding was supported by multiple sensitivity analyses. Caps were not associated with changes in other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Caps for spending on specialty drugs were associated with substantial reductions in spending on specialty drugs among patients with the highest out-of-pocket costs, without detectable increases in health-plan spending, a proxy for future insurance premiums. (Funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Data for Action Program.).

Strategies to Reduce Out-of-Pocket Medication Costs for Canadians Living with Heart Failure.

INTRODUCTION: Daily medication is the cornerstone of evidence-based therapy to reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure (HF). Up to 20% of Canadian patients pay for medications out of pocket. We sought to identify strategies that patients and prescribers can employ to reduce these costs. METHODS: We collected data from outpatient pharmacies in Hamilton, Ontario. We determined prices for different medications in each of the drug classes recommended for HF with reduced ejection fraction in the Canadian Cardiovascular Society's guidelines. We examined differences in dispensing and delivery fees and inquired about other cost-saving strategies. RESULTS: We collected data from 24 different pharmacies, including a selection of hospital-based, independent, and larger chain pharmacies. In the most extreme scenario (i.e., 90-day prescription instead of a 30-day prescription and the least expensive generic drug instead of the most expensive brand name drug), total medication costs can differ by up to $495.56 per month. Costs were affected by choice of agent within a drug class, generic versus brand-name drug, quantity dispensed, dispensing fee, and delivery cost. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription content, dispensing practice, and pharmacy choice can remarkably impact out-of-pocket costs for HF medications. Prescribers can reduce costs by writing 90-day prescriptions and choosing the lowest-cost generic drugs in each therapeutic class. Patients should consider the services received for their pharmacy dispensing fees, use free delivery services where needed, and request inexpensive generic drugs. Pharmacists can facilitate cost minimization without compromising therapeutic efficacy.

Knowledge, Experience, and Perceptions of Generic Drugs among Middle-Aged Adults and their Willingness-to-Pay: A Nationwide Online Survey in Japan.

Promoting generic drugs can reduce the financial burden on patients and improve healthcare finances. The insurers have been conducting promotional efforts, such as direct-mail campaigns, but little is known about the public's perception of generic drugs and effective message strategies for promotion. In 2018, we conducted a web-based survey of middle-aged Japanese men and women that investigated: (i) their perceptions of generic drugs, (ii) the association between perceptions and willingness-to-pay for brand-name drugs relative to generic drugs, and (iii) potentially effective forms of information provision to alter individuals' perceptions. Of the 1,005 respondents, over half perceived generic drugs as having the same level of efficacy and safety as brand-name drugs. While willingness-to-pay was dispersed among respondents, two factors were associated with small willingness-to-pay: (a) perceiving generic drugs as having the same level of efficacy and safety as brand-name drugs and (b) perceiving that promoting the use of generic drugs is important for controlling medical expenditures. Moreover, presenting potential savings over five years by choosing generic drugs was a potentially effective tool for altering perceptions, relative to showing monthly savings. Our findings suggest that certain parts of the population still have high willingness-to-pay for brand-name drugs, and strategic communication to alter perception could be effective in promoting the use of generic drugs among those who are price-inelastic.

Cost-Related Medication Nonadherence in Adults With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in the United States, 2013 to 2017.

BACKGROUND: Medication nonadherence is associated with worse outcomes in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), a group who requires long-term therapy for secondary prevention. It is important to understand to what extent drug costs, which are potentially actionable factors, contribute to medication nonadherence. METHODS: In a nationally representative survey of US adults in the National Health Interview Survey (2013-2017), we identified individuals ≥18 years with a reported history of ASCVD. Participants were considered to have experienced cost-related nonadherence (CRN) if in the preceding 12 months they reported skipping doses to save money, taking less medication to save money, or delaying filling a prescription to save money. We used survey analysis to obtain national estimates. RESULTS: Of the 14 279 surveyed individuals with ASCVD, a weighted 12.6% (or 2.2 million [95% CI, 2.1-2.4]) experienced CRN, including 8.6% or 1.5 million missing doses, 8.8% or 1.6 million taking lower than prescribed doses, and 10.5% or 1.9 million intentionally delaying a medication fill to save costs. Age <65 years, female sex, low family income, lack of health insurance, and high comorbidity burden were independently associated with CRN, with >1 in 5 reporting CRN in these subgroups. Survey respondents with CRN compared with those without CRN had 10.8-fold higher odds of requesting low-cost medications and 8.9-fold higher odds of using alternative, nonprescription, therapies. CONCLUSIONS: One in 8 patients with ASCVD reports nonadherence to medications because of cost. The removal of financial barriers to accessing medications, particularly among vulnerable patient groups, may help improve adherence to essential therapy to reduce ASCVD morbidity and mortality.

Association of Reference Pricing with Drug Selection and Spending.

Background In the United States, prices for therapeutically similar drugs vary widely, which has prompted efforts by public and private insurers to steer patients toward the lower-priced options. Under reference pricing, the insurer or employer establishes a maximum contribution it will make toward the price of a drug or procedure, and the patient pays the remainder. Methods We used difference-in-differences multivariable regression methods to analyze changes in prescriptions and pricing for 1302 drugs in 78 therapeutic classes in the United States, before and after implementation of reference pricing by an alliance of private employers. We assessed trends for the study group relative to those for an employee group that was not subject to reference pricing. The study included 1,122,741 prescriptions that were reimbursed during the period from 2010 through 2014. Results Implementation of reference pricing was associated with a higher percentage of prescriptions that were filled for the lowest-priced reference drug within its therapeutic class (difference in probability, 7.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.0 to 9.9), a lower average price paid per prescription (-13.9%; 95% CI, -23.8 to -2.7), and a higher rate of copayment by patients (5.2%; 95% CI, 0.2 to 10.4) than in the comparison group. During the first 18 months after implementation, spending for employers was $1.34 million lower and the amount of copayments for employees was $0.12 million higher than in the comparison group. Conclusions Implementation of reference pricing was associated with significant changes in drug selection and spending for a population of patients covered by employment-based insurance in the United States. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Genentech Foundation.).

Real-World Evaluation of Dosing in Patients Converted From Insulin Glargine (Lantus) to Insulin Glargine (Basaglar).

Background: Basaglar, insulin glargine (BGlar; Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, IN), a follow-on biologic, was developed after the patent for Lantus, insulin glargine (LGlar; Sanofi-Aventis, Paris, France) expired. Objective: To compare the dosing and hemoglobin A1C (A1C)-lowering effects of BGlar compared with LGlar in a real-world setting. Methods: Adult patients, at 5 clinics, with type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who were converted from LGlar to BGlar were included in this retrospective observational study. The primary outcome compared mean basal insulin dose (U/d) from the date of conversion to 6 months. Basal insulin and total daily insulin doses were also compared from baseline to 3- and 12-months postconversion, as also change in A1C, body weight, and estimated monthly acquisition costs of basal insulin. Results: Of the 225 patients included, 56% were male, and 81% had T2DM. The mean conversion dose (U/d) of LGlar was 46.3 ± 32.7. There was no significant difference in the mean BGlar dose (U/d) at 6 months (45.9 ± 33.5; P = 0.52), nor was there a statistical difference at 3 or 12 months. There were no significant differences in change in A1C at any time point. The estimated monthly acquisition cost of BGlar was significantly less than that for LGlar at conversion ($286 vs $341, P < 0.001) and 6 months ($290 vs $351, P < 0.001) respectively. Conclusion/Relevance: The results of this retrospective study suggest that BGlar resulted in similar glycemic outcomes compared with LGlar in a real-world setting and may be a preferable option in a value-based health care environment.

Barriers to receipt of novel oral oncolytics: A single-institution quality improvement investigation.

INTRODUCTION: Novel oral oncolytic agents have become the standard of care and first-line therapies for many malignancies. However, issues impacting access to these drugs are not well explored. As part of a quality improvement project in a large tertiary academic institution, we aim to identify potential barriers that delay treatment for patients who are prescribed novel oral oncolytics. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of adults who were newly prescribed a novel oral oncolytic for Food and Drug Administration-approved indications at a single tertiary care center. Patients were identified via electronic prescription data (e-Scribe). Demographics, insurance information, and prescription dates were extracted from the electronic medical record and pharmacy claims data. Statistical analyses were performed to determine whether time-to-receipt was associated with insurance category, pharmacy transfers, cost assistance, and drug prescribed. RESULTS: Of the 270 successfully filled prescriptions, the mean time-to-receipt was 7.3 ± 10.3 days (range: 0-109 days). Patients with Medicare experienced longer time-to-receipt (9.1 ± 13.1 days) compared to patients with commercial insurance (4.4 ± 3.3). Uninsured patients experienced the longest time-to-receipt (15.7 ± 7.8 days) overall. Pharmacy transfers and cost assistance programs were also significantly associated with longer time-to-receipt. Ten prescriptions remained unfilled 90 days after the study period and were considered abandoned. CONCLUSION: Insurance has a significant effect on the time-to-receipt of newly prescribed novel oral oncolytics. Pharmacy transfers and applying for cost assistance are also associated with longer wait times for patients. Our retrospective analysis identifies areas of improvement for future interventions to reduce wait times for patients receiving novel oral oncolytics.

Analysis of common oral and topical dermatologic medication price variation by source.

Online coupon retailers and pharmacies are popular sites that patients can access discounted medications when compared to cash prices. These sources are especially important for those patients without insurance. In our study, we analyzed commonly prescribed topical and oral medications and compared the cash prices to the discounted medications based on a typical month of usage. We found savings in every one of the medications that we analyzed, some with savings up to hundreds of dollars. Savings were present in all the sources analyzed, with the coupon-based programs often having the lowest price. We suggest certain alternative prescribing guidelines when considering patients who may not be able to afford cash prices of medications. Our hopes with this study are to quantify savings for discounted medications as well as to help physicians target more affordable medications for their patients.

[Medical expenses for diabetes care in Japan: Analysis of inter-prefecture differences].

Objectives　Medical expenses for diabetes differ between Japan's 47 prefectures. The medical care expenditure regulation plan aims to reduce regional differences in outpatient medical costs through prevention of severe diabetes, promotion of specific health checkups and specific health guidance, promotion of generic drugs, and proper use of medicines. To achieve this goal, we need to conduct an in-depth analysis of inter-prefecture differences in diabetes care expenses. This study analyzed regional differences in prescription fees for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and the use of generic sulfonylureas (SUs), glinides, biguanides, α-glucosidase inhibitors (α-GIs), and thiazoline derivatives, using the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups of Japan (NDB). Furthermore, we analyzed regional differences in consultancy fees for dialysis prevention.Methods　We analyzed the 2nd NDB Open Data Japan website of the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare. Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) was used to evaluate the relationship between the medical costs of diabetes and each factor. The correlation coefficient was analyzed with Student's t-test, and a P-value<0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results　Regarding oral hypoglycemic drugs, prefectures with a large number of DPP-4 inhibitors tended to have higher medical costs of diabetes (r=0.40, P=0.0048). Furthermore, such expenses tended to be low in prefectures where the use of generic SU drugs was high (r=-0.43, P=0.0023).Conclusions　In conclusion, the results revealed regional differences in the use of DPP-4 inhibitors and generic SU drugs, which may contribute to the regional differences in medical expenses for diabetes. This study suggests that NDB open data are useful for policy making to reduce regional differences in outpatient medical costs of diabetes.

Prices, availability and affordability of insulin products: a cross-sectional survey in Shaanxi Province, western China.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate price, availability and affordability of insulin products in Shaanxi Province, western China. METHODS: We used a simplified and adapted WHO/Health Action International method to obtain the availability and prices of insulin products and five oral anti-diabetic medicines as comparators in public general hospitals and private retail outlets. In addition, we investigated the price components of eight selected insulin products by tracing the supply chain. RESULTS: All three kinds of insulin products, prandial, basal and premixed insulin, are 100% available in public hospitals, and have fairly high availability in the private sector (62.5-68.8%). The prices of most insulin products were higher than international reference prices in both sectors (ranging from 0.95 times to 2.33 times). All insulin products were unaffordable as they would cost 3.5-17.1 days' wage of the lowest-paid government workers in Shaanxi. The manufacturer's markup (selling price), which comprised more than 60% of the final price of all insulin products surveyed, was the largest price component. CONCLUSIONS: Although availability of insulin products was high in public general hospitals and private retail pharmacies, their high price made them unaffordable to diabetes patients, especially low-income patients. The government should increase insurance compensation for those who need these life-saving medicines or decrease the cost of insulin products through negotiation with suppliers.

Nonadherence to Any Prescribed Medication Due to Costs Among Adults with HIV Infection - United States, 2016-2017.

The United States spends more per capita on prescription drugs than do other high-income countries (1). In 2017, patients paid 14% of this cost out of pocket (2). Prescription drug cost-saving strategies, including nonadherence to medications due to cost concerns, have been documented among U.S. adults (3) and can negatively affect morbidity and, in the case of persons with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, can increase transmission risk (4,5). However, population-based data on prescription drug cost-saving strategies among U.S. persons with HIV are lacking. CDC's Medical Monitoring Project* analyzed cross-sectional, nationally representative, surveillance data on behaviors, medical care, and clinical outcomes among adults with HIV infection. During 2016-2017, 14% of persons with HIV infection used a prescription drug cost-saving strategy for any prescribed medication, and 7% had cost saving-related nonadherence. Nonadherence due to prescription drug costs was associated with reporting an unmet need for medications from the Ryan White AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), not having Medicaid coverage, and having private insurance. Persons who were nonadherent because of cost concerns were more likely to have visited an emergency department, have been hospitalized, and not be virally suppressed. Reducing barriers to ADAP and Medicaid coverage, in addition to reducing medication costs for persons with private insurance, might help to decrease nonadherence due to cost concerns and, thus contribute to improved viral suppression rates and other health outcomes among persons with HIV infection.

Impact of brand drug discount cards on private insurer, government and patient expenditures.

BACKGROUND: Brand discount cards have become a popular way for patients to reduce out-of-pocket spending on drugs; however, controversy exists over their potential to increase insurers' costs. We estimated the impact of brand discount cards on Canadian drug expenditures. METHODS: Using national claims-level pharmacy adjudication data, we performed a retrospective comparison of prescriptions filled using a brand discount card matched to equivalent generic prescriptions between September 2014 and September 2017. We investigated the impact on expenditures for 3 groups of prescriptions: those paid only through private insurance, those paid only through public insurance and those paid only out of pocket. RESULTS: We studied 2.82 million prescriptions for 89 different medications for which brand discount cards were used. Use of discount cards resulted in 46% higher private insurance expenditures than comparable generic prescriptions (+$23.09 per prescription, 95% confidence interval [CI] $22.97 to $23.21). Public insurance expenditures were only slightly higher with cards: an increase of 1.3% or $0.37 per prescription (95% CI $0.33 to $0.41). Finally, out-of-pocket transactions using a card resulted in mean patient savings of 7% or $3.49 per prescription (95% CI -$3.55 to -$3.43). The impact varied widely among medicines across all 3 analyses. INTERPRETATION: The use of brand discount cards increased costs to private insurers, had little impact on public insurers and resulted in mixed impacts for patients. These effects likely resulted from private insurers reimbursing brand drug prices even when generics were available and from discount cards being adjudicated after claims were sent to other insurers in most cases. Patients and their clinicians should recognize that discount cards have mixed impacts on out-of-pocket costs.

Improving the Affordability of Prescription Medications for People with Chronic Respiratory Disease. An Official American Thoracic Society Policy Statement.

BACKGROUND: Mounting evidence indicates that out-of-pocket costs for prescription medications, particularly among low- and middle-income patients with chronic diseases, are imposing financial burden, reducing medication adherence, and worsening health outcomes. This problem is exacerbated by a paucity of generic alternatives for prevalent lung diseases, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, as well as high-cost medicines for rare diseases, such as cystic fibrosis. Affordability and access challenges are especially salient in the United States, as citizens of many other countries pay lower prices for and have greater access to prescription medications. METHODS: The American Thoracic Society convened a multidisciplinary committee comprising experts in health policy pharmacoeconomics, behavioral sciences, and clinical care, along with individuals providing industry and patient perspectives. The report and its recommendation were iteratively developed over a year of in-person, telephonic, and electronic deliberation. RESULTS: The committee unanimously recommended the establishment of a publicly funded, politically independent, impartial entity to systematically draft evidence-based pharmaceutical policy recommendations. The goal of this entity would be to generate evidence and action steps to ensure people have equitable and affordable access to prescription medications, to maximize the value of public and private pharmaceutical expenditures on health, to support novel drug development within a market-based economy, and to preserve clinician and patient choice regarding personalized treatment. An immediate priority is to examine the evidence and make recommendations regarding the need to have essential medicines with established clinical benefit from each drug class in all Tier 1 formularies and propose recommendations to reduce barriers to timely generic drug availability. CONCLUSIONS: By making explicit, evidence-based recommendations, the entity can support the establishment of coherent national policies that expand access to affordable medications, improve the health of patients with chronic disease, and optimize the use of public and private resources.

China's new policy for healthcare cost-control based on global budget: a survey of 110 clinicians in hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The increasing cost on healthcare exposes China's healthcare budgets and system to financial crisis. To control the excessive growth of healthcare expenditure, China's healthcare reforms emphasize the control of the global budget for healthcare, which leads to the release of relevant policy and a series of cost-control actions implemented by different hospitals. This work aims to identify the effects brought by the cost-control policy and actions via surveying and analysing feedback from clinicians. METHODS: Questionnaires on the cost-control policy and actions were designed for surveying 110 clinicians in hospitals from different regions of China. The data on the implementation of the cost-control actions and doctors' feedback on these actions were analysed using descriptive statistics. Pearson's chi-squared tests were performed to detect associations between doctors' opinions and specific cost-control actions. A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Association relationships between doctors' opinions and cost-control actions were modelled into network models, and key factors were identified in a multi-variate framework. Last, we visualized our resultant data using a network model, and further multi-variate analysis was performed. RESULTS: There were three main findings. (1) The cost-control policy has been widely implemented in the sampled hospitals in different regions of China, with more than 80% of those surveyed acknowledging that their hospitals take actions of reducing average prescription fees for outpatients, drug costs, and in-hospitalization durations. (2) Most doctors have a negative view of some cost-control actions; this is mainly due to concerns about the effects of these actions on the doctors' own healthcare performance and patient satisfaction. (3) Cost-control actions that had a significant impact on doctors' performance included limiting average prescription fees for outpatients and limiting the use of examinations/drugs/surgeries. Decreased patient satisfaction was associated with fewer admissions of critically ill patients, reduced use of brand-name drugs, and increased total costs to patients due to increased frequencies of visits to the hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-control actions implemented in hospitals in response to the government's policy to reduce its national healthcare budget affect both doctors and patients in several ways. Moreover, the cost-control policy and actions can be improved.

The Pay-Twice Critique, Government Funding, and Reasonable Pricing Clauses.

The federal government subsidizes the research and development of prescription medications. Thus, a captivating critique of expensive medications is that prices are too high because of taxpayer co-financing. This critique is often framed in terms of "paying-twice"-first for the research and second through the above market pricing of resulting products. Reasonable pricing clauses-which place some kind of pricing limitation on the exercise of license or patent rights governing a federally funded medication-are one proposed policy tool for addressing the pay-twice critique. This article provides increased analytical clarity as well as historical context to present-day debates about the privatization of federally funded research and prescription drug pricing. It makes three arguments. First, despite its pervasiveness and intuitive plausibility, the pay-twice critique is subject to differing interpretations which has important implications for the appropriateness of proposed solutions. Second, despite their initial attractiveness, the costs, necessity, and effectiveness of reasonable pricing clauses render the wisdom of this policy tool uncertain. However, third, given continued interest in reasonable pricing clauses, the NIH's previous experience with such a policy offers some useful lessons.