Dataset Information

Association of Reference Pricing with Drug Selection and Spending.

ABSTRACT: 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.).

SUBMITTER: Robinson JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5580998 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association of Reference Pricing with Drug Selection and Spending.

Robinson James C JC Whaley Christopher M CM Brown Timothy T TT

The New England journal of medicine 20170801 7

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 130 ...[more]

PMID: 28813219

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesExternal reference pricing (ERP) is a price regulation tool widely used by policy makers in the European Union (EU) Member States (MS) to contain drug cost, although in theory, it may contribute to modulate prices up and down. The objective of this article was to summarise and discuss the main findings of part of a large project conducted for the European Commission ('External reference pricing of medicinal products: simulation-based considerations for cross-country coordination'; see www.ec.europa.eu/health/healthcare/docs/erp_reimbursement_medicinal_products_en.pdf) that aimed to provide an overview of ERP systems, both on processes and potential issues in 31 European countries (28 EU MS, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland).MethodsA systematic structured literature review was conducted to identify and characterise the use of ERP in the selected countries, to describe its impact on the prices of pharmaceuticals, and to discuss the possible cross-country coordination issues in EU MS. This research was complemented with a consultation of competent authorities' and international organisations' representatives to address the main issues or uncertainties identified through the literature review.ResultsAll selected countries applied ERP, except the United Kingdom and Sweden. Twenty-three countries used ERP as the main systematic criterion for pricing. In the majority of European countries, ERP was based on legislated pricing rules with different levels of accuracy. ERP was applied either for all marketed drugs or for specific categories of medicines; it was mainly used for publicly reimbursed medicines. The number of reference countries included in the basket varied from 1 to 31. There was a great variation in the calculation methods used to compute the price; 15 countries used the average price, 7 countries used the lowest price, and 7 countries used other calculation methods. Reported limitations of ERP application included the lack of reliable sources of price information, price heterogeneity, exchange rate volatility, and hidden discounts. Spill-over effect and downward price convergence have often been mentioned as ERP's consequences leading to pricing strategies from pharmaceutical companies.ConclusionWhile ERP is widely used in Europe, processes and availability of price information vary from one country to another, thus limiting ERP implementation. Furthermore, ERP spill-over effect is a major concern of pharmaceutical firms leading to implementation of the so-called 'launch sequence strategies'.

Project description:ImportanceRegulatory limits on consumer cost sharing permit wide variation in the prices charged for screening and diagnostic tests such as colonoscopy. Employers are experimenting with reference payment initiatives that offer full insurance coverage at low-priced facilities but require substantial cost sharing if patients select high-priced alternatives.ObjectiveTo ascertain the effect of reference payment on facility choice, insurer spending, consumer cost sharing, and procedural complications for colonoscopy.Design, setting, and participantsThe California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) implemented reference payment in January 2012. We obtained data on 21 644 CalPERS enrollees who underwent colonoscopy in the 3 years prior to implementation and on 13 551 patients in the 2 years after implementation. Control group data were obtained on 258 616 Anthem Blue Cross enrollees who underwent colonoscopy and who were not subject to reference payment initiatives during this 5-year period.Main outcomes and measuresConsumer choice of facility, price paid per procedure, total insurer spending, consumer cost sharing, and procedural complications.ExposuresChoices, prices, and complications were compared for CalPERS and Anthem patients before and after implementation of reference payments, using difference-in-difference multivariable regressions to adjust for patient demographic characteristics and comorbidities, procedure indications, and geographic location.ResultsUtilization of low-priced facilities for CalPERS members increased from 68.6% in 2009 to 90.5% in 2013. After adjusting for patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and other factors, the implementation of reference payment increased use of low-priced facilities by 17.6 percentage points (95% CI, 11.8 to 23.4; P < .001). The mean price paid for colonoscopy for the CalPERS population increased from $1587 (95% CI, $1555-$1618) in 2009 to $1716 (95% CI, $1678-$1753) in 2011 and then decreased to $1508 (95% CI, $1469-$1548) in 2013 for patients subject to reference payment. After adjustment for other relevant factors, reference payment was responsible for a 21.0% (95% CI, -26.0% to -15.6%, P < .001) reduction in the price. Reference payment was associated with a small but statistically insignificant decline in procedural complications, from 2.1% in 2009 to 2.0% in 2013 (P = .47). In the first 2 years after implementation, CalPERS saved $7.0 million (28%) on spending for the procedure.Conclusions and relevanceImplementation of reference payment for colonoscopy was associated with reduced spending and no change in complications.

Project description:ObjectiveWe aimed to determine the association between the stepwise increase in the sustained viral response (SVR) and Swiss and United States (US) market prices of drug regimens for treatment-naive, genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in the last 25 years. We identified the following five steps in the development of HCV treatment regimens: 1) interferon (IFN)-? monotherapy in the early '90s, 2) IFN-? in combination with ribavirin (RBV), 3) pegylated (peg) IFN-? in combination with RBV, 4) the first direct acting antivirals (DAAs) (telaprevir and boceprevir) in combination with pegIFN-? and RBV, and 5) newer DAA-based regimens, such as sofosbuvir (which is or is not combined with ledipasvir) and fixed-dose combination of ritonavir-boosted paritaprevir and ombitasvir in combination with dasabuvir.DesignWe performed a linear regression and mean cost analysis to test for an association between SVRs and HCV regimen prices. We conducted a sensitivity analysis using US prices at the time of US drug licensing. We selected randomized clinical trials of drugs approved for use in Switzerland from 1997 to July 2015 including treatment-naïve patients with HCV genotype 1 infection.ResultsWe identified a statistically significant positive relationship between the proportion of patients achieving SVRs and the costs of HCV regimens in Switzerland (with a bivariate ordinary least square regression yielding an R2 measure of 0.96) and the US (R2 = 0.95). The incremental cost per additional percentage of SVR was 597.14 USD in Switzerland and 1,063.81 USD in the US.ConclusionThe pricing of drugs for HCV regimens follows a value-based model, which has a stable ratio of costs per achieved SVR over 25 years. Health care systems are struggling with the high resource use of these new agents despite their obvious long-term advantages for the overall health of the population. Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry, health care payers and other stakeholders are challenged with finding new drug pricing schemes to treat the entire population infected with HCV.

Project description:ImportanceSome drugs are heavily marketed through direct-to-consumer advertising.ObjectiveTo identify drug characteristics associated with a greater share of promotional spending on advertising directly to consumers.Design, setting, and participantsExploratory cross-sectional analysis of drug characteristics and promotional spending for the 150 top-selling branded prescription drugs in the US in 2020 as identified from IQVIA National Sales Perspectives data. Promotional spending data were provided by IQVIA ChannelDynamics.ExposuresDrug characteristics (total 2020 sales; total 2020 promotional spending; clinical benefit ratings; number of indications, off-label use; molecule type; nature of condition treated; administration type; generic availability; US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] approval year, World Health Organization anatomical therapeutic chemical classification; Medicare annual mean spending per beneficiary; percent sales attributable to the drug; market size; market competitiveness) assessed from health technology assessment agencies (France's Haute Autorité de Santé and Canada's Patented Medicine Prices Review Board) and drug data sources (Drugs@FDA, the FDA Purple Book, Lexicomp, Merative Marketscan Research Databases, and Medicare Spending by Drug data).Main outcomes and measuresProportion of total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer-advertising for each drug.ResultsThe 2020 median proportion of promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising was 13.5% (IQR, 1.96%-36.6%); median promotional spending, $20.9 million (IQR, $2.72-$131 million); and median total sales, $1.51 billion (IQR, $0.97-$2.26 billion). Of the 150 best-selling drugs, 16 were missing data and key covariates; therefore, the primary study sample comprised 134 drugs. After adjustment for multiple drug characteristics, the mean proportion of total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising for the remaining 134 drugs was an absolute 14.3% (95% CI, 1.43%-27.2%; P = .03) higher for those with low added clinical benefit than for those with high added clinical benefit and an absolute 1.5% (95% CI, 0.44%-2.56%; P = .005) higher for each 10% increase in total sales.Conclusions and relevanceAmong top-selling US drugs in 2020, a rating of lower added benefit and higher total drug sales were associated with a higher proportion of manufacturer total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising. Further research is needed to understand the implications of these findings.

Project description:BackgroundThe 340B Drug Pricing Program entitles qualifying hospitals to discounts on outpatient drugs, increasing the profitability of drug administration. By tying the program eligibility of hospitals to their Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) adjustment percentage, which reflects the proportion of hospitalized patients who are low-income, the program is intended to expand resources for underserved populations but provides no direct incentives for hospitals to use financial gains to enhance care for low-income patients.MethodsWe used Medicare claims and a regression-discontinuity design, taking advantage of the threshold for program eligibility among general acute care hospitals (DSH percentage, >11.75%), to isolate the effects of the program on hospital-physician consolidation (i.e., acquisition of physician practices or employment of physicians by hospitals) and on the outpatient administration of parenteral drugs by hospital-owned facilities in three specialties in which parenteral drugs are frequently used. For low-income patients, we also assessed the effects of the program on the provision of care by hospitals and on mortality.ResultsHospital eligibility for the 340B Program was associated with 2.3 more hematologist-oncologists practicing in facilities owned by the hospital, or 230% more hematologist-oncologists than expected in the absence of the program (P=0.02), and with 0.9 (or 900%) more ophthalmologists per hospital (P=0.08) and 0.1 (or 33%) more rheumatologists per hospital (P=0.84). Program eligibility was associated with significantly higher numbers of parenteral drug claims billed by hospitals for Medicare patients in hematology-oncology (90% higher, P=0.001) and ophthalmology (177% higher, P=0.03) but not rheumatology (77% higher, P=0.12). Program eligibility was associated with lower proportions of low-income patients in hematology-oncology and ophthalmology and with no significant differences in hospital provision of safety-net or inpatient care for low-income groups or in mortality among low-income residents of the hospitals' local service areas.ConclusionsThe 340B Program has been associated with hospital-physician consolidation in hematology-oncology and with more hospital-based administration of parenteral drugs in hematology-oncology and ophthalmology. Financial gains for hospitals have not been associated with clear evidence of expanded care or lower mortality among low-income patients. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and others.).

Project description:BackgroundPharmaceutical spending has been increasing rapidly for years and is higher than ever before. To control the rising costs, countries are implementing regulatory frameworks such as (internal) reference pricing, price cuts or generics substitution. Internal reference pricing establishes a reference price within a country which serves as the maximum level of reimbursement for a group of pharmaceuticals. Price setting in the German market is especially relevant for many European countries, which use Germany as a reference country for their own price setting.MethodsWe evaluate pharmaceutical price dynamics for not reference priced pharmaceuticals (NRPs) as well as for reference priced pharmaceuticals (RPs) in Germany-referring to the internal reference price system. 64,862 medication packs have been extracted from the German pharmaceutical pricing register Lauer-Taxe. For each pack, we extracted detailed data on the company, manufacturer rebates, pharmacy retail prices, reference prices, co-payments, import quotas, and discount agreements. We then investigated price setting and dynamics of NRPs vs. RPs for all 14 indication areas by ATC code level 1.ResultsThe average manufacturer price per pack was 604.84€ for NRPs and 112.11€ for RPs. Similar differences were found for the wholesale price and the pharmacy retail price. The reference price was-as expected-0.00€ for NRPs, and 154.40€ for RPs. NRP packs were imported in 42.38%, while RP packs were imported only in 24.62%. Highest average pharmacy retail prices could be found in the therapeutic areas 'antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents' (1711.47€), 'systemic hormonal preparations' (1331.95€), and 'blood and blood forming organs' (1260.58€). We detected high fluctuations in pharmacy retail prices per indication, as well as for reference prices per indication. The indications with the highest number of reference price regulated medical packs are 'cardiovascular system', 'musculo-skeletal system', and 'nervous system'. Highest co-payments were found in the indications 'antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents', 'blood and blood forming organs', and 'antiinfectives for systemic use'.ConclusionPrice setting and price dynamics vary substantially between NRP and RP medication packs. Further, we saw major differences across all indication areas as well as when comparing medication packs launched by top 20 pharma companies vs. the rest.

Dataset Information

Association of Reference Pricing with Drug Selection and Spending.

Publications

Association of Reference Pricing with Drug Selection and Spending.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets