Dataset Information

Medicare Part D Payments for Topical Steroids: Rising Costs and Potential Savings.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Rising pharmaceutical costs in the United States are an increasing source of financial burden for payers and patients. Although topical steroids are among the most commonly prescribed medications in dermatology, there are limited data on steroid-related spending and utilization.

Objective

To characterize Medicare and patient out-of-pocket costs for topical steroids, and to model potential savings that could result from substitution of the cheapest topical steroid from the corresponding potency class.

Design, setting, and participants

This study was a retrospective cost analysis of the Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use File, which details annual drug utilization and spending on both generic and branded drugs from 2011 to 2015 by Medicare Part D participants who filled prescriptions for topical steroids.

Main outcomes and measures

Total and potential Medicare and out-of-pocket patient spending. Costs were adjusted for inflation and reported in 2015 dollars.

Results

Medicare Part D expenditures on topical steroids between 2011 and 2015 were $2.3 billion. Patients' out-of-pocket spending for topical steroids over the same period was $333.7 million. The total annual spending increased from $237.6 million to $775.9 million, an increase of 226.5%. Patients' annual out-of-pocket spending increased from $41.4 million to $101.8 million, an increase of 145.9%. The total number of prescriptions were 7.7 million in 2011 and 10.6 million in 2015, an increase of 37.0%. Generic medication costs accounted for 97.8% of the total spending during this time period. The potential health care savings and out-of-pocket patient savings from substitution of the cheapest topical steroid within the corresponding potency class were $944.8 million and $66.6 million, respectively.

Conclusions and relevance

Most topical steroids prescribed were generic drugs. There has been a sharp increase in Medicare and out-of-pocket spending on topical steroids that is driven by higher costs for generics. Use of clinical decision support tools to enable substitution of the most affordable generic topical steroid from the corresponding potency class may reduce drug expenditures.

SUBMITTER: Song H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5817604 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective, it requires a considerable net investment by governments or insurance companies. If screening was cost saving, governments and insurance companies might be more inclined to invest in colorectal cancer screening programs. We examined whether colorectal cancer screening would become cost saving with the widespread use of the newer, more expensive chemotherapies.MethodsWe used the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to assess whether widespread use of new chemotherapies would affect the treatment savings of colorectal cancer screening in the general population. We considered three scenarios for chemotherapy use: the past, the present, and the near future. We assumed that survival improved and treatment costs for patients diagnosed with advanced stages of colorectal cancer increased over the scenarios. Screening strategies considered were annual guaiac fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), annual immunochemical FOBT, sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, and the combination of sigmoidoscopy every 5 years and annual guaiac FOBT. Analyses were conducted from the perspective of the health-care system for a cohort of 50-year-old individuals who were at average risk of colorectal cancer and were screened with 100% adherence from age 50 years to age 80 years and followed up until death.ResultsCompared with no screening, the treatment savings from preventing advanced colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer deaths by screening more than doubled with the widespread use of new chemotherapies. The lifetime average treatment savings were larger than the lifetime average screening costs for screening with Hemoccult II, immunochemical FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, and the combination of sigmoidoscopy and Hemoccult II (average savings vs costs per individual in the population: Hemoccult II, $1398 vs $859; immunochemical FOBT, $1756 vs $1565; sigmoidoscopy, $1706 vs $1575; sigmoidoscopy and Hemoccult II $1931 vs $1878). Colonoscopy did not become cost saving, but the total net costs of this strategy decreased from $1317 to $296 per individual in the population.ConclusionsWith the increase in chemotherapy costs for advanced colorectal cancer, most colorectal cancer screening strategies have become cost saving. As a consequence, screening is a desirable approach not only to reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality but also to control the costs of colorectal cancer treatment.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Health care providers who participate as an accountable care organization (ACO) in the voluntary Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) have incentives to lower spending for Medicare patients while achieving high performance on a set of quality measures. Little is known about the extent to which early savings achieved by ACOs in the program have grown and been replicated by ACOs that entered the program in later years. ACOs that are physician groups have stronger incentives to lower spending than hospital-integrated ACOs. METHODS:Using fee-for-service Medicare claims from 2009 through 2015, we performed difference-in-differences analyses to compare changes in Medicare spending for patients in ACOs before and after entry into the MSSP with concurrent changes in spending for local patients served by providers not participating in the MSSP (control group). We estimated differential changes (i.e., the between-group difference in the change from the pre-entry period) separately for hospital-integrated ACOs and physician-group ACOs that entered the MSSP in 2012, 2013, or 2014. RESULTS:MSSP participation was associated with differential spending reductions in physician-group ACOs. These reductions grew with longer participation in the program and were significantly greater than the reductions in hospital-integrated ACOs. By 2015, the mean differential change in per-patient Medicare spending was -$474 (-4.9% of the pre-entry mean, P<0.001) for physician-group ACOs that entered in 2012, -$342 (-3.5% of the pre-entry mean, P<0.001) for those that entered in 2013, and -$156 (-1.6% of the pre-entry mean, P=0.009) for those that entered in 2014. The corresponding differential changes for hospital-integrated ACOs were -$169 (P=0.005), -$18 (P=0.78), and $88 (P=0.14), which were significantly lower than for physician-group ACOs (P<0.001). Spending reductions in physician-group ACOs constituted a net savings to Medicare of $256.4 million in 2015, whereas spending reductions in hospital-integrated ACOs were offset by bonus payments. CONCLUSIONS:After 3 years of the MSSP, participation in shared-savings contracts by physician groups was associated with savings for Medicare that grew over the study period, whereas hospital-integrated ACOs did not produce savings (on average) during the same period. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging.).

Project description:PURPOSE:To quantify costs of eye care providers' Medicare Part D prescribing patterns for ophthalmic medications and to estimate the potential savings of generic or therapeutic drug substitutions and price negotiation. DESIGN:Retrospective cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS:Eye care providers prescribing medications through Medicare Part D in 2013. METHODS:Medicare Part D 2013 prescriber public use file and summary file were used to calculate medication costs by physician specialty and drug. Savings from generic or therapeutic drug substitutions were estimated for brand drugs. The potential savings from price negotiation was estimated using drug prices negotiated by the United States Veterans Administration (USVA). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Total cost of brand and generic medications prescribed by eye care providers. RESULTS:Eye care providers accounted for $2.4 billion in total Medicare part D prescription drug costs and generated the highest percentage of brand name medication claims compared with all other providers. Brand medications accounted for a significantly higher proportion of monthly supplies by volume, and therefore, also by total cost for eye care providers compared with all other providers (38% vs. 23% by volume, P < 0.001; 79% vs. 56% by total cost, P < 0.001). The total cost attributable to eye care providers is driven by glaucoma medications, accounting for $1.2 billion (54% of total cost; 72% of total volume). The second costliest category, dry eye medications, was attributable mostly to a single medication, cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion (Restasis, Allergan, Irvine, CA), which has no generic alternative, accounting for $371 million (17% of total cost; 4% of total volume). If generic medications were substituted for brand medications when available, $148 million would be saved (7% savings); if generic and therapeutic substitutions were made, $882 million would be saved (42% savings). If Medicare negotiated the prices for ophthalmic medications at USVA rates, $1.09 billion would be saved (53% savings). CONCLUSIONS:Eye care providers prescribe more brand medications by volume than any other provider group. Efforts to reduce prescription expenditures by eye care providers should focus on increasing the use of generic medications, primarily through therapeutic substitutions. Policy changes enabling Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices could decrease costs to Medicare.