Prolonged Increases in Public-Payer Spending and Prices After Unapproved Drug Initiative Approval of Colchicine.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: McCormick N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7851728 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundBrand-name prescription drugs are an important driver of prescription drug spending, but different payers may bear these costs differentially necessitating different policy goals for each payer. But little is known about how the top 10 selling drugs in the U.S. impact spending across payers.ObjectiveTo estimate the differential spending burden of top prescription drugs on Medicaid, Medicare, commercial coverage, and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending.MethodsThe percentage of total prescription drug spending, total spending, total prescriptions, and average cost per prescription overall and for each of the following payers - Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance, and OOP - was calculated for each of the top 10 selling prescription drugs using 2017-2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data.ResultsThese 10 prescription drugs accounted for average annual spending of $83.4 billion and 19.0% of all prescription drug spending. Medicare tended to contribute the highest fraction of spending. The average annual cost per prescription ranged from $500 for Advair to $7400 for Tecfidera. Significant variation in the average annual number of prescriptions filled was observed, ranging from 1.4 million for Tecfidera to 13.6 million for Lantus.ConclusionsThe findings highlight the significant impact of the top 10 selling prescription drugs on U.S. prescription drug spending. The wide variation in per prescription cost as well as contribution to each payer's prescription drug burden emphasizes how policies targeting top-selling drugs may differentially impact payers as well as how payer-specific policies may differ substantially even for top selling drugs.
| S-EPMC10835280 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Public health encompasses a broad array of programs designed to prevent the occurrence of disease and injury within communities. But policy makers have little evidence to draw on when determining the value of investments in these program activities, which currently account for less than 5 percent of US health spending. We examine whether changes in spending by local public health agencies over a thirteen-year period contributed to changes in rates of community mortality from preventable causes of death, including infant mortality and deaths due to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer. We found that mortality rates fell between 1.1 percent and 6.9 percent for each 10 percent increase in local public health spending. These results suggest that increased public health investments can produce measurable improvements in health, especially in low-resource communities. However, more money by itself is unlikely to generate significant and sustainable health gains; improvements in public health practices are needed as well.
| S-EPMC4019932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This article examines the budgetary implications of high-priced accelerated approval drugs by estimating Medicare spending on these drugs from 2015 through 2019.
| S-EPMC8796889 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:US health care spending has continued to increase and now accounts for 18% of the US economy, although little is known about how spending on each health condition varies by payer, and how these amounts have changed over time. Objective:To estimate US spending on health care according to 3 types of payers (public insurance [including Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs], private insurance, or out-of-pocket payments) and by health condition, age group, sex, and type of care for 1996 through 2016. Design and Setting:Government budgets, insurance claims, facility records, household surveys, and official US records from 1996 through 2016 were collected to estimate spending for 154 health conditions. Spending growth rates (standardized by population size and age group) were calculated for each type of payer and health condition. Exposures:Ambulatory care, inpatient care, nursing care facility stay, emergency department care, dental care, and purchase of prescribed pharmaceuticals in a retail setting. Main Outcomes and Measures:National spending estimates stratified by health condition, age group, sex, type of care, and type of payer and modeled for each year from 1996 through 2016. Results:Total health care spending increased from an estimated $1.4 trillion in 1996 (13.3% of gross domestic product [GDP]; $5259 per person) to an estimated $3.1 trillion in 2016 (17.9% of GDP; $9655 per person); 85.2% of that spending was included in this study. In 2016, an estimated 48.0% (95% CI, 48.0%-48.0%) of health care spending was paid by private insurance, 42.6% (95% CI, 42.5%-42.6%) by public insurance, and 9.4% (95% CI, 9.4%-9.4%) by out-of-pocket payments. In 2016, among the 154 conditions, low back and neck pain had the highest amount of health care spending with an estimated $134.5 billion (95% CI, $122.4-$146.9 billion) in spending, of which 57.2% (95% CI, 52.2%-61.2%) was paid by private insurance, 33.7% (95% CI, 30.0%-38.4%) by public insurance, and 9.2% (95% CI, 8.3%-10.4%) by out-of-pocket payments. Other musculoskeletal disorders accounted for the second highest amount of health care spending (estimated at $129.8 billion [95% CI, $116.3-$149.7 billion]) and most had private insurance (56.4% [95% CI, 52.6%-59.3%]). Diabetes accounted for the third highest amount of the health care spending (estimated at $111.2 billion [95% CI, $105.7-$115.9 billion]) and most had public insurance (49.8% [95% CI, 44.4%-56.0%]). Other conditions estimated to have substantial health care spending in 2016 were ischemic heart disease ($89.3 billion [95% CI, $81.1-$95.5 billion]), falls ($87.4 billion [95% CI, $75.0-$100.1 billion]), urinary diseases ($86.0 billion [95% CI, $76.3-$95.9 billion]), skin and subcutaneous diseases ($85.0 billion [95% CI, $80.5-$90.2 billion]), osteoarthritis ($80.0 billion [95% CI, $72.2-$86.1 billion]), dementias ($79.2 billion [95% CI, $67.6-$90.8 billion]), and hypertension ($79.0 billion [95% CI, $72.6-$86.8 billion]). The conditions with the highest spending varied by type of payer, age, sex, type of care, and year. After adjusting for changes in inflation, population size, and age groups, public insurance spending was estimated to have increased at an annualized rate of 2.9% (95% CI, 2.9%-2.9%); private insurance, 2.6% (95% CI, 2.6%-2.6%); and out-of-pocket payments, 1.1% (95% CI, 1.0%-1.1%). Conclusions and Relevance:Estimates of US spending on health care showed substantial increases from 1996 through 2016, with the highest increases in population-adjusted spending by public insurance. Although spending on low back and neck pain, other musculoskeletal disorders, and diabetes accounted for the highest amounts of spending, the payers and the rates of change in annual spending growth rates varied considerably.
| S-EPMC7054840 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8576628 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8278265 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the relationship between commercial health care prices and Medicare spending/utilization across U.S. regions.Data sourcesClaims from large employers and Medicare Parts A/B/D over 2007-2009.Study designWe compared prices paid by commercial health plans to Medicare spending and utilization, adjusted for beneficiary health and the cost of care, across 301 hospital referral regions.Principal findingsA 10 percent lower commercial price (around the average level) is associated with 3.0 percent higher Medicare spending per member per year, and 4.3 percent more specialist visits (p < .01).ConclusionsCommercial health care prices are negatively associated with Medicare spending across regions. Providers may respond to low commercial prices by shifting service volume into Medicare. Further investigation is needed to establish causality.
| S-EPMC4450935 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8080228 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Private businesses are often entrusted with public contracts, wherein public money is allocated to a private company. This process raises concerns about transparency, even in the most developed democracies. But are there any regularities guiding this process? Do all private companies benefit equally from the state budgets? Here, we tackle these questions focusing on the case of Slovenia, which keeps excellent records of this kind of public spending. We examine a dataset detailing every transfer of public money to the private sector from January 2003 to May 2020. During this time, Slovenia has conducted business with no less than 248 989 private companies. We find that the cumulative distribution of money received per company can be reasonably well explained by a power-law or lognormal fit. We also show evidence for the first-mover advantage, and determine that companies receive new funding in a way that is roughly linear over time. These results indicate that, despite all human factors involved, Slovenian public spending is at least to some extent regulated by emergent self-organizing principles.
| S-EPMC10394406 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We use insurance claims data covering 28% of individuals with employer-sponsored health insurance in the United States to study the variation in health spending on the privately insured, examine the structure of insurer-hospital contracts, and analyze the variation in hospital prices across the nation. Health spending per privately insured beneficiary differs by a factor of three across geographic areas and has a very low correlation with Medicare spending. For the privately insured, half of the spending variation is driven by price variation across regions, and half is driven by quantity variation. Prices vary substantially across regions, across hospitals within regions, and even within hospitals. For example, even for a nearly homogeneous service such as lower-limb magnetic resonance imaging, about a fifth of the total case-level price variation occurs within a hospital in the cross section. Hospital market structure is strongly associated with price levels and contract structure. Prices at monopoly hospitals are 12% higher than those in markets with four or more rivals. Monopoly hospitals also have contracts that load more risk on insurers (e.g., they have more cases with prices set as a share of their charges). In concentrated insurer markets the opposite occurs-hospitals have lower prices and bear more financial risk. Examining the 366 mergers and acquisitions that occurred between 2007 and 2011, we find that prices increased by over 6% when the merging hospitals were geographically close (e.g., 5 miles or less apart), but not when the hospitals were geographically distant (e.g., over 25 miles apart).
| S-EPMC7517591 | biostudies-literature