Dataset Information

Correlation Between Changes in Brand-Name Drug Prices and Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

List prices set by manufacturers for brand-name prescription drugs in the US have been increasing faster than inflation, although confidential manufacturer rebates offset some of these increases. Most commercially insured patients pay at least some out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, and higher patient spending is associated with lower adherence and worse health outcomes.

Objective

To examine whether price changes for brand-name drugs are correlated with changes in patient out-of-pocket spending and whether this association varies by insurance benefit design.

Design, setting, and participants

A cohort study of 79 brand-name drugs with available pricing data from January 2015 to December 2017 was conducted, with data obtained from a national commercial insurance claims database.

Exposures

Change in the list prices set by manufacturers and estimated net prices after rebates among non-Medicaid payers.

Main outcomes and measures

Change in median out-of-pocket spending among all patients and stratified by insurance pharmacy benefit design, including high-deductible insurance plans and plans with any amount of deductibles or coinsurance.

Results

Among 79 drugs, median increases were 16.7% (interquartile range [IQR], 13.6%-21.1%) for list prices, 5.4% (IQR, -3.9% to 11.7%) for net prices, and 3.5% (IQR, 1.4%-9.1%) for out-of-pocket spending from 2015 to 2017. Changes in list prices were correlated with changes in net prices (r = 0.34; P = .002). Overall, changes in out-of-pocket spending were not correlated with changes in list prices (r = 0.14; P = .22) or net prices (r = 0.04; P = .71). Among 53.7% of patients who paid any drug deductible or coinsurance, median out-of-pocket spending increased by 15.0%, and changes were moderately correlated with changes in list prices (r = 0.38; P = .001) but not net prices (r = 0.06; P = .62).

Conclusions and relevance

Some commercially insured patients who pay only prescription drug copayments appear to be insulated from increases in drug prices. However, more than half of patients pay deductibles or coinsurance and may experience substantial increases in out-of-pocket spending when drug prices increase. Among these patients, there was no evidence that manufacturer rebates to insurers are associated with patients' out-of-pocket spending. Policies to rein in unregulated annual increases in list prices for brand-name drugs may have important consequences for patient out-of-pocket spending.

SUBMITTER: Rome BN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8097497 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceImproving access to naloxone is a critical component of the nation's strategy to curb fatal overdoses in the opioid crisis. Standing or protocol orders, prescriptive authority laws, and immunity provisions have been passed by states to expand access, but less attention has been given to potential financial barriers to naloxone access.ObjectiveTo assess trends in out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for naloxone and examine variation in OOP costs by drug brand and payer.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational study analyzed US naloxone claims data from Symphony Health and associated OOP costs for individuals filling naloxone prescriptions by drug brand and payer between January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018. The data were analyzed from March 31, 2021, to April 12, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresThe main measures were trends in annual number of naloxone claims (overall, by payer, and by drug brand) and mean annual OOP costs per claim (overall, by payer, and by drug brand).ResultsOf 719 612 naloxone claims (172 894 generic naloxone, 501 568 Narcan, and 45 150 Evzio) for 2010 through 2018, the number of naloxone claims among insured patients began rapidly increasing after 2014; at the same time, the mean OOP cost of naloxone increased dramatically among the uninsured population. Comparing 2014 with 2018, the mean OOP cost of naloxone decreased by 26% among those with insurance but increased by 506% among uninsured patients. For the uninsured population, the impediment of cost was even larger for certain brands of the drug. In 2016, the mean OOP cost for Evzio among uninsured patients rose to $2136.37 (a 2429% increase relative to 2015) compared with the mean cost of generic naloxone, $72.88, and the cost of Narcan in its first year, $87.95. Throughout the period, the mean OOP costs paid by uninsured patients were higher for Evzio at $1089.17 (95% CI, $884.17-$1294.17) compared with $73.62 (95% CI, $69.24-$78.00) for Narcan and $67.99 (95% CI, $61.42-$74.56) for generic naloxone.Conclusions and relevanceIn this observational study, the findings indicated that the OOP cost of naloxone had been an increasingly substantial barrier to naloxone access for uninsured patients, potentially limiting use among this population, which constituted approximately 20% of adults with opioid use disorder.

Project description:ImportanceHigh and continually increasing pharmaceutical drug spending is a major health and health policy concern in the United States.ObjectiveTo demonstrate trends in prices among popular brand-name prescription drugs.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation of drug prices focuses on 49 top-selling brand-name medications in the United States. Pharmacy claims data from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2017, were obtained from Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis, a database that includes data from more than 35 million individuals with private pharmaceutical insurance. Drugs that exceeded $500 million in US sales or $1 billion in worldwide sales were examined.Main outcomes and measuresThe median sum of out-of-pocket and insurance costs paid by patients or insurers for common prescriptions, presented annually and monthly, was the primary outcome.ResultsIn total, 132 brand-name prescription drugs were identified in 2017 that met the inclusion criteria. Of this total, the study focused on 49 top-selling drugs that exceeded 100 000 pharmacy claims. Substantial cost increases among these drugs was near universal, with a 76% median cost increase from January 2012 through December 2017, and almost all drugs (48 [98%]) displaying regular annual or biannual price increases. Of the 36 drugs that have been available since 2012, 28 (78%) have seen an increase in insurer and out-of-pocket costs by more than 50%, and 16 (44%) have more than doubled in price. Insulins (ie, Novolog, Humalog, and Lantus) and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (ie, Humira and Enbrel) demonstrated highly correlated price increases, coinciding with some of the largest growth in drug costs. Relative price changes did not differ between drugs that entered the market in the past 3 to 6 years and those that have been on the market longer (number of drugs, 13 vs 36; median, 29% increase from January 2015 through December 2017; P = .81) nor between drugs with or without a Food and Drug Administration-approved therapeutic equivalent (number of drugs, 17 vs 32; median, 79% vs 73%; P = .21). Changes in prices paid were highly correlated with third-party estimates of changes in drug net prices (ρ = 0.55; P = 3.8 × 10-5), suggesting that the current rebate system, which incentivizes high list prices and greater reliance on rebates, increases overall costs.Conclusions and relevanceThe growth of drug spending in the United States associated with government-protected market exclusivity is likely to continue; greater price transparency is warranted.

Project description:ImportanceOver the past decade, branded prescription drug manufacturers have substantially increased list prices while offering larger rebate payments to health care insurers. Whereas larger rebates can partially offset increases in list prices for insurers, patient out-of-pocket costs may be directly associated with list prices for individuals without insurance and indirectly associated with list prices for individuals with insurance through deductibles or coinsurance.ObjectiveTo investigate the association between rebates and patient out-of-pocket costs and whether this association differs by coverage type (ie, Medicare, commercial, or uninsured) and before and after 2014.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) combined with pricing data for single-source branded drugs from SSR Health from 2007 through 2018. The study was conducted among a nationally representative sample of the noninstitutionalized civilian US population. Included individuals were respondents to MEPS with at least 1 prescription for a single-source branded drug who were covered by Medicare or commercial insurance or were uninsured during an entire year. Data analyses were conducted from August 2019 through March 2021.ExposuresEstimated rebate size.Main outcomes and measuresOut-of-pocket costs per prescription were calculated, adjusting for year and drug.ResultsAmong 38 131 individuals with at least 1 prescription, the mean age was 54 years (95% CI, 54 to 55 years), with 22 044 women (57.8%) and 29 086 White individuals (76.3%). The sample included 444 unique drugs with a survey-weighted total of 4.7 billion prescriptions. Estimated mean (SE) rebates increased from $34 ($1) per prescription in 2007 to $374 ($9) per prescription in 2018. The rebate sizes were associated with statistically significant mean out-of-pocket increases per branded prescription of $4 (95% CI, $4 to $4) from 2007 to 2013 and $11 (95% CI, $10 to $12) from 2014 to 2018. From 2014 to 2018, rebate sizes were associated with statistically significant mean increases in out-of-pocket costs per prescription of $13 (95% CI, $12 to $13) for individuals with Medicare, $6 (95% CI, $6 to $7) for individuals with commercial insurance, and $39 (95% CI, $34 to $44) for individuals without insurance. After adjusting for list prices, there was no association between rebates and out-of-pocket costs, with a change from 2014 to 2018 of -$0.01 (95% CI, -$0.04 to $0.02).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that drug manufacturers may have provided larger rebates to insurers primarily by increasing list prices and that individuals without insurance had greater cost increases. The results emphasize the need for policy solutions that decouple list prices and out-of-pocket costs.