Dataset Information

Availability of Cost-effectiveness Studies for Drugs With High Medicare Part D Expenditures.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Prescription drug spending in the US requires policy intervention to control costs and improve the value obtained from pharmaceutical spending. One such intervention is to apply cost-effectiveness evidence to decisions regarding drug coverage and pricing, but this intervention depends on the existence of such evidence to guide decisions.

Objective

To characterize the availability and quality of cost-effectiveness studies for prescription drugs with the greatest Medicare Part D spending.

Design, setting, and participants

In this national cross-sectional analysis, publicly available 2016 Medicare drug spending records were merged with 2016 US Food & Drug Administration Orange Book data and the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry. All studies published through 2015 that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the 250 drugs for which Medicare Part D spending was the greatest in US-based adult patient populations were included. Data were analyzed from September 2018 to June 2020.

Main outcomes and measures

The presence and quality of published cost-effectiveness analyses for the 250 drugs for which Medicare Part D spending was greatest in 2016 were assessed based on the inclusion of key cost-effectiveness analysis elements and global ratings by independent reviewers for the Tufts CEA Registry.

Results

Medicare Part D spending on the 250 drugs in the sample totaled $122.8 billion in 2016 (84.1% of total spending). Of these 250 drugs, 91 (36.4%) had a generic equivalent and 159 (63.6%) retained some patent exclusivity. There were 280 unique cost-effectiveness analyses for these drugs, representing data on 135 (54.0%) of the 250 drugs included and 67.0% of Part D spending on the top 250 drugs. The 115 drugs (46.0%) without cost-effectiveness studies accounted for 33.0% of Part D spending on the top 250 drugs. Of the 280 available studies, 128 (45.7%) were industry sponsored. A large proportion of the studies (250 [89.3%]) did not meet the minimum quality requirements.

Conclusions and relevance

In this cross-sectional study, a substantial proportion of 2016 Medicare Part D spending was for drugs with absent or low-quality cost-effectiveness analyses. The lack of quality analyses may present a challenge in efforts to develop policies addressing drug spending in terms of value.

SUBMITTER: Tisdale RL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8214163 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has proposed to reform drug pricing in Medicare Part B, which primarily covers physician-administered drugs and biologic agents. One HHS proposal would shift coverage of certain drugs from Medicare Part B to Part D, which is administered by private prescription drug plans.ObjectiveTo estimate the association of changes of a shift in Medicare Part B to Part D with total drug spending and patient cost-sharing.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective drug cohort study of the 75 brand-name drugs associated with the highest Part B expenditures among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in 2016.Main outcomes and measuresEstimated total Medicare spending in Part B and Part D; annual out-of-pocket costs in Part B and under the standard 2018 Part D benefit; and proportion of drugs in Part D's protected drug classes (immunosuppressants for prophylaxis of organ transplant rejection, antidepressants, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, antiretrovirals, and antineoplastics).ResultsAt 2018 prices, total Medicare Part B spending for the 75 brand-name drugs with the highest Part B expenditures was estimated to be $21.6 billion annually. Under the proposed policy, total Part D drug spending for these drugs was estimated to range between $17.6 billion and $20.1 billion after rebates, corresponding to a 6.9% to 18.3% decrease in drug spending in Part D compared with Part B. Of the 75 drugs studied, 33 (44.0%) drugs, accounting for $9.5 billion (43.9%) in Part B spending, were in protected Part D classes where plans must cover essentially all drugs. For 67 drugs with available information, the prices for 65 (97.0%) were a median of 45.8% to 59.7% lower in comparator high-income countries than Part B drug prices. Median patient cost-sharing in Part B for all 75 brand-name drugs was $4683 (interquartile range [IQR], $1069-$9282) per year. Shifting Part B drugs to the 2018 standard Part D benefit was projected to decrease out-of-pocket costs by a median of $860 (IQR, -$3884 to $496) among Medicare beneficiaries without Medicaid or Part B supplemental insurance (Medigap). For beneficiaries who would qualify for the low-income subsidy program in Part D, cost-sharing would be lower in Part D than in Part B for all drugs. For beneficiaries with Medigap insurance, estimated Part D out-of-pocket costs exceeded average Medigap premium costs by a median of $1460 for those with Part D coverage and by a median of $1952 for those without Part D coverage.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough the HHS proposal to shift certain drugs from Medicare Part B to Part D may reduce total drug spending, it may increase out-of-pocket costs for some Medicare beneficiaries, including those with Medicare supplement insurance. The Department of Health and Human Services should ensure that the proposed reforms benefit both patients and payers.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough Medicare Part D improved drug benefits for many beneficiaries, its impact on the coverage of Medicare Advantage Part D (MAPD) enrollees depended on their pre-existing benefits and whether they had gap coverage under Part D.ObjectiveTo examine changes in prescription drug utilization and expenditures associated with drug benefit changes resulting from the implementation of Part D.PatientsWe studied 248,773 continuously enrolled MAPD patients in eight states. Patients whose insurance product or Census block could not be identified or who had atypical benefits, low-income subsidies or Medicaid coverage were excluded.Main measuresThe main outcomes were changes in prescription drug days supply and expenditures from 2005 to 2006 and 2005 to 2007.DesignWe linked Census data with 2005-7 MAPD claims, encounter, enrollment, and benefits data and estimated associations of the outcomes with changes in drug benefits, controlling for 2005 comorbidities, demographics, and Census population characteristics.Key resultsMAPD enrollees whose drug benefits became potentially less generous after Part D had the smallest increases in drug utilization and expenditures (e.g., drug expenditures increased by $130 between 2005 and 2006), while those who potentially gained the most from Part D experienced the largest increases ($302). The differences in benefit design changes had a stronger association with drug utilization and outcomes among patients at high risk of gap entry than among the entire sample.ConclusionsAlthough Medicare Part D unambiguously improved drug coverage for many elderly, it led to heterogeneous changes in drug benefits among MAPD enrollees, who already had generic and sometimes branded drug benefits. After 2006, benefits were worse for individuals who had branded drug coverage in 2005 but now had a coverage gap, but benefits may have improved for individuals who acquired branded drug coverage. Commensurate with these differential changes in benefits following Part D, changes in drug utilization and expenditures varied substantially as well.

Project description:Importance:The 2019 federal Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative requires a vast expansion of access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) and preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV treatment and prevention. However, high prices for ART and PrEP can reduce their affordability and use. Medicare covers 1 in 4 persons living with HIV, and the Medicare Part D drug benefit imposes complicated cost-sharing between patients and other stakeholders. Objective:To determine how the Medicare Part D design distributes the cost burden for ART and PrEP between patients, insurance plans, manufacturers, and Medicare. Design and Setting:Nationwide cross-sectional analyses of first quarter 2019 Medicare formulary and pricing files for 3326 Part D plans were performed. These files contain drug benefit data, including prices and cost-sharing requirements. Main Outcomes and Measures:For 18 ART and 2 PrEP regimens, the out-of-pocket costs for patients and the cost borne by plans, manufacturers, and Medicare were projected for 1 year of treatment or prevention under a 2019 standard Medicare Part D insurance plan. Analyses assumed that patients used the ART or PrEP regimen and no other medications. Results:In 2019, ART prices ranged from $24?010 to $46?770 annually (median price, $35?780), with patients projected to pay 9% to 14% of the cost ($3270-$4350), insurance plans 18% to 24% ($5340-$8450), manufacturers 6% to 11% ($2370-$2750), and Medicare 53% to 67% ($12?770-$31?270). The price of PrEP was $20?570 annually, with patients contributing 15% ($2990), insurance plans 22% ($4570), manufacturers 13% ($2750), and Medicare 50% ($10?260). For beneficiaries with low-income subsidies that cover all patient cost-sharing, Medicare would assume 67% to 76% of ART costs and 65% of PrEP costs. Conclusions and Relevance:Medicare Part D mandates universal ART and PrEP coverage, but high prices (>$35?000 annually for ART and>$20?000 annually for PrEP) and the design of Part D can jeopardize affordability for patients and place most of the cost burden on taxpayers. Under a standard Medicare Part D benefit, patients pay $3000 to $4000 out-of-pocket yearly, unless they qualify for low-income subsidies, and half to two-thirds of the cost of ART and PrEP is borne by Medicare rather than insurance plans or manufacturers. To end the HIV epidemic by 2030, it appears that policies must address both high drug prices and revamp Medicare Part D cost-sharing.