Trends of Prescription Drug Manufacturer Rebates in Commercial Health Insurance Plans, 2015-2019.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Plummer E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9077484 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Trends of Prescription Drug Manufacturer Rebates in Commercial Health Insurance Plans, 2015-2019.
Plummer Elizabeth E Socal Mariana P MP Ballreich Jeromie M JM Anderson Gerard F GF Bai Ge G
JAMA health forum 20220506 5
This economic evaluation examines the magnitude and trend of prescription drug rebates in commercial markets from 2015 to 2019 and identifies insurance plan factors associated with rebates. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceThe commercial health insurance market is characterized by consistently high enrollee turnover. Turnover can disrupt care continuity for patients and create challenges for insurers in managing the health of their enrollee populations. Yet the extent to which enrollees reenroll is not widely known.ObjectiveTo characterize rates of disenrollment (hereafter, external turnover) and reenrollment in commercial health plans.Design, setting, and participantsIn this retrospective longitudinal cohort study, trends in turnover and reenrollment in commercial health plans between January 1, 2006, and August 31, 2018, were analyzed. Data analysis was conducted from January 21, 2020, through December 23, 2021. Participants included 3 018 633 primary members and their dependents with employer-sponsored coverage.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes included external turnover from commercial coverage and subsequent reenrollment into any line of business with the insurer (commercial, Medicaid Managed Care, and Medicare Advantage). Within commercial coverage, external turnover was analyzed separately for group (ie, employer-sponsored) and individual markets.ResultsIn the sample of 3 018 633 members, 50.2% were men; mean (SD) age, including dependents, was 30.68 (19.05) years. A total of 2.2% of members experienced external turnover each month and 21.5% experienced external turnover each year. The individual market had the highest average monthly turnover rate of 3.4% compared with 2.1% in the group market. December had the highest rate of external turnover, with 13.8% experiencing external turnover in the individual market and 6.9% of members experiencing external turnover in the group market. Fourteen percent of the members who left the insurer from an individual plan reenrolled with the insurer after 1 year, and 34% had reenrolled after 5 years. Among members who left the insurer from a group plan, 12% reenrolled after 1 year and 32% reenrolled after 5 years. After 10 years, reenrollment reached 47% in the 2 markets. More than 80% of enrollees returned to the same line of business and within the same state, suggesting findings may generalize to smaller insurers.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cohort study suggest that insurers may benefit from investing in members' long-term health outcomes despite substantial short-term turnover rates.
| S-EPMC8874349 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11551491 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the use of guideline-recommended prescription medications for diabetes among Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in stand-alone prescription drug plans (PDPs) with Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans (MAPDs) in the presence of potential selection bias.Data sources/study settingCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Chronic Condition Data Warehouse (2006, 2007).Study designRetrospective cross-sectional comparison of drug use and proportion of days covered (PDC) for oral-antidiabetics, ACE-inhibitors/ARBs, and antihyperlipidemics among PDP and MAPD enrollees with diabetes. We estimated "naïve" regression models assuming exogenous plan choice and two-stage residual inclusion (2SRI) models to study endogeneity in choice of Part D plan type.Data collection/extraction methodsWe identified 111,290 diabetics based on ICD-9 codes in Medicare claims from a random 5 percent sample of Medicare beneficiaries in 2005 excluding dual eligibles.Principal findingsThe naïve regression models indicated lower probability of drug use for oral-antidiabetics (-4 percent; p < .001) and ACE-inhibitors/ARBS (-2 percent; p = .004) among PDP enrollees, but their PDC was higher (3-5 percent) for all drug classes (p < .001). 2SRI models produced no significant differences in any-use equations, but significantly higher PDC values for PDP enrollees for oral-antidiabetics and ACE-inhibitors/ARBs.ConclusionsWe found similar overall use of recommended drugs in diabetes treatment and no consistent evidence of favorable or adverse selection into PDPs and MAPDs.
| S-EPMC3681243 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAlthough manufacturer-sponsored coupons are commonly used, little is known about how patients use them within a treatment episode.ObjectivesTo examine when and how frequently patients use manufacturer coupons during a treatment episode for a chronic condition, and to characterize factors associated with more frequent use.Design, setting, and participantsThis is a retrospective cohort study of a 5% nationally representative sample of anonymized longitudinal retail pharmacy claims data from October 1, 2017, to September 30, 2019, obtained from IQVIA's Formulary Impact Analyzer. The data were analyzed from September to December 2022. Patients with new treatment episodes using at least 1 manufacturer coupon over a 12-month period were identified. This study focused on patients with 3 or more fills for a given drug and characterized the association of the outcomes of interest with patient, drug, and drug class characteristics.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were (1) the frequency of coupon use, measured as the proportion of prescription fills accompanied by manufacturer coupon within the treatment episode, and (2) the timing of first coupon use relative to the first prescription fill within the treatment episode.ResultsA total of 36 951 treatment episodes accounted for 238 474 drug claims and 35 352 unique patients (mean [SD] age, 48.1 [18.2] years; 17 676 women [50.0%]). Among these episodes, nearly all instances (35 103 episodes [95.0%]) of first coupon use occurred within the first 4 prescription fills. Approximately two-thirds of treatment episodes (24 351 episodes [65.9%]) used a coupon for the incident fill. Coupons were used for a median (IQR) of 3 (2-6) fills. The median (IQR) proportion of fills with a coupon was 70.0% (33.3%-100.0%), and many patients discontinued the drug after the last coupon. After adjustment for covariates, there was no significant association between an individual's out-of-pocket costs or neighborhood-level income and the frequency of coupon use. The estimated proportion of fills with a coupon was greater for products in competitive (19.5% increase; 95% CI, 2.1%-36.9%) or oligopolistic (14.5% increase; 95% CI, 3.5%-25.6%) markets than monopoly markets when there is only 1 drug in the therapeutic class.Conclusions and relevanceIn this retrospective cohort analysis of individuals receiving pharmaceutical treatment for chronic diseases, the frequency of manufacturer-sponsored drug coupon use was associated with the degree of market competition, rather than patients' out-of-pocket costs.
| S-EPMC10189560 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIncreasing prices of antidiabetic medications in the US have raised substantial concerns about the effects of drug affordability on diabetes care. There has been little rigorous evidence comparing the experiences of patients with diabetes across different types of insurance coverage.ObjectiveTo compare the utilization patterns and costs of prescription drugs to treat diabetes among low-income adults with Medicaid vs those with Marketplace insurance in Colorado during 2014 and 2015.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study included diabetic patients enrolled in Colorado Medicaid and Marketplace plans who were aged 19 to 64 years and had incomes between 75% and 200% of the federal poverty level during 2014 and 2015. Data analysis was conducted from September 2020 to April 2021.ExposuresHealth insurance through Colorado Medicaid or Colorado's state-based Marketplace.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were drug utilization (prescription drug fills) and drug costs (total costs and out-of-pocket costs). The secondary outcome was months with an active prescription for noninsulin antidiabetic medications. An all payer claims database was combined with income data, and linear models were used to adjust for clinical and demographic confounders.ResultsOf 22 788 diabetic patients included in the study, 20 245 were enrolled in Medicaid and 2543 in a Marketplace plan. Marketplace-eligible individuals were older (mean [SD] age, 52.12 [10.60] vs 47.70 [11.33] years), and Medicaid-eligible individuals were more likely to be female (12 429 [61.4%] vs 1413 [55.6%]). Medicaid-eligible patients were significantly more likely than Marketplace-eligible patients to fill prescriptions for dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (adjusted difference, -3.7%; 95% CI, -5.3 to -2.1; P < .001) and sulfonylureas (adjusted difference, -6.6%; 95% CI, -8.9 to -4.3; P < .001). Overall rates of insulin use were similar in the 2 groups (adjusted difference, -2.3%; -5.1 to 0.5; P = .11). Out-of-pocket costs for noninsulin medications were 84.4% to 95.2% lower and total costs were 9.4% to 54.2% lower in Medicaid than in Marketplace plans. Out-of-pocket costs for insulin were 76.7% to 94.7% lower in Medicaid than in Marketplace plans, whereas differences in total insulin costs were mixed. The percentage of months of apparent active medication coverage was similar between the 2 groups for 4 of 5 drug classes examined, with Marketplace-eligible patients having a greater percentage of months than Medicaid-eligible patients for sulfonylureas (adjusted difference, 5.3%; 95% CI, 0.3%-10.4%; P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, drug utilization across multiple drug classes was higher and drug costs were significantly lower for adults with diabetes enrolled in Medicaid than for those with subsidized Marketplace plans. Patients with Marketplace coverage had a similar percentage of months with an active prescription as patients with Medicaid coverage.
| S-EPMC8760612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We study choice over prescription insurance plans by the elderly using government administrative data to evaluate how these choices evolve over time. We find large "foregone savings" from not choosing the lowest cost plan that has grown over time. We develop a structural framework to decompose the changes in "foregone welfare" from inconsistent choices into choice set changes and choice function changes from a fixed choice set. We find that foregone welfare increases over time due primarily to changes in plan characteristics such as premiums and out-of-pocket costs; we estimate little learning at either the individual or cohort level.
| S-EPMC5665392 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUrinary tract infections are among the most common reason for encounter and subsequent antibiotic prescriptions. Due to the risk of collateral damage and increasing resistance rates, explicit recommendations against the use of fluoroquinolones like ciprofloxacin in uncomplicated urinary tract infections have been issued. However, to what extent these recommendations were followed and if there are relevant differences between the disciplines involved (general practitioners, urologists, paediatricians and gynaecologists) are unknown.MethodsWe used anonymized data from a local statutory health insurance (SHI) company, which covered about 38% of all SHI-insured persons in the federal state of Bremen, Germany between 2015-2019. Data included demographics, outpatient diagnoses and filled prescriptions on an individual level.ResultsOne-year prevalence of urinary tract infections was 5.8% in 2015 (females: 9.2%, males: 2.5%). Of all 102,715 UTI cases, 78.6% referred to females and 21.4% to males, 6.0% of cases were younger than 18 years. In females, general practitioners were the most common diagnosing speciality (52.2%), followed by urologists (20.0%) and gynaecologists (16.1%). Overall, fluoroquinolones were most often prescribed (26.3%), followed by fosfomycin (16.1%) and the combination of sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim (14.2%). Fluoroquinolones were most often prescribed by urologists and general practitioners, while gynaecologists preferred fosfomycin. During the study period, shares of fluoroquinolones decreased from 29.4% to 8.7% in females and from 45.9% to 22.3% in males.ConclusionsDespite a clear trend toward a more guideline adherent prescription pattern, there is still room for improvement regarding the use of second-line antibiotics especially fluoroquinolones. The choice of antibiotics prescribed differs between specialities with higher uptake of guideline-recommended antibiotics by gynaecologists, mainly because of higher prescription shares of fosfomycin.
| S-EPMC9367112 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReimbursement for outpatient prescription drugs is not mandated by the Canada Health Act or any other federal legislation. Provincial governments independently establish reimbursement plans. We sought to describe variations in publicly funded provincial drug plans across Canada and to examine the impact of this variation on patients' annual expenditures.MethodsWe collected information, accurate to December 2006, about publicly funded prescription drug plans from all 10 Canadian provinces. Using clinical scenarios, we calculated the impact of provincial cost-sharing strategies on individual annual drug expenditures for 3 categories of patients with different levels of income and 2 levels of annual prescription burden ($260 and $1000).ResultsWe found that eligibility criteria and cost-sharing details of the publicly funded prescription drug plans differed markedly across Canada, as did the personal financial burden due to prescription drug costs. Seniors pay 35% or less of their prescription costs in 2 provinces, but elsewhere they may pay as much as 100%. With few exceptions, nonseniors pay more than 35% of their prescription costs in every province. Most social assistance recipients pay 35% or less of their prescription costs in 5 provinces and pay no costs in the other 5. In an example of a patient with congestive heart failure, his out-of-pocket costs for a prescription burden of $1283 varied between $74 and $1332 across the provinces.InterpretationConsiderable interprovincial variation in publicly funded prescription drug plans results in substantial variation in annual expenditures by Canadians with identical prescription burdens. A revised pharmaceutical strategy might reduce these major inequities.
| S-EPMC2228358 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe US spends far more on brand-name prescription drugs than other comparable countries. However, studies of prescription drug spending in the US are often limited because there can be substantial differences in the confidential rebates that drug manufacturers pay to Medicaid vs other payers.ObjectivesTo demonstrate an approach for improved estimation of Medicaid rebates through case studies of 18 top-selling drugs to better understand trends in net Medicaid and non-Medicaid spending and prices for brand-name drugs.Design, settings, and participantsThis was a cross-sectional study of US pricing data from 2015 to 2019 derived from Medicaid State Drug Utilization data SSR Health, Medi-Span, the Federal Supply Schedule, and IQVIA. Pricing data for 18 top-selling brand-name drugs measured consistently in both SSR Health, which captures US sales reported by publicly traded companies, and IQVIA's top US prescription drugs by nondiscounted spending in 2015 to 2019. Data were accessed and analyzed from January 2019 to June 2021.Main outcomes and measuresGross and net Medicaid and non-Medicaid drug spending for the sample of 18 drugs and prices corresponding to a 30-day supply of medication.ResultsMedicaid aggregate gross spending for the 18 drugs in the sample increased 173%, from $3.6 billion in 2015 to $9.9 billion in 2019, and estimated net spending after discounts increased by 119%, from $1.4 billion to $3.0 billion. Medicaid inflation-linked rebates reduced average gross price per 30-day supply by an estimated 43% in 2019, and up to 67% for individual drugs. In addition to the basic rebate, the best price provision reduced the average gross price per 30-day supply by an estimated 3% in 2019 and up to 54% for individual drugs. Between 2015 and 2019 across all study drugs, estimated average non-Medicaid net 30-day prices were between 1.9 and 2.6 times higher than Medicaid net prices. Excluding adalimumab-a spending anomaly because of the entry of a new high-cost formulation-net prices weighted by average gross spending decreased annually by 1% from 2015 through 2019 for Medicaid, while increasing by 2% for non-Medicaid payers.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of 18 top-selling brand-name drugs, excluding 1 anomaly, Medicaid average net prices declined from 2015 to 2019. Simultaneously, for non-Medicaid payers, net price increased more than previously published marketwide growth rates, raising the importance of restraining drug price growth in non-Medicaid markets. Rigorous and transparent methods to estimate Medicaid discounts are imperative to understand patterns in Medicaid and non-Medicaid prices and develop policies that better align drug prices with clinical benefits.
| S-EPMC9857139 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo characterize price trends and variation for US generic and branded drugs at the retail level as they relate to pharmacy acquisition costs and local market factors.Data sourcesDrug pricing data consisting of US pharmacy claims from 2014 to 2019 collected and licensed by GoodRx, an online tool for comparing drug prices.Study designTime trends of median drug prices and coefficients of variation were measured for generic and branded drugs, including subgroups based on clinical condition (i.e., diabetes and cancer). Pharmacy competition was measured using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) at the zip-code level. Multivariable linear regression analysis assessed the impact of local market-level factors on drug prices and variation.Data collectionUS drug pricing data consisting of claims filled through a mix of public and private insurance at 58,332 chain and independent pharmacies across 14,421 zip codes in all 50 states.Principal findingsFrom 2014 to 2019, pharmacy retail markets trended towards greater competition: average HHI by zip code decreased by 15.0% (p < 0.001). Median cash price increased significantly for both generic (6.58%, p < 0.001) and branded (84.10%, p < 0.001) drugs. When normalized to acquisition costs, cash prices for generic drugs rose 22.03% (p < 0.001) while those of branded drugs decreased by 2.31% (p < 0.001). Diabetes drugs showed higher baseline overall markup of cash prices relative to acquisition costs (10.54, Interquartile range (IQR) 3.28-18.43) than cancer drugs (1.88, IQR 1.36-3.08). Neither local pharmacy competition nor median income significantly predicted drug price or variation.ConclusionMeasures of generic drug price and price variation are high despite decreased costs earlier in the pharmaceutical supply chain, defying expectations of what would happen in a competitive market. Efforts to bypass the pharmacy benefit model for generic drugs may offer consumers an opportunity for substantial savings.
| S-EPMC9108059 | biostudies-literature