Changes in Drug List Prices and Amounts Paid by Patients and Insurers

Association between changes in prices and out-of-pocket costs for brand-name clinician-administered drugs

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether annual changes in prices for clinician-administered drugs are associated with changes in patient out-of-pocket costs.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

National commercial claims database, 2009 to 2018.

STUDY DESIGN

In a serial, cross-sectional study, we calculated the annual percent change in manufacturer list prices and net prices after rebates. We used two-part generalized linear models to assess the relationship between annual changes in price with (1) the percentage of individuals incurring any out-of-pocket costs and (2) the percent change in median non-zero out-of-pocket costs.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We created annual cohorts of privately insured individuals who used one of 52 brand-name clinician-administered drugs.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

List prices increased 4.4%/yr (interquartile range [IQR], 1.1% to 6.0%) and net prices 3.3%/yr (IQR, 0.3% to 5.5%). The median percentage of patients with any out-of-pocket costs increased from 38% in 2009 to 48% in 2018, and median non-zero annual out-of-pocket costs increased by 9.6%/yr (IQR, 4.1% to 15.4%). There was no association between changes in prices and out-of-pocket costs for individual drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

From 2009 to 2018, prices and out-of-pocket costs for brand-name clinician-administered drugs increased, but these were not directly related for individual drugs. This may be due to changes to insurance benefit design and private insurer drug reimbursement rates.

Patient perceptions of copay card utilization and policies

BACKGROUND

Copay cards are intended to mitigate patient out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses. This qualitative, exploratory focus group study aimed to capture patient perceptions of copay cards and copay adjustment programs (CAPs; insurers' accumulator and maximizer policies), which redirect the copay card utilization benefits intended for patients' OOP expenses.

METHODS

Patients with chronic conditions were recruited through Janssen's Patient Engagement Research Council program. They completed a survey and attended a live virtual session to provide feedback on copay cards.

RESULTS

Among 33 participants (median age, 49 years [range, 24-78]), the most frequent conditions were cardiovascular-metabolic disease and inflammatory bowel disease. Patients associated copay cards with lessening financial burden, improving general and mental health, and enabling medication adherence. An impact on medication adherence was identified by 10 (63%) White and nine (100%) Black respondents. Some patients were unaware of CAPs despite having encountered them; they recommended greater copay card education and transparency about CAPs.

CONCLUSION

Patients relied on copay cards to help afford their prescribed medication OOP expenses and maintain medication adherence. Use of CAPs may increase patient OOP expenses. Patients would benefit from awareness programs and industry - healthcare provider partnerships that facilitate and ensure access to copay cards.

Assessment of medication adherence after enrollment in a health system funded medication assistance program for patients with diabetes

BACKGROUND

High costs for patients' medications decrease medication access and adherence which contributes to poor clinical outcomes. Numerous medication assistance programs exist, but many patients needing assistance, particularly insured patients, do not receive assistance due to eligibility criteria.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if there is an association between medication adherence to antihyperglycemic therapy and patient access to Nebraska Medicine Charity Care (NMCC).

PRACTICE DESCRIPTION

NMCC covers up to 100% of medication out-of-pocket costs for patients in financial need who do not qualify for other programs.

PRACTICE INNOVATION

There is no published information about a long-term health system-led financial medication assistance program being utilized to improve patient medication adherence and clinical outcomes.

EVALUATION METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted to assess adherence in patients who initiated NMCC between July 1, 2018 and June 30, 2020, with a focus on diabetes for feasibility. Adherence was assessed using a modified medication possession ratio (mMPR) for 6 months after initiating NMCC based on health system dispensing data. Overall population adherence analyses were conducted in all available data, while pre-post analyses were conducted in those with antihyperglycemic medication fills during the prior 6 months.

RESULTS

Of 2758 unique patients receiving NMCC support, 656 patients with diabetes medication use were included. Of these, 71% had prescription insurance and 28% had prescription fills in the baseline period. Mean (SD) adherence to noninsulin antihyperglycemic medications in the follow-up period was 0.80 (0.25) with 63% adherent per mMPR ≥0.80. In the prepost analysis, mMPR was significantly higher during the follow-up period at 0.83 (0.23) than during the preindex period at 0.34 (0.17), as was the proportion who were adherent (66% vs. 2%) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This practice innovation observed an improvement in adherence and A1C outcomes in patients with diabetes who received medication financial assistance through a health system.

"It's just not easy to understand": A mixed methods study of health insurance literacy and insurance plan decision-making in cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Understanding cancer survivors' health insurance decision-making is needed to improve insurance choice, potentially resulting in reduced financial hardship.

METHODS

This explanatory mixed methods study assessed health insurance decision-making in cancer survivors. Health Insurance Literacy Measure (HILM) captured HIL. Quantitative eye-tracking data collected from two simulated health insurance plan choice sets gauged dwell time (seconds), or interest, in benefits. Dwell time differences by HIL were estimated using adjusted linear models. Qualitative interviews explored survivors' insurance decision-making choices.

RESULTS

Cancer survivors (N = 80; 38% breast cancer) had a median age of 43 at diagnosis (IQR 34-52). When comparing traditional and high-deductible health plans, survivors were most interested in drug costs (median dwell time 58 s, IQR 34-109). When comparing health maintenance organization and preferred provider organization plans, survivors were most interested in test/imaging costs (40s, IQR 14-67). Survivors with low versus high HIL had more interest in deductible (β = 19 s, 95% CI 2-38) and hospitalization costs (β = 14 s, 95% CI 1-27) in adjusted models. Survivors with low versus high HIL more often ranked out-of-pocket (OOP) maximums and coinsurance as the most important and confusing benefits, respectively. Interviews (n = 20) revealed survivors felt alone "to do their own research" about insurance choices. OOP maximums were cited as the deciding factor since it is "how much money is going to be taken out of my pocket." Coinsurance was considered "rather than a benefit, it's a hindrance."

CONCLUSION

Interventions to aid in health insurance understanding and choice are needed to optimize plan choice and potentially reduce cancer-related financial hardship.

Health care costs and resource use of managing hemophilia A: A targeted literature review

BACKGROUND: Hemophilia A (HA) is a rare, inherited, serious bleeding disorder characterized by a deficiency of blood clotting factor VIII (FVIII). HA is associated with considerable economic burden. OBJECTIVE: To identify, review, and summarize published studies on the health care resource use and costs of managing HA in the United States using a targeted literature review. METHODS: A comprehensive and targeted literature search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews covering the period 2010 to 2022. We supplemented the search by searching gray literature (relevant abstracts, posters, and presentations of relevant scientific conferences from the past 6 years [2016 to 2022], reference lists, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reports, and other sources). Eligibility criteria were developed based on the population, interventions, comparators, and outcomes framework. For comparability, costs were adjusted to 2021 US dollars. RESULTS: A total of 40 publications, including 17 full-text papers, 21 abstracts, and 2 Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reports, met eligibility criteria. Total annual health care costs per patient ranged from $213,874 to $869,940 and are mainly driven by the cost and intensity of prophylaxis with FVIII replacement concentrates, bypassing agents, and, most recently, emicizumab. Generally, we observed substantial heterogeneity in estimated treatment costs for HA, which varied depending on HA severity, treatment type and intensity, age, weight, and inhibitor status. Patients with inhibitors incurred much higher costs, but annual FVIII treatment costs are increasing over time among a subset of adult patients without inhibitors. Only 2 studies reported indirect costs; these were $13,220 and $27,978 annually among patients without and with inhibitors, respectively. Parents of children with HA spent $8,252 on non-mental health services and $258 on mental health services annually. CONCLUSIONS: The annual health care costs of managing HA are substantial and vary widely, depending on the study population definitions and intensity of prophylaxis. Total health care costs are dominated by the cost of prophylaxis. Indirect costs are also important. More robust studies in various settings, subpopulations, and assessing the impact of emerging therapies are required to fully elucidate the changing societal and economic impact, particularly regarding indirect costs and productivity loss for individuals living with HA. DISCLOSURES: Drs Solari and Thornhill are employees of Spark Therapeutics and Roche Group Shareholders. Ms Chen and Drs Cheng and Sullivan are employees of Curta, Inc. Spark Therapeutics paid Curta, Inc., to conduct the literature search. This study was funded by Spark Therapeutics. Spark Therapeutics was involved in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, article review, and the decision to submit the report for publication. Medical writing support was provided by Ashfield MedComms, an Inizio company.

Alternatives to the quality-adjusted life year: How well do they address common criticisms?

OBJECTIVE

To analyze whether other outcome measures used in health technology assessment (HTA) address the criticisms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

HTA methods guidance from 11 US comparator countries (the G10 and Australia) and six value frameworks from US organizations were reviewed to identify health outcome measures currently used to evaluate the benefits of a drug.

STUDY DESIGN

The study involved a documentary analysis of guidelines to identify outcome measures used by the sampled HTA organizations. Similar outcomes were grouped together into outcome types. Each type was analyzed to determine the extent to which it replicates key advantages and responds to criticisms of QALYs extracted from the literature.

EXTRACTION METHODS

Outcomes were included if guidance from at least one HTA organization identified the outcome as acceptable for HTA. Outcomes measuring or evaluating the benefit, clinical effect, or impact of a drug or health technology was included; methods of calculating costs were excluded.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Seven types of outcome measures were identified falling into three groups: preference-based, single-dimension outcomes, and outcomes using non-health perspectives. Among the seven QALY alternative outcome measures currently used for HTA by the sampled countries, no one outcome measure addresses all the QALY criticisms while retaining the advantageous features of the QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Proposals to adopt health technology assessment (HTA) to support value-based pricing of prescription drugs in the US have faced pushback over the use of the QALY. There is no single "right" outcome measure, and the criticisms of QALYs apply to other outcome measures used to evaluate health. The measures identified have different features and strengths, which may be appropriate for specific decision making goals, but the QALY remains the best option for decision making that requires comparisons of the overall societal value of health gains.

Impact of list price changes on out-of-pocket costs and adherence in four high-rebate specialty drugs

BACKGROUND

Insurers manage the cost of specialty medicines via rebates, however it is unclear if the savings are passed on to patients, and whether reducing rebates may lead to changes in patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and medication adherence. This study examined two drug classes to understand the impact of reducing list prices to net prices, via lower-priced national drug codes (NDCs) or authorized generics, on patient OOP costs and adherence.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis assessed IQVIA PharMetrics ® Plus adjudicated medical and pharmacy claims for commercially insured patients. Patient OOP costs per prescription and payer drug costs were assessed for evolocumab or alirocumab (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors [PCSK9is]) or velpatasvir/sofosbuvir or ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (hepatitis C virus [HCV] medications). For PCSK9is and HCV medications, the original and lower-priced versions were compared. Adherence was estimated based on proportion of days covered (PDC) (PCSK9is) and receipt of full treatment regimen (HCV medications).

RESULTS

In total, 10,640 patients were included (evolocumab, 5,042; alirocumab, 1,438; velpatasvir/sofosbuvir, 2,952; ledipasvir/sofosbuvir,1,208). After list price reductions, mean payer drug costs decreased by over 60%, while patient OOP cost reductions ranged from 14% to 55% (evolocumab: 55%, p < 0.01; alirocumab: 51%, p < 0.01; velpatasvir/sofosbuvir: 30%, p < 0.01; ledipasvir/sofosbuvir: 14%, p = 0.03). Patients with coinsurance as the largest contributor to their OOP costs had the largest reductions in OOP costs, ranging from adjusted, mean values of US$135 to US$379 (>60% reductions). Six-month PDC for PCSK9is and proportion receiving full HCV treatment regimen were high with the original versions and did not substantially differ with the new, lower-priced versions.

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing list prices to approximate net prices (as a proxy for reducing rebates) resulted in lower patient OOP costs, particularly for those with coinsurance. Our findings suggest that future reduction of rebates may assist in patient affordability, although additional transparency is needed.

Medication cost-reducing behaviors in older adults with atrial fibrillation: The SAGE-AF study

BACKGROUND

As patient prices for many medications have risen steeply in the United States, patients may engage in cost-reducing behaviors (CRBs) such as asking for generic medications or purchasing medication from the Internet.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to describe patterns of CRB, cost-related medication nonadherence, and spending less on basic needs to afford medications among older adults with atrial fibrillation (AF) and examine participant characteristics associated with CRB.

METHODS

Data were from a prospective cohort study of older adults at least 65 years with AF and a high stroke risk (CHA2DS2VASc ≥ 2). CRB, cost-related medication nonadherence, and spending less on basic needs to afford medications were evaluated using validated measures. Chi-square and t tests were used to evaluate differences in characteristics across CRB, and statistically significant characteristics (P < 0.05) were entered into a multivariable logistic regression to examine factors associated with CRB.

RESULTS

Among participants (N = 1224; mean age 76 years; 49% female), 69% reported engaging in CRB, 4% reported cost-related medication nonadherence, and 6% reported spending less on basic needs. Participants who were cognitively impaired (adjusted odds ratio 0.69 [95% CI 0.52-0.91]) and those who did not identify as non-Hispanic white (0.66 [0.46-0.95]) were less likely to engage in CRB. Participants who were married (1.88 [1.30-2.72]), had a household income of $20,000-$49,999 (1.52 [1.02-2.27]), had Medicare insurance (1.38 [1.04-1.83]), and had 4-6 comorbidities (1.43 [1.01-2.01]) had significantly higher odds of engaging in CRB.

CONCLUSION

Although CRBs were common among older adults with AF, few reported cost-related medication nonadherence and spending less on basic needs. Patients with cognitive impairment may benefit from pharmacist intervention to provide support in CRB and patient assistance programs.

Health Economics Research in Cancer Treatment: Current Challenges and Future Directions

The National Cancer Institute Division of Cancer Control and Population Science hosted a virtual conference on the Future of Cancer Health Economics Research and included a presentation from a workgroup that considered current challenges and future directions in health economics research centered on cancer treatment. The workgroup identified 3 broad categories of focus: data limitations, opportunities for training for clinicians and health economists interested in collaboration, and the need for prospective economic study of cancer treatment. Within these areas of focus, the workgroup recommended the following: improvement of the availability of key economic measures in data available to researchers, creation of more comprehensive datasets robust to insurance type or coverage, development of cancer care health economics research-focused symposia, instituting clear mechanisms to support integration of economic analyses alongside clinical trials, development of standardized methods to measure the cost of cancer care to health-care systems and patients, and development of standardized evaluations that include measures of social determinants of health.

Prescription drug coverage satisfaction and medication nonadherence among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer

BACKGROUND

Medication nonadherence among older patients with cancer can have profound health consequences. This study examines the association between prescription drug coverage satisfaction and medication nonadherence among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer.

METHODS

We analyzed the 2017 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey Public Use File of beneficiaries aged ≥65 years with reported non-skin cancer (n = 806). Beneficiaries were considered to have medication nonadherence if they reported: skipping doses, taking smaller doses than prescribed, or delaying or not filling a prescription because of cost. A survey-weighted logistic model, adjusted for covariates, was conducted to examine the association between prescription drug coverage satisfaction and medication nonadherence.

RESULTS

Of study beneficiaries with cancer, 14.7% reported medication nonadherence. Higher proportions of beneficiaries with medication nonadherence were dissatisfied with the amount paid for medications (33.2% vs. 11.0%, p < 0.001) and the medications included on formulary (29.5% vs 5.2%, p < 0.001). In the adjusted analysis, the risk for medication nonadherence was higher among those who were dissatisfied with the amount paid for medications (OR = 2.22; p = 0.050) and the medications included on formulary (OR = 5.03; p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Strategic mitigation of these barriers is essential to improving health outcomes in this at-risk population.

Direct costs of adhering to selected Duchenne muscular dystrophy care considerations: estimates from a Midwestern state

INTRODUCTION/AIMS

The multidisciplinary Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) Care Considerations were developed to standardize care and improve outcomes. We provide cumulative cost estimates for selected key preventive (i.e., excluding new molecular therapies and acute care) elements of the care considerations in eight domains (neuromuscular, rehabilitation, respiratory, cardiac, orthopedic, gastrointestinal, endocrine, psychosocial management) independent of completeness of uptake or provision of non-preventive care.

METHODS

We used de-identified insurance claims data from a large Midwestern commercial health insurer during 2018. We used Current Procedural Terminology and National Drug codes to extract unit costs for clinical encounters representing key preventive elements of the DMD Care Considerations. We projected per-patient cumulative costs from ages 5 to 25 years for these elements by multiplying a schedule of recommended frequencies of preventive services by unit costs in 2018 US dollars.

RESULTS

Assuming a diagnosis at age 5 years, independent ambulation until age 11, and survival until age 25, we estimated 670 billable clinical events. The 20-year per-patient cumulative cost was $174,701 with prednisone ($2.3 million with deflazacort) and an expected total of $12,643 ($29,194) for out-of-pocket expenses associated with those events and medications.

DISCUSSION

Standardized monitoring of disease progression and treatments may reduce overall costs of illness. Costs associated with these services would be needed to quantify potential savings. Our approach demonstrates a method to estimate costs associated with implementation of preventive care schedules.

Estimated Savings From International Reference Pricing for Prescription Drugs

This study estimates what 2020 national US savings would have been using international reference pricing rather than US manufacturer and net prices for insulins and 50 top brand-name drugs.

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

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.