Assessing the Added Therapeutic Benefit of Ultra-Expensive Drugs

How do the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's Assessments of Comparative Effectiveness Compare With the German Federal Joint Committee's Assessments of Added Benefit? A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVES

We compared the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's (ICER) ratings of comparative clinical effectiveness with the German Federal Joint Committee's (G-BA) added benefit ratings, and explored what factors may explain the disagreement between the 2 organizations.

METHODS

We included drugs if they were assessed by ICER under its 2020 to 2023 Value Assessment Framework and had a corresponding assessment by G-BA as of January 2024 for the same indication, patient population, and comparator drug. To compare assessments, we modified ICER's proposed crosswalk between G-BA and ICER benefit ratings to account for G-BA's certainty ratings. We also determined whether each pair was based on similar evidence. Assessment pairs exhibiting disagreement based on the modified crosswalk despite a similar evidence base were qualitatively analyzed to identify reasons for disagreement.

RESULTS

Out of 15 drug assessment pairs matched on indication, patient subgroup, and comparator, none showed agreement in their assessments when based on similar evidence. Disagreement was attributed to differences in evidence evaluation, including evaluations of safety, generalizability, and study design, as well as G-BA's rejection of the available evidence in 4 cases as unsuitable.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings demonstrate that even under conditions where populations and comparators are identical and the evidence base is consistent, different assessors may arrive at divergent conclusions about comparative effectiveness, thus underscoring the presence of value judgments within assessments of clinical effectiveness. To support initiatives that seek to facilitate the exchange of value assessments between countries, these value judgments should always be transparently presented and justified in assessment summaries.

Estimated Savings From Using Added Therapeutic Benefit and Therapeutic Reference Pricing in United States Medicare Drug Price Negotiations

OBJECTIVES

US Medicare will begin negotiating prices for top-selling drugs in 2023. This study describes and estimates potential savings from a therapeutic reference pricing approach, linking comparative effectiveness with the costs of existing therapeutic alternatives, that Medicare could use to adjust the starting point for price negotiations.

METHODS

First, we identified target drugs likely to be selected for Medicare negotiation. Second, we identified comparative effectiveness ratings for target drugs based on French Haute Autorité de Santé reports. For target drugs with minor or no added benefit, we identified therapeutic alternatives based on the French reports and US clinical guidelines. For each target drug with minor or no added benefit, we computed the difference between spending based on the drug's estimated statutory ceiling price and spending based on the weighted average cost of therapeutic alternatives or the lowest cost therapeutic alternative. Finally, we calculated potential annual savings from using a starting point in negotiations based on costs of therapeutic alternatives.

RESULTS

Potential drug-level savings to Medicare from using a starting point in negotiations based on average spending across therapeutic alternatives, compared with using the statutory ceiling price alone, ranged from $186 541 340 to $2 173 441 197. Potential savings from using a starting point based on the lowest cost alternative ranged from $199 872 163 to $3 605 904 765.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we do not expect Medicare to rely on French comparative effectiveness assessments, this study demonstrates the potential for additional savings when using comparative effectiveness and costs of therapeutic alternatives to inform the starting price for negotiations.

Incorporating Added Therapeutic Benefit and Domestic Reference Pricing Into Medicare Payment for Expensive Part B Drugs

OBJECTIVES

Identify expensive Part B drugs and evidence for each drug's added benefit and model a reimbursement policy for Medicare that integrates added benefit assessment and domestic reference pricing.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis using a 20% nationally representative sample of 2015 to 2019 traditional Medicare Part B claims. Expensive drugs were defined as having average annual spending per beneficiary exceeding the average annual social security benefit ($17 532 in 2019). For expensive drugs identified in 2019, added benefit assessments conducted by the French Haute Autorité de Santé were collected. For expensive drugs with a low added benefit rating, comparator drugs were identified in French Haute Autorité de Santé reports. For each comparator, average annual spending per beneficiary in Part B was computed. Potential savings from 2 reference pricing scenarios were calculated: reimbursing expensive Part B drugs with low added benefit at the level of each drug's (1) lowest cost comparator and (2) beneficiary-weighted-average cost of all comparators.

RESULTS

The number of expensive Part B drugs grew from 56 in 2015 to 92 in 2019. Of the 92 expensive drugs in 2019, 34 offer low added benefit. Implementing reference pricing for these expensive drugs with low added benefit could have saved an estimated $2.1 billion if prices were set based on spending for their lowest cost comparator, or $1 billion if prices were set based on the weighted average of spending for comparators.

CONCLUSION

Reference pricing based on added benefit assessment could be used to address the launch prices for expensive Part B drugs with low added benefit.

Added Therapeutic Benefit of Top-Selling Brand-name Drugs in Medicare

Importance

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 authorizes Medicare to negotiate prices of top-selling drugs based on several factors, including therapeutic benefit compared with existing treatment options.

Objective

To determine the added therapeutic benefit of the 50 top-selling brand-name drugs in Medicare in 2020, as assessed by health technology assessment (HTA) organizations in Canada, France, and Germany.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, publicly available therapeutic benefit ratings, US Food and Drug Administration documents, and the Medicare Part B and Part D prescription drug spending dashboards were used to determine the 50 top-selling single-source drugs used in Medicare in 2020 and to assess their added therapeutic benefit ratings through 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Ratings from HTA bodies in Canada, France, and Germany were categorized as high (moderate or greater) or low (minor or no) added benefit. Each drug was rated based on its most favorable rating across countries, indications, subpopulations, and dosage forms. We compared the use and prerebate and postrebate (ie, net) Medicare spending between drugs with high vs low added benefit.

Results

Forty-nine drugs (98%) received an HTA rating by at least 1 country; 22 of 36 drugs (61%) received a low added benefit rating in Canada, 34 of 47 in France (72%), and 17 of 29 in Germany (59%). Across countries, 27 drugs (55%) had a low added therapeutic rating, accounting for $19.3 billion in annual estimated net spending, or 35% of Medicare net spending on the 50 top-selling single-source drugs and 11% of total Medicare net prescription drug spending in 2020. Compared with those with high added benefit, drugs with a low added therapeutic rating were used by more Medicare beneficiaries (median 387 149 vs 44 869) and had lower net spending per beneficiary (median $992 vs $32 287).

Conclusions and Relevance

Many top-selling Medicare drugs received low added benefit ratings by the national HTA organizations of Canada, France, and Germany. When negotiating prices for these drugs, Medicare should ensure they are not priced higher than reasonable therapeutic alternatives.

Association Between Drug Characteristics and Manufacturer Spending on Direct-to-Consumer Advertising

Importance

Some drugs are heavily marketed through direct-to-consumer advertising.

Objective

To identify drug characteristics associated with a greater share of promotional spending on advertising directly to consumers.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Exploratory cross-sectional analysis of drug characteristics and promotional spending for the 150 top-selling branded prescription drugs in the US in 2020 as identified from IQVIA National Sales Perspectives data. Promotional spending data were provided by IQVIA ChannelDynamics.

Exposures

Drug characteristics (total 2020 sales; total 2020 promotional spending; clinical benefit ratings; number of indications, off-label use; molecule type; nature of condition treated; administration type; generic availability; US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] approval year, World Health Organization anatomical therapeutic chemical classification; Medicare annual mean spending per beneficiary; percent sales attributable to the drug; market size; market competitiveness) assessed from health technology assessment agencies (France's Haute Autorité de Santé and Canada's Patented Medicine Prices Review Board) and drug data sources (Drugs@FDA, the FDA Purple Book, Lexicomp, Merative Marketscan Research Databases, and Medicare Spending by Drug data).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportion of total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer-advertising for each drug.

Results

The 2020 median proportion of promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising was 13.5% (IQR, 1.96%-36.6%); median promotional spending, $20.9 million (IQR, $2.72-$131 million); and median total sales, $1.51 billion (IQR, $0.97-$2.26 billion). Of the 150 best-selling drugs, 16 were missing data and key covariates; therefore, the primary study sample comprised 134 drugs. After adjustment for multiple drug characteristics, the mean proportion of total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising for the remaining 134 drugs was an absolute 14.3% (95% CI, 1.43%-27.2%; P = .03) higher for those with low added clinical benefit than for those with high added clinical benefit and an absolute 1.5% (95% CI, 0.44%-2.56%; P = .005) higher for each 10% increase in total sales.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among top-selling US drugs in 2020, a rating of lower added benefit and higher total drug sales were associated with a higher proportion of manufacturer total promotional spending allocated to direct-to-consumer advertising. Further research is needed to understand the implications of these findings.

Few new drugs deserve expedited regulatory treatment

DISCLOSURES: This commentary is based on work by the author that was supported by Arnold Ventures and the Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science. The funders had no role in the writing of this commentary, or the decision to submit for publication. The author has nothing else to disclose.

Applications of Cold Atmospheric Pressure Plasma in Dentistry

Plasma is an electrically conducting medium that responds to electric and magnetic fields. It consists of large quantities of highly reactive species, such as ions, energetic electrons, exited atoms and molecules, ultraviolet photons, and metastable and active radicals. Non-thermal or cold plasmas are partially ionized gases whose electron temperatures usually exceed several tens of thousand degrees K, while the ions and neutrals have much lower temperatures. Due to the presence of reactive species at low temperature, the biological effects of non-thermal plasmas have been studied for application in the medical area with promising results. This review outlines the application of cold atmospheric pressure plasma (CAPP) in dentistry for the control of several pathogenic microorganisms, induction of anti-inflammatory, tissue repair effects and apoptosis of cancer cells, with low toxicity to healthy cells. Therefore, CAPP has potential to be applied in many areas of dentistry such as cariology, periodontology, endodontics and oral oncology.