Orphan Drug Expenditures In The United States: A Historical And Prospective Analysis, 2007–18

Disentangling the Cost of Orphan Drugs Marketed in the United States

The increasing number and high prices of orphan drugs have triggered concern among patients, payers, and policymakers about the affordability of new drugs approved using the incentives set by the Orphan Drug Act (ODA) of 1983. This study evaluated the factors associated to the differences in the treatment cost of new orphan and non-orphan drugs approved by the FDA from 2017 to 2021. A generalized linear model (GLM) with the Gamma log-link analysis was used to ascertain the association of drug characteristics with the treatment costs of orphan and non-orphan drugs. The results of the study showed that the median and interquartile range (IQR) drug cost was USD 218,872 (IQR = USD 23,105) for orphan drugs and USD 12,798 (IQR = USD 57,940) for non-orphan drugs (p < 0.001). Higher market entry prices were associated with biologics (108%; p < 0.001), orphan status (177%; p < 0.001), US sponsor companies (48%; p = 0.035), chronic use (1083%; p < 0.001), treatment intent (163%; p = 0.004), and indications for oncology (624%; p < 0.001) or genetic disorders (624%; p < 0.001). Higher market entry treatment cost for newly approved drugs were associated with biologics, orphan status, US sponsor companies, chronic use, therapeutic intent, and indications for oncology or genetic disorders.

Historical and projected public spending on drugs for rare diseases in Canada between 2010 and 2025

Objective

Rare diseases are life-threatening, debilitating, or serious chronic conditions that affect < 50/100,000 people. Canadians can only access approximately 60% of drugs for rare diseases (DRDs), which is partially related to high per-patient costs and payers’ affordability concerns. However, limiting access to DRDs can reduce survival and quality of life among patients and caregivers. Therefore, we projected Canadian non-oncology DRD spending relative to total public drug spending to provide perspective for decision makers.

Methods

Candidate historical (2010–2020) and pipeline (2021–2025) Canadian-marketed non-oncology DRDs were identified using definitions from the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration databases. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify eligible DRDs. Public payer claims data, prevalence rates, regulatory, and health technology assessment factors were used to project DRD spending in relation to total Canadian public drug spending.

Results

We included 42 historical DRDs and 122 pipeline DRDs. Public spending on DRDs grew from $14.8 million in 2010 (11 DRDs) to $380.9 million in 2020, then a projected $527.6 million in 2021 (59 potential DRDs) and $1.6 billion in 2025 (164 potential DRDs). Projected DRD spending increased from 3.2% of $16.5 billion public drug spending in 2021 to 8.3% of $19.4 billion in 2025. These projections do not include confidential manufacturer discounts, health outcome-related offsets, or additional safety-related costs.

Conclusions

Projected DRD spending shows robust growth but remains a fraction of total public drug spending. Limiting DRD access because of this growth is not aligned with Canadian patient or societal values. Given the renewed interest in a Canadian DRD framework, our results may help guide discussions that aim to balance control of public drug spending with the well-being of patients with rare diseases.

Trends in orphan drug use and spending among children and adolescents during 2010–2020 in Korea

Background: Since 2014 in Korea, the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety has designated orphan drugs (ODs) for the treatment of rare diseases. This study investigated the market share and 20 most frequently prescribed therapeutic subgroups of ODs among children and adolescents in Korea.

Methods: This study referenced the Korean national health insurance database from January 2010 through December 2020. The outcome measures were the number of prescriptions and expenditures on ODs.

Results: Among children aged 0–12 years, the number of patients using ODs increased from 11,264 in 2010 to 14,017 in 2020. Expenditures on ODs and their proportion of total pharmaceutical expenditures also tripled from 13.3 million USD (1.2%) in 2010 to 46.4 million USD (6.2%) in 2020. Among the overall population and adolescents aged 13–17 years, the percentage of total pharmaceutical expenditures for ODs increased from 0.4% in 2010 to 3.2% in 2020 and from 2.1% in 2010 to 11.2% in 2020, respectively. The highest numbers and drug costs of child patients were for H01 (pituitary and hypothalamic hormones and analogues, 44,839) and A16 (other alimentary tract and metabolism products, 160 million USD). The individual ODs with the highest drug costs were A16AB09 (idursulfase, 82.4 million USD) and M09AX07 (nusinersen, 36.2 million USD).

Conclusion: Although the market size of ODs remained small in Korea, both the number of approved ODs and the proportion of total pharmaceutical expenditures for ODs have increased. Additional policies related to designation and reimbursement should be put in place to ensure timely access to ODs.

Estimating the Theoretical Cost Implications of Funding New Drugs Considered Not to Be Cost-Effective

This study aims to estimate the theoretical excess expenditure that would be incurred by the Irish state-payer, should drugs be reimbursed at their original asking ("list") price rather than at a price at which the drug is considered cost-effective. In Ireland, all new drugs are evaluated by the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics. For this study, drugs that were submitted by pharmaceutical companies from 2012 to 2017 and considered not cost-effective at list price were reviewed. A total of 43 such drugs met our inclusion criteria, and their pharmacoeconomic evaluations were further assessed. The price at which the drug could be considered cost-effective (cost-effective price) at the upper cost-effectiveness threshold used in Ireland (€ 45 000/quality adjusted life-year) was estimated for 18 drugs with an available cost-effectiveness model. Then, for each drug, the list price and cost-effective price (both per unit) were both individually applied to 1 year of national real-world drug utilization data. This allowed the estimation of the expected expenditures under the assumptions of list price paid and cost-effective price paid. The resulting theoretical excess expenditure, the expenditure at list price minus the expenditure at the cost-effective price, was estimated to be €108.2 million. This estimate is theoretical because of the confidentiality of actual drug prices. The estimation is calculated using the list price and likely overestimates the actual excess expenditure, which would reduce to zero if cost-effective prices are agreed. Nevertheless, this estimate illustrates the importance of a process to assess the value of new drugs so that potential excess drug expenditure is identified.

Navigating the U.S. health insurance landscape for children with rare diseases: a qualitative study of parents' experiences

BACKGROUND

Parents of children with rare diseases often face uncertainty about diagnosis, treatment, and costs associated with healthcare for their child. Health insurance status impacts each of these areas, but no U.S. study has explored parents' perceptions of the health insurance impacts on their child's care. This study aimed to qualitatively explore how these parents navigate the complex health insurance system for their children and their experiences in doing so.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents of children with metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD) and spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), chosen for specific disease characteristics and orphan drug status. Participants were recruited via e-mail through patient advocacy organizations between September and December 2018. Interviews were conducted via Skype, were recorded, and professionally transcribed. Modified grounded theory was utilized as a methodology to analyze transcripts in an iterative process to determine themes and sub-themes based on participant described experiences.

RESULTS

Major themes and subthemes that emerged across the 15 interviews included: (1) difficulties obtaining secondary insurance based on state eligibility criteria; (2) difficulty accessing needed healthcare services; and (3) need for repeated interactions with insurance representatives. The absence of clearly documented or widely recognized clinical guidelines exacerbated the difficulty accessing care identified as necessary by their healthcare team, such as therapy and equipment. An explanatory model for parent's experiences was developed from the themes and subthemes. The model includes the cyclical nature of interacting with insurance for redundant reauthorizations and the outside support and financial assistance that is often necessary to address their child's healthcare needs.

CONCLUSIONS

With complex health conditions, small setbacks can become costly and disruptive to the health of the child and the life of the family. This study suggests that patients with rare diseases may benefit from time limits for processing coverage decisions, increasing transparency in the claims and preauthorization processes, and more expansive authorizations for on-going needs. Additional studies are needed to understand the full scope of barriers and to inform policies that can facilitate better access for families living with rare diseases.

Methodological Quality Assessment of Budget Impact Analyses for Orphan Drugs: A Systematic Review

Objectives: This research aims to evaluate the methodological quality of budget impact analyses for orphan drugs and to provide suggestions for future analyses. Methods: Conference abstracts and peer-reviewed literature on budget impact analyses were collected through searches of Pubmed and Embase. ISPOR good practice guidelines were used as a methodological standard for budget impact analyses. Examined parameters encompassed: perspective, target population, data sources, intervention and comparator(s), time horizon, scope of costs, discounting, validation, assumptions and sensitivity analysis. Results: Seventy studies on individual orphan drugs and 21 studies on a combination of orphan drugs analyzing budget impact were identified. Overall, analyses considered a third-party payer perspective, reported periodic budget impacts over a one-to-five-year time horizon, and did not apply discounting. A dynamically fluctuating population and costs beyond drug costs were accounted for in 18.7% and 51.7% of studies, respectively. Input data were retrieved from published literature, clinical trials, registries, claims databases, expert opinions, historical data and market research. Assumptions were mostly made about population size and intervention/comparator(s) market uptake, but these assumptions were rarely justified and their impact was insufficiently explored through sensitivity analyses. Budget impact results were rarely validated. Conclusion: Existing budget impact analyses for orphan drugs are concise, vary greatly and are of substandard methodological quality. To eliminate possible bias in future budget impact analyses, future studies should adhere to national or ISPOR good practice guidelines on budget impact analysis.

Spending For Orphan Indications Among Top-Selling Orphan Drugs Approved To Treat Common Diseases

The Orphan Drug Act of 1983 provides benefits to promote the development of treatments for rare diseases that have limited sales potential. Policy makers have questioned whether this purpose is furthered in the case of "partial orphan drugs" approved to treat both rare and common diseases, as many of these drugs are top sellers. In this study we used national commercial claims data to estimate the proportion of spending in the US on fifteen top-selling partial orphan drugs that was assigned to orphan indications in 2018. Of this spending, 21.4 percent was assigned to orphan indications, 70.7 percent to nonorphan indications, and 7.9 percent to neither orphan nor nonorphan indications (for example, off-label use). These findings support growing concerns regarding the costs of granting orphan drug benefits to the sponsors of top-selling partial orphan drugs.

Public spending on orphan medicines: a review of the literature

Background and objective

Little is known about how much public payers spend on orphan medicines. This study aimed at identifying information on orphan medicine expenditure incurred by public payers that was published in literature globally and at possibly synthesising their shares as portion of the total pharmaceutical expenditure.

Methods

A literature review was undertaken using Medline, the Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases and Google Scholar. Titles and abstracts were screened, and full texts of potentially qualifying studies were reviewed for inclusion. Included articles were analysed, and bibliometric parameters as well as public expenditure data on orphan medicines were retrieved.

Results

Six hundred forty three articles excluding duplicates were identified. After screening of the abstracts and a review of the full texts, 13 articles qualified for in-depth analysis.The 13 selected articles on orphan pharmaceutical expenditure were published between 2010 and 2018. Survey periods varied between 1 year and 12 years. One publication included 22 countries but the majority of the studies were related to a single country. Expenditure data was available in five of the 13 articles, and eight articles used 'expenditure proxies' such as sales data. Spending data had been sourced from public institutions (4 studies), private providers (5 studies) and a combination of both (3 studies, no information on data source in 1 study). In all included studies, secondary data were analysed. Reported expenditure shares for orphan medicines in relation to total pharmaceutical spend was frequently below 3%. Countries with higher shares included the USA, Canada, the Netherlands and Bulgaria-the latter reporting spending on orphan medicines as high as 9%.

Conclusions

A low number of studies that informed about pharmaceutical spending on orphan medicines was published, thereof only a few explicitly analysed expenditure data of public payers. A conclusive synthesis of public spending on orphan medicines is a challenge given to the diversity in methodologies to measure expenditure. There is a need for further research to survey primary data of public spending for orphan medicines, based on a sound methodology to measure these data and to compare them internationally.

Relationship between costs and clinical benefits of new cancer medicines in Australia, France, the UK, and the US

As cancer drug prices rise, it remains unclear whether the cost of new interventions is related to their beneficial impact for patients at a societal-level. Using data for 2003-2015 from the IQVIA MIDAS® dataset, the relationship between cancer drug costs and drug clinical benefits was studied in four countries with different approaches to drug pricing. Summary measures of drug clinical effects on overall survival, quality of life, and safety were obtained from a review of health technology assessments. Mean total drug costs for a full course of treatment were estimated using standard posology for each medicine and in each country. Regression analysis was used to test whether, at a societal-level, the cost of recently licensed drugs is related to their beneficial impact for patients. Across all eligible medicines, average treatment costs were lowest in France and Australia and highest in the UK and US. Compared with Australia, France, and the UK, cancer medicines were on average between 1.2 and 1.9 times more expensive in the US, where the average total per patient cost for treatment was $68,255.17. Costs for new cancer medicines are high and, at best, only weakly associated with drug clinical benefits. The strength of this relationship nevertheless varied across countries. Some new cancer drugs-particularly in the US-may be neither affordable nor clinically beneficial over existing treatments. While all countries can benefit from strategies that more robustly align price with therapeutic benefit in cancer drugs, the US stands out in its opportunity to improve both affordability and value in cancer drug treatment.

How Often are Orphan Drugs Orphaned by the Thermochemical Community?

Orphan drug products (e.g. drugs and biologics) in the United States are those that treat people with rare chronic diseases, often cancer or metabolic disease. The rare disease condition being treated by these orphan drugs must serve a patient population of less than 200,000 people in the U.S. in order to earn the orphan drug product title. Just as the disease conditions are seen as "orphans," so, we assert is the thermochemical understanding of the drugs themselves in terms of the chemical structures that define those drugs. This article illustrates this orphan thermochemical status for a recent series of orphan drugs.

The impact of the Orphan Drug Act on Food and Drug Administration-approved therapies for rare skin diseases and skin-related cancers

The Orphan Drug Act of 1983 (ODA) put in place a set of financial and marketing incentives to stimulate the development of drugs to treat rare diseases, and since its passage, more than 600 orphan drug and biologic products have been brought to market in the United States. Rapid growth in orphan drug approvals in conjunction with high orphan drug prices have triggered concern that drug makers are exploiting certain aspects of the ODA for financial gain and that some pharmaceutical drugs are receiving orphan status where it is not warranted. The landscape of approved therapies for rare skin diseases has not been well described. In this article, we provide a descriptive analysis of the United States Food and Drug Administration-approved orphan drugs for the treatment of rare dermatologic conditions and skin-related cancers since the enactment of the ODA. We discuss policy issues that emerge from the analysis and suggest areas for future research. Next, we elucidate ODA loopholes using dermatologic drugs as examples and propose potential reforms. Finally, we consider future directions for orphan drug development in the field of dermatology.

The burden of rare diseases

The subject of rare disease numbers is rife with misconceptions, not just in websites and other layman's literature, but also in the medical literature. Various websites mention numbers that are not validated by any solid data, while in turn the medical literature cites the aforementioned websites as sources, thus perpetuating a number of myths about rare diseases and their burden. We review the existing literature on rare disease numbers, in an attempt to demystify the subject. Specifically, we summarize data pertaining to: (a) known number and cumulative prevalence of rare diseases; (b) rare disease-associated mortality; (c) rare disease-associated morbidity, including numbers on health care services related to rare diseases; and (d) orphan drug numbers.

From Rare to Neglected Diseases: A Sustainable and Inclusive Healthcare Perspective for Reframing the Orphan Drugs Issue

This work is about how healthcare issues can be reframed from a sustainable and inclusive development perspective. Focusing on the case of orphan drugs and rare diseases, first, a country-based review of the main regulatory approaches to orphan drugs is conducted; then, the main contributions of the literature are reviewed to identify dominant views and the way the problem is more commonly framed. The main findings reveal that the dominant regulatory approaches and theoretical interpretations of the problem are mainly based on economic considerations. However, this does not seem to have led to very satisfactory results. Reflecting upon what the sustainability perspective can highlight with reference to healthcare, substantial connections between the orphan drugs issue and that of neglected diseases are highlighted. These connections suggest reframing the orphan drugs issue as a social equality and inclusiveness problem, hence the need to adopt a sustainable and inclusive development perspective. As a key sustainable development goal (SGD) to be shared by all nations, healthcare should always be approached by putting the principles of sustainable and inclusive development at the core of policy makers’ regulatory choices. Accordingly, we think that the orphan drugs issue, like that of neglected diseases, could be better faced by adopting a social equality and inclusiveness perspective.

Disease and economic burden for rare diseases in Taiwan: A longitudinal study using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database

Background

High-cost orphan drugs are becoming increasingly available to treat rare diseases that affect a relatively small population. Little attention has been given to the prevalence of rare diseases and their health-related economic burden in Taiwan.

Objectives

This study examined the national trends in the prevalence of rare diseases and their health-related economic burden (including medication costs) in Taiwan.

Methods

Rare disease-related claims data from 2003–2014 (12 years) from the National Health Insurance Research Database were used in this study. We used a time series analysis to assess trends in the yearly rates of treated patients with rare diseases, overall healthcare use, and expenditures, including drugs.

Results

During the 12-year study period, the estimated prevalence of rare diseases increased from 10.57 to 33.21 per 100,000 population, an average rate of a 19.46% increase per year. Total health expenditures for treatment of rare diseases increased from US$18.65 million to US$137.44 million between 2003 and 2014, accounting for 0.68% of the total national health expenditures in 2014. Drug expenditures for treatment of rare diseases increased from US$13.24 million to US$121.98 million between 2003 and 2014, which accounted for 71.00% and 88.75% of the health expenditures for patients with rare diseases in 2003 and 2014, respectively. In 2014, we found a 20.43-fold difference in average health expenditures and a 69.46-fold difference in average drug expenditures between patients with rare diseases and the overall population.

Conclusions

The prevalence of rare diseases and the related economic burden have grown substantially in Taiwan over the past 12 years, and these trends are likely to continue. Drug expenditures accounted for almost 90% of health expenditures for rare diseases. Further analyses are underway to examine the economic burden of individual rare diseases.

Hereditary Angioedema: The Economics of Treatment of an Orphan Disease

This review will discuss the cost burden of hereditary angioedema on patients, healthcare systems, and society. The impact of availability of and access to novel and specific therapies on morbidity, mortality, and the overall burden of disease will be explored along with potential changes in treatment paradigms to improve effectiveness and reduce cost of treatment. The prevalence of orphan diseases, legislative incentives to encourage development of orphan disease therapies and the impact of orphan disease treatment on healthcare payment systems will be discussed.

A review of international coverage and pricing strategies for personalized medicine and orphan drugs

BACKGROUND

Personalized medicine and orphan drugs share many characteristics-both target small patient populations, have uncertainties regarding efficacy and safety at payer submission, and frequently have high prices. Given personalized medicine's rising importance, this review summarizes international coverage and pricing strategies for personalized medicine and orphan drugs as well as their impact on therapy development incentives, payer budgets, and therapy access and utilization.

METHODS

PubMed, Health Policy Reference Center, EconLit, Google Scholar, and references were searched through February 2017 for articles presenting primary data.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine articles summarizing 42 countries' strategies were included. Therapy evaluation criteria varied between countries, as did patient cost-share. Payers primarily valued clinical effectiveness; cost was only considered by some. These differences result in inequities in orphan drug access, particularly in smaller and lower-income countries. The uncertain reimbursement process hinders diagnostic testing. Payer surveys identified lack of comparative effectiveness evidence as a chief complaint, while manufacturers sought more clarity on payer evidence requirements. Despite lack of strong evidence, orphan drugs largely receive positive coverage decisions, while personalized medicine diagnostics do not.

CONCLUSIONS

As more personalized medicine and orphan drugs enter the market, registries can provide better quality evidence on their efficacy and safety. Payers need systematic assessment strategies that are communicated with more transparency. Further studies are necessary to compare the implications of different payer approaches.

Pharmacoeconomics of Orphan Disease Treatment with a Focus on Hereditary Angioedema

This article discusses orphan diseases, their prevalence, legislative incentives to encourage development of therapies, and the impact of treatment on health care payment systems. Specifically, the cost burden of hereditary angioedema on patients, health care systems, and society is reviewed. The impact of availability of and access to novel and specific therapies on morbidity, mortality, and overall burden of disease is explored. Changes in treatment paradigms to improve effect and reduce cost of treatment are presented.