Generic Price Competition For Specialty Drugs: Too Little, Too Late?

Pharmacy Assistance Programs for Oral Anticancer Drugs: A Narrative Review

Oral anticancer medications (OAMs) are high priced with a significant cost-sharing burden to patients, which can lead to catastrophic financial, psychosocial, and clinical repercussions. Cost-conscious prescribing and inclusion of low-cost alternatives can help mitigate this burden, but cost transparency at the point of prescribing remains a major barrier to doing so. Pharmacy assistance programs, including co-payment cards and patient assistance programs administered by manufacturers and foundation-based grants, remain an essential resource for patients facing prohibitive co-payments for OAMs. However, access to these programs is fraught with complexities, including lack of trained financial navigators, limited transparency on eligibility criteria, onerous documentation burdens, and limits in available funding. Despite these drawbacks and the potential for such programs to incentivize manufacturers to keep list prices high, assistance programs have been demonstrated to improve financial well-being for patients with cancer. The increasing development of integrated specialty pharmacies with dedicated, trained pharmacy staff can help improve and standardize access to such programs, but these services are disproportionately available to patients seen at tertiary care centers. Multistakeholder interventions are needed to mitigate the burden of cost sharing for OAMs, including increased clinician knowledge of financial resources and novel assistance mechanisms, investment of institutions in trained financial navigation services and centralized platforms to identify assistance programs, and policies to cap out-of-pocket spending and improve transparency of rates charged by pharmacy benefit managers to a health plan.

Medication Payments by Insurers and Patients for the Treatment of Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

The implications of high prices for cancer drugs on health care costs and patients' financial burdens are a growing concern. Patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are often candidates for multiple first-line systemic therapies with similar impacts on life expectancy. However, little is known about the gross and out-of-pocket (OOP) payments associated with each of these drugs for patients with employer-sponsored health insurance. We therefore aimed to determine the gross and OOP payments of first-line drugs for mCRPC and how the payments vary across drugs.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 4,298 patients with prostate cancer who initiated therapy with one of six drugs approved for first-line treatment of mCRPC between July 1, 2013, and June 30, 2019. We compared gross and OOP payments during the 6 months after initiation of treatment for mCRPC using private payer claims data across patients using different first-line drugs.

RESULTS

Gross payments varied across drugs. Over the 6 months after the index prescription, mean unadjusted gross drug payments were highest for patients receiving sipuleucel-T ($115,525 USD) and lowest for patients using docetaxel ($12,804 USD). OOP payments were lower than gross drug payments; mean 6-month OOP payments were highest for cabazitaxel ($1,044 USD) and lowest for docetaxel ($296 USD). There was a wide distribution of OOP payments within drug types.

CONCLUSION

Drugs for mCRPC are expensive with large differences in payments by drug type. OOP payments among patients with employer-sponsored health insurance are much lower than gross drug payments, and they vary both across and within first-line drug types, with some patients making very high OOP payments. Although lowering drug prices would reduce pharmaceutical spending for patients with mCRPC, decreasing patient financial burden requires understanding an individual patient's benefit design.

The cost of inflammatory bowel disease in high-income settings: a Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology Commission

The cost of caring for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) continues to increase worldwide. The cause is not only a steady increase in the prevalence of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis in both developed and newly industrialised countries, but also the chronic nature of the diseases, the need for long-term, often expensive treatments, the use of more intensive disease monitoring strategies, and the effect of the diseases on economic productivity. This Commission draws together a wide range of expertise to discuss the current costs of IBD care, the drivers of increasing costs, and how to deliver affordable care for IBD in the future. The key conclusions are that (1) increases in health-care costs must be evaluated against improved disease management and reductions in indirect costs, and (2) that overarching systems for data interoperability, registries, and big data approaches must be established for continuous assessment of effectiveness, costs, and the cost-effectiveness of care. International collaborations should be sought out to evaluate novel models of care (eg, value-based health care, including integrated health care, and participatory health-care models), as well as to improve the education and training of clinicians, patients, and policy makers.

An overview of Fintech applications to solve the puzzle of health care funding: state-of-the-art in medical crowdfunding

Crowdfunding is emerging as an alternative form of funding for medical purposes, with capital being raised directly from a broader and more diverse audience of investors. In this paper, we have systematically researched and reviewed the literature on medical crowdfunding to determine how crowdfunding connects with the health care industry. The health care industry has been struggling to develop sustainable research and business models for economic systems and investors alike, especially in pharmaceuticals. The research results have revealed a wealth of evidence concerning the way crowdfunding is applied in real life. Patients and caregivers utilize web platform-based campaigns all over the world to fund their medical expenses, generally on a spot basis, using donation-based or even reward-based schemes, regardless of the health care system archetype (public, private insurance-based or hybrid). Academics have also focused on funding campaigns and the predictors of success (which range from social behaviour and environment to the basic demographics of the campaigners and their diseases) and on social and regulatory concerns, including heightened social inequality and stigma. While equity crowdfunding is disrupting the way many ventures/businesses seek capital in the market, our research indicates that there are no relevant or consistent data on the practice of medical equity crowdfunding in health care, apart from a few anecdotal cases.

Economic Cost and Sustainability of Oral Therapies in Precision Oncology

PURPOSE:

Precision oncology promises improved outcomes but the cost-effectiveness and accessibility of targeted therapies is debatable. We report price change patterns from 2015 to 2019 for several oral anticancer medications for common solid tumor malignancies.

METHODS:

We collected provider utilization and payment data from the public Medicare Part D database and extracted drug price information for commonly prescribed targeted oral anticancer agents for lung, breast, and prostate cancer. We then calculated median Pearson correlation coefficient values for various drugs (containing more than two data points) within each therapeutic class. We also calculated compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) for medication costs within each class and compared them with the consumer price index (CPI).

RESULTS:

Our study included six epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRi; one generic), five anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors (ALKi), two B-Raf inhibitors (BRAFi), three hormonal agents (one generic), three cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i), two poly-ADP-ribose inhibitors (PARPi), and seven antiandrogen agents (two generic). The median (range) Pearson correlation coefficient values for cost of drugs within each therapeutic class were 0.967 (0.915-0.978) for EGFRi, 0.981 (0.966-0.989) for ALKi, 0.996 for BRAFi, 0.994 (0.992-0.999) for CDK4/6i, 0.855 for PARPi, and 0.442 (–0.522 to 0.962) for antiandrogens. Therapies with two or fewer data points (generic erlotinib, dacomitinib, abiraterone, apalutamide, and darolutamide) were excluded. The median CAGRs in costs over the 5-year period were 4.56% (EGFRi), 6.40% (ALKi), 2.58% (BRAFi), 5.48% (hormonal agents), 5.21% (CDK4/6i), 27.29% (PARPi), and 34.8% (antiandrogens). The CPI over 5 years was 2.26%/year, and the average inflation rate was 1.90%/year.

CONCLUSION:

The median CAGR in costs for modern oral precision-driven cancer therapeutic classes mostly outpaced CPI and the average inflation. Increase in cost within the same class should be weighed against incremental clinical benefit for the patients to ensure that rising costs do not limit access to targeted therapies.

Online Pharmacy Accessibility of Imatinib, An Oral Chemotherapy Medication

BACKGROUND

Since prices of imatinib (Gleevec) remain high, patients on oral chemotherapy are looking for alternative methods to access this life-saving medication. We assessed the accessibility of imatinib through online pharmacies and analyzed each website for medication safety, price, and marketing tactics.

METHODS

We searched the term "buy imatinib online" using 4 commonly used internet search engines (Google, Bing, Yahoo!, and DuckDuckGo) and screened web pages displayed in the first 10 pages. Websites were included if they were published in English, sold imatinib, were free to access, and offered shipping in the United States. Websites were classified using LegitScript's categorization as "certified," "unclassified," "unapproved," or "rogue." We analyzed information on websites' patient safety characteristics, marketing techniques, pricing, domain registration information, and IP addresses.

RESULTS

Of the 44 online pharmacies identified, only 3 (7%) were certified, and the remainder were classified as rogue (52%; n=23), unapproved (30%; n=13), or unclassified (11%; n=5). Thirteen online pharmacies (30%; 9 rogue, 4 unclassified) sold imatinib without a prescription. Nearly one-quarter (n=10) of online pharmacies selling imatinib did not include drug-related warnings on their websites, and nearly half (n=21) did not limit the purchasable quantity. More than three-quarters (n=34) of online pharmacies selling imatinib did not offer pharmacist consultations, even though nearly all websites extended offers to speak with sales associates (91%; n=40). Most online pharmacies selling imatinib claimed price discounts (95%; n=42), but fewer provided bulk discounts (23%; n=10) or coupons (34%; n=15). One-third of rogue pharmacies selling imatinib (n=7) claimed to be registered or accredited on their websites.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of safety measures taken by illegitimate online pharmacies endangers patient safety because they allow patients to purchase imatinib without appropriate evaluation for response, drug interactions, and adverse effects. Healthcare providers need to be aware of this practice and should assure patient access to imatinib through safe and legitimate pharmacies.

Indication-Specific Generic Uptake of Imatinib Demonstrates the Impact of Skinny Labeling

PURPOSE

Generic competition can be delayed if brand-name manufacturers obtain additional patents on supplemental uses. The US Food and Drug Administration allows generic drug manufacturers to market versions with skinny labels that exclude patent-protected indications. This study assessed whether use of generic versions of imatinib varied between indications included and excluded from the skinny labels.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we identified adult patients covered by commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage plans who initiated imatinib from February 2016 (first generic availability) to September 2020. Generic versions were introduced with skinny labels that included indications covering treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) but excluded treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) because of remaining patent protections. Logistic regression was used to determine whether use of generic versus brand-name imatinib differed between patients with a diagnosis of CML or GIST, adjusting for demographics, insurance type, prior use of brand-name drugs, and calendar month.

RESULTS

Among 2,000 initiators, 934 (47%) had CML and 686 (34%) had GIST. Within 3 years after generics entered the market, more than 90% of initiators in both groups used generic imatinib. Initiation of generic imatinib was slightly lower among patients with GIST than among patients with CML (85% v 88%; adjusted odds ratio 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.80; P ≤ .001).

CONCLUSION

Generic versions of imatinib were dispensed frequently for indications both included (CML) and excluded (GIST) from the skinny labeling, although patients with GIST were slightly less likely to receive a generic version. The skinny labeling pathway allowed generics to enter the market before patent protection for treating patients with GIST expired, facilitating lower drug prices.

Trends in Prices of Drugs Used to Treat Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the US From 2015 to 2020

IMPORTANCE

Oncology drug prices are a determinant of health disparities in the US and worldwide. Several new therapeutic agents for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have become available on the US market over the past decade. Although increased competition typically produces lower prices, competition among brand-name oncology drugs has not resulted in lower prices.

OBJECTIVE

To assess price changes in class-specific brand-name medications used to treat metastatic NSCLC in the US from 2015 to 2020.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study, conducted from August 13, 2015, to August 13, 2020, used data from the Micromedex Red Book and Medi-Span Price Rx databases. The study sample was limited to 17 brand-name medications used to treat metastatic NSCLC that were available for purchase before January 1, 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes were trends over time in average wholesale prices and wholesale acquisition cost unit prices and the correlation in price among the multiple brand-name medications within each therapeutic class (immune checkpoint inhibitors, epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors, ROS1 inhibitors, BRAF inhibitors, and MEK inhibitors), measured using the Pearson correlation coefficient. The compounded annual growth rates of different medication costs were compared with the annual inflation rate and the consumer price index for prescription drugs.

RESULTS

For all drug classes, the Pearson correlation coefficient approached 1.0, indicating an increase in drug list prices despite within-class drug competition. The median Pearson correlation coefficient values were 0.964 (range, 0.951-0.994) for immune checkpoint inhibitors, 0.898 (range, 0.665-0.950) for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, 0.999 (range, 0.982-0.999) for anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors, and 0.999 for BRAF and MEK inhibitors. The median compounded annual growth rates for most drug costs were higher than the annual inflation rate and consumer price index for prescription drugs: 1.81% (range, 1.29%-2.13%) for immune checkpoint inhibitors, 2.56% (range, 2.38%-5.26%) for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, 2.46% (range, 1.75%-4.66%) for anaplastic lymphoma kinase and ROS1 inhibitors, and 3.06% (range, 0%-3.06%) for BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, prices of brand-name medications for treatment of NSCLC increased in the US from 2015 to 2020 without evidence of price competition, raising concern about the affordability of promising oncology drugs. These findings suggest that drug pricing reform is needed.

Current evidence on the efficacy and safety of generic imatinib in CML and the impact of generics on health care costs

Since the introduction of imatinib, the management of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has changed considerably. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are the mainstay of CML treatment; however, the high financial burden of TKIs can be problematic for both the patients and health care systems. After the emergence of generics, reimbursement policies of many countries have changed, and generics offered an alternative treatment option for CML patients. There are many papers published on the use of generics in CML patients with conflicting results regarding both efficacy and safety. In this paper, we systematically reviewed the current literature on generic imatinib use in CML, and 36 papers were evaluated. Both in vitro and in vivo studies of generic imatinib showed comparable results with branded imatinib in terms of bioequivalence and bioavailability. In most studies, generics were comparable with the original molecule in terms of efficacy and safety, both in newly diagnosed patients and after switching from Gleevec. Some generic studies showed contradictory findings regarding efficacy and toxicity, and these differences can be attributed to some factors including the use of different generics in different countries. Both in hypothetical models and in real life, introduction of generic imatinib caused significant reduction in health care costs. In conclusion, generics are not inferior to original imatinib in terms of efficacy with an acceptable toxicity profile. Notwithstanding the generally favorable efficacy and safety of generics worldwide to date, we most probably still need more time to draw firmer conclusions on the longer-term outcomes of generics.

Factors Associated With Generic Drug Uptake in the United States, 2012 to 2017

OBJECTIVES

In the United States, brand-name prescription drugs remain expensive until market exclusivity ends and lower-cost generics become available. Delayed generic drug uptake may increase spending and worsen medication adherence and patient outcomes. We assessed recent trends and factors associated with generic uptake.

METHODS

Among 227 drugs facing new generic competition from 2012 to 2017, we used a national claims database to measure generic uptake in the first and second year after generic entry, defined as the proportion of claims for a generic version of the drug. Using linear regression, we evaluated associations between generic uptake and key drug characteristics.

RESULTS

Mean generic uptake was 66.1% (standard deviation 22.1%) in the first year and 82.7% (standard deviation 21.6%) in the second year after generic entry. From 2012 to 2017 generic uptake decreased 4.3% per year in the first year (95% confidence interval, 2.8%-5.8%, P < .001) and 3.2%/year in the second year (95% confidence interval, 1.2%-5.1%). Generic uptake was lower for injected than oral drugs in the first year (38.5% vs 70.0%, P < .001) and second year (50.3% vs 86.9%, P < .001). In the second year, generic uptake was higher among drugs with an authorized generic (86.1 vs 80.1%, P = .045) and those with ≥3 generic competitors (87.7% vs 78.6%, P = .055).

CONCLUSION

Early generic uptake decreased over the past several years. This trend may adversely affect patients and increase prescription drug spending. Policies are needed to encourage generic competition, particularly among injected drugs administered in a hospital or clinic setting.

The effects of oral anticancer parity laws on out-of-pocket spending and adherence among commercially insured patients with chronic myeloid leukemia

BACKGROUND: Over the past 12 years, 43 states and Washington DC have implemented oral anticancer medication parity laws in response to the burden of pharmacy cost sharing. Parity laws are designed to provide equal coverage and cost sharing between orally and parenterally administered anticancer medications for patients in commercial, fully insured health plans (FIHPs). However, there is considerable state-level variation in the requirements to achieve compliance with parity laws, and the clinical and economic effectiveness of parity is not fully known. OBJECTIVES: To (a) understand the impact of parity laws on out-of-pocket (OOP) spending and adherence to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) among commercially insured patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and (b) compare these effects across states with and without per prescription or per 30-day OOP spending limits as part of their parity laws. METHODS: Patients aged 18-64 years with CML, at least 1 pharmacy claim for a TKI, and residence in a state that implemented oral anticancer parity legislation between January 1, 2007, and January 1, 2017, were identified from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database. A propensity score-weighted difference-in-difference approach was used to measure the impact of parity on OOP spending and adherence in the 6 months after the first pharmacy claim for a TKI (index date) for patients enrolled in FIHPs (subject to parity) and self-funded health plans (SFHPs; exempt from parity). OOP spending was standardized to a 30-day equivalent amount and adjusted to 2017 US dollars. Adherence was assessed using the proportion of days covered (PDC), and patients were categorized as adherent with PDC ≥ 0.80. RESULTS: Of 1,887 patients initiating a TKI before or after their state's parity law, 678 (35.9%) were enrolled in FIHPs (480 before vs 198 after parity), and 1,209 (64.1%) were enrolled in SFHPs (688 before vs 521 after parity). Implementation of parity laws was not associated with any changes in mean OOP spending; however, it was associated with a reduced likelihood of paying $0 per 30 days across all states (adjusted difference-in-difference [aDD] OR = 0.662; 95% CI = 0.535-0.820) and states without OOP spending limits (aDD OR = 0.654; 95% CI = 0.508-0.848), but not in states with limits. Nonsignificant but directionally opposite changes at each end of the OOP spending distribution were observed for states with and without OOP spending limits, with increased spending observed at the 75th, 90th, and 95th percentiles in states without limits. Mean PDC and adherence showed a nonsignificant increase among FIHP and SFHP patients across all states, states with limits, and states without limits. CONCLUSIONS: Oral anticancer parity laws are not associated with reduced OOP spending or improved adherence in a commercially insured sample of patients with CML. These findings were consistent for states that included OOP spending limits as a component of their parity laws. DISCLOSURES: This study did not receive any external funding. Spargo, Yost, Raju, and Schroader are or were employees of Xcenda, which receives contracts from various industry partners unrelated to this work. There are no other conflicts of interest to disclose.

Factors Associated With Prescriptions for Branded Medications in the Medicare Part D Program

IMPORTANCE

Branded products of multisource drugs are frequently dispensed in the Medicare Part D program, increasing costs for the program and patients.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the reasons for dispensing branded multisource drugs in Medicare Part D.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study examined claims for multisource drugs with more than 1000 branded claims dispensed in Medicare Part D using Medicare Prescription Drug Event data from a 2017 nationwide random sample of 20% of Medicare beneficiaries. Data were analyzed between January and October 2020.

EXPOSURES

Justification for branded dispensing as indicated by each claim's dispense-as-written code.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Mean Medicare Part D program spending and patient out-of-pocket spending for branded and generic products, and generic vs branded spending discounts in program and patient out-of-pocket spending for each multisource drug.

RESULTS

Among 169 million claims for 224 multisource drugs, 8.3 million claims (4.9%) were dispensed with a branded product. Among these claims, 4.9 million claims (59.2%) did not have a recorded reason for branded dispensing; 1.4 million claims (16.9%) occurred because of prescriber requests; and 1.1 million claims (13.5%) occurred because of patient requests. If all branded dispensing requested by prescribers had been substituted by the corresponding generics, the projected savings to the Medicare Part D program and Medicare patients were $997 million (56.0%) and $161 million (64.4%), respectively. If all branded dispensing requested by patients had been substituted by generics, the projected savings to the Medicare Part D program and Medicare patient were $673 million (53.4%) and $109 million (55.1%), respectively. Drugs with the highest proportion of branded dispensing by physician or patient request were typically high cost (eg, drugs with above-median frequencies of branded dispensing: mean [SD] discount on generic vs branded, 73.9% [26.9%] for prescriber requests).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Prescribers and patients motivated 30.4% of all branded dispensing of multisource drugs in the Medicare Part D program. Branded dispensing requested by prescribers or patients incurred an incremental annual cost of $1.67 billion to the Medicare program and $270 million to patients when compared with switching to generics. Policy makers should consider ways to discourage prescribers and patients from requesting branded dispensing of multisource drugs because of the higher cost.

Why France Spends Less Than the United States on Drugs: A Comparative Study of Drug Pricing and Pricing Regulation

Policy Points  Spending on prescription drugs is much higher per capita in the United States than in most other industrialized nations, including France.  Lower prescription drug spending in France is due to different approaches to managing drug prices, volume of prescribing, and global health budgets.  Linking a drug's price to value both at the launch of the drug and over its lifetime is key to controlling spending. Regulations on prescription volume and global spending complement the interventions on prices.  If the United States adopted the French approach to regulating drug pricing, Medicare could potentially save billions of dollars annually on prescription drug spending.

CONTEXT

Prescription drug spending per capita in the United States is higher than in most other industrialized countries. Policymakers seeking to lower drug spending often suggest benchmarking prices against other countries, including France, which spends half as much as the United States per capita on prescription drugs. Because differences in drug prices may result from how markets are organized in each nation, we sought to directly compare drug prices and pricing regulations between the United States and France.

METHODS

For the six brand-name drugs with the highest gross expenditures in Medicare Part D in 2017, we compared the price dynamics in France and the United States between 2010 and 2018 and analyzed associations between price changes in each country and key regulatory events. We also comprehensively reviewed US and French laws and regulations related to drug pricing.

FINDINGS

Prices for the six drugs studied were higher in the United States than in France. In 2018, if Medicare had paid French prices for the brand-name drugs in our cohort, the agency would have saved $5.1 billion. We identified 12 factors that explain why the United States spends more than France on drugs, including variations in unit prices and the volume of prescriptions, driven by use of health technology assessment and value-based pricing in France.

CONCLUSIONS

Key drivers of lower drug spending in France compared to the United States are that the French government regulates drug prices when products are launched and prohibits substantial price increases after launch. The regulation of prescription drugs in France is governed by rules that can inform discussions of US prescription drug policy and potential Medicare price negotiations.

Expenditures for First- and Second-Generation Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors Before and After Transition of Imatinib to Generic Status

Importance

Imatinib introduced a paradigm shift in the treatment of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), allowing a lifespan that is almost comparable to the general population. However, the health care expenditures associated with imatinib have increased steadily since its introduction in 2001. Since the generic market entry of imatinib on February 1, 2016, it became possible to determine the effect of generic entry on the health care expenditures associated with imatinib, along with the concurrent pricing trends of second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

Objective

To compare health care expenditure related to imatinib treatment for patients with CML prior to its generic status with expenditures after, in a real-world setting.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective cohort study using data from the Truven Health MarketScan Database was carried out including 1301 commercially insured patients or patients with Medicaid between the ages of 18 and 64 years with a CML diagnosis between September 1, 2014 and December 31, 2017. A single interrupted time series (ITS) method was used to evaluate monthly expenditures associated with imatinib for the health plan from September 1, 2014 to December 31, 2017, with imatinib switching to generic on February 1, 2016, as the interruption. The initial 6-month period postinterruption was excluded to allow for the new price structure to stabilize. Nilotinib and dasatinib were evaluated using a comparative ITS design. The analysis took place between September 1, 2014 to December 31, 2017.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Commercial and Medicaid health plan expenditure and patient cost responsibility for 30-day blocks per patient for imatinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib were calculated from September 1, 2014 through December 31, 2017. Pricing was adjusted via 2017 consumer price index for medical services.

Results

The sample included a total of 1301 patients (1102 commercially insured and 199 insured through Medicaid) with a median (range) age at diagnosis of 50 (18-62) years for commercially insured patients and 50 (47-52) years for patients with Medicaid. Of the 1301 patients, 704 (54.1%) were men. There was a significant pregeneric increase in expenditure (commercially insured: $143 per patient per month, P < .001; Medicaid: $152 per patient per month, P = .001). There was a significant reduction over the 6-month interruption period (February 2016 through August 2016) between the pregeneric and generic phase (commercial: $-3097 per patient, P < .001; Medicaid: $-2077 per patient, P = .002). Controlling for secular trends, this was followed by a small decline in expenditure during the generic phase (commercially insured: -$93 per patient per month; P = .03; Medicaid: -$182 per patient per month; P = .001). Nilotinib and dasatinib maintained an increasing trend in both the pregeneric and generic phase of imatinib, resulting in a significant difference-in-difference slope for commercially insured patients (nilotinib: -$186, P = .006; dasatinib: -$175, P = .007) and patients with Medicaid (nilotinib: -$299, P = .002; dasatinib: -$329, P < .001). There were no significant trends for patient cost responsibility.

Conclusions and Relevance

The modest decline in expenditure associated with imatinib after generic entry accompanied by the increasing expenditure trends associated with the second-generation TKIs suggest a need for measures to facilitate cost reduction as well as standardization of CML treatment.

Net Spending On Retail Specialty Drugs Grew Rapidly, Especially For Private Insurance And Medicare Part D

Specialty drugs are expensive, but spending on specialty drugs is difficult to measure because of proprietary rebate payments by manufacturers to insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, and state Medicaid agencies. Our study extends recent research that documented growing use of and spending on specialty drugs by incorporating manufacturer rebates for both public and private payers. Although specialty drugs make up a small portion of retail prescriptions filled, we found that they accounted for 37.7 percent of retail and mail-order prescription spending net of rebates in 2016-17. From 2010-11 to 2016-17, spending net of rebates tripled for Medicare Part D beneficiaries and more than doubled for people with private insurance. Medicaid spending net of rebates rose more slowly. These results can help inform decision makers as they strive to balance the costs and benefits of innovative drugs.

Health Care Cost Associated With Contemporary Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia Therapy Compared With That of Other Hematologic Malignancies

PURPOSE

Given the widespread introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), we evaluated the cost associated with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) care compared with the cost of care for patients with hematologic malignancies (HEM) and for patients without cancer (GEN), to aid with resource allocation and clinical decision making.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort was constructed from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse using claims from 2000 to 2016. Eligible patients had ≥ 2 CML claims and were enrolled continuously for ≥ 6 months before diagnosis and ≥ 1 year afterward (n = 1,909). Patients with CML were frequency matched 4:1 with HEM and GEN cohorts and were observed through October 2017. We used generalized linear models to assess the variation in total mean annualized health care costs in the 3 cohorts and to examine the influence of factors associated with costs.

RESULTS

Mean annualized costs for CML were $82,054 (ie, $25,471 [95% CI, $20,808 to $30,133] more than those for HEM and $74,993 [95% CI, $70,818 to $79,167] more than those for GEN); these differences were driven by pharmacy costs in the CML group. The cost of CML care exceeded that for HEM and GEN for all index years in this study and increased over each diagnostic interval until 2015, peaking at $91,990. The mean annual cost of all TKIs increased. Imatinib's mean annualized cost was $41,546 in the period 2000-2004 but increased to $105,069 in the period 2015-2017. In multivariable analysis, percent days on TKIs had the greatest influence on cost: ≥ 75% of the time versus none showed a difference in cost of $108,716 (95% CI, $99,193 to $118,239).

CONCLUSION

Contemporary CML costs exceeded the cost of treatment of other hematologic malignancies. Cost was primarily driven by TKIs, whose cost continued to increase over time.

Comparison of Utilization Trends between Biosimilars and Generics: Lessons from the Nationwide Claims Data in South Korea

BACKGROUND

South Korea is unique in that it leads global markets in R&D as well as production of biosimilar products and was the first market into which some biosimilar products were introduced. We analyzed the time trend of market penetration and simulated saved spending by biosimilars in South Korea.

METHODS

We pulled Korean National Health Insurance claims data from January 2012-December 2018 for second-generation biologics, including infliximab, rituximab, and trastuzumab, and examined the time trends of expenditure, utilization in defined daily dose, and price. We also assessed market penetration by biosimilars and simulated expenditure savings gained due to their introduction. We comparatively examined time trends and spending savings during the same period for selected small-molecule generic drugs to understand any specifics limited to biosimilars for time trends of market share and quantity-standardized prices.

RESULTS

The market share for infliximab biosimilar plateaued at over 30%, which is smaller than the market penetration of esomeprazole (over 60%), a small-molecule comparator. Despite a shorter observation period, rituximab and trastuzumab biosimilars also showed larger utilization rates (12.89% and 13.93%, respectively) than infliximab (9.05%) in their second year after market entry. Infliximab was associated with approximately US $82-114 million expenditure savings over 6 years after its biosimilar entry to the market. Rituximab and trastuzumab biosimilars each also resulted in reduction in total spending by approximately US $9-14 million, in less than 2 years.

CONCLUSION

Biosimilars captured the market rapidly, despite a heterogeneous uptake rate by product in South Korea. However, expansion of biosimilar use in the market and consequent expenditure savings need to be supported by pre-emptive policy measures to encourage price competition and boost utilization.

Long-Term Patterns of Oral Anticancer Agent Adoption, Duration, and Switching in Patients With CML

BACKGROUND

Oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been the standard of care for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) since 2001. However, few studies have evaluated changes in the treatment landscape of CML over time. This study assessed the long-term treatment patterns of oral anticancer therapies among patients with CML.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients newly diagnosed with CML between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2016, from 10 integrated healthcare systems. The proportion of patients treated with 5 FDA-approved oral TKI agents-bosutinib, dasatinib, imatinib, nilotinib, and ponatinib-in the 12 months after diagnosis were measured, overall and by year, between 2000 and 2017. We assessed the use of each oral agent through the fourth-line setting. Multivariable logistic regression estimated the odds of receiving any oral agent, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 853 patients with CML, 81% received an oral agent between 2000 and 2017. Use of non-oral therapies decreased from 100% in 2000 to 5% in 2005, coinciding with imatinib uptake from 65% in 2001 to 98% in 2005. Approximately 28% of patients switched to a second-line agent, 9% switched to a third-line agent, and 2% switched to a fourth-line agent. Adjusted analysis showed that age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, and comorbidity burden were statistically significantly associated with odds of receiving an oral agent.

CONCLUSIONS

A dramatic shift was seen in CML treatments away from traditional, nonoral chemotherapy toward use of novel oral TKIs between 2000 and 2017. As the costs of oral anticancer agents reach new highs, studies assessing the long-term health and financial outcomes among patients with CML are warranted.

An Optimal Control Framework for the Automated Design of Personalized Cancer Treatments

One of the key challenges in current cancer research is the development of computational strategies to support clinicians in the identification of successful personalized treatments. Control theory might be an effective approach to this end, as proven by the long-established application to therapy design and testing. In this respect, we here introduce the Control Theory for Therapy Design (CT4TD) framework, which employs optimal control theory on patient-specific pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) models, to deliver optimized therapeutic strategies. The definition of personalized PK/PD models allows to explicitly consider the physiological heterogeneity of individuals and to adapt the therapy accordingly, as opposed to standard clinical practices. CT4TD can be used in two distinct scenarios. At the time of the diagnosis, CT4TD allows to set optimized personalized administration strategies, aimed at reaching selected target drug concentrations, while minimizing the costs in terms of toxicity and adverse effects. Moreover, if longitudinal data on patients under treatment are available, our approach allows to adjust the ongoing therapy, by relying on simplified models of cancer population dynamics, with the goal of minimizing or controlling the tumor burden. CT4TD is highly scalable, as it employs the efficient dCRAB/RedCRAB optimization algorithm, and the results are robust, as proven by extensive tests on synthetic data. Furthermore, the theoretical framework is general, and it might be applied to any therapy for which a PK/PD model can be estimated, and for any kind of administration and cost. As a proof of principle, we present the application of CT4TD to Imatinib administration in Chronic Myeloid leukemia, in which we adopt a simplified model of cancer population dynamics. In particular, we show that the optimized therapeutic strategies are diversified among patients, and display improvements with respect to the current standard regime.

Comparative Safety and Health Care Expenditures Among Patients With Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Initiating First-Line Imatinib, Dasatinib, or Nilotinib

PURPOSE

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have dramatically improved survival for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). No overall survival differences were observed between patients initiating first- and second-generation TKIs in trials; however, real-world safety and cost outcomes are unclear. We evaluated comparative safety and health care expenditures between first-line imatinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib among patients with CML.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients had one or more fills for imatinib, dasatinib, or nilotinib in the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016 (earliest fill is the index date), 6 months pre-index continuous enrollment, CML diagnosis, and no TKI use in the pre-index period. Hospitalizations or emergency department visits (safety events) were compared across treatment groups using propensity-score-weighted 1-year relative risks (RRs) and subdistribution hazard ratios (HRs). Inflation-adjusted annual health care expenditures were compared using quantile regression.

RESULTS

Eligible patients included 1,417 receiving imatinib, 1,067 receiving dasatinib, and 647 receiving nilotinib. The 1-year risk of safety events was high: imatinib, 37%; dasatinib, 44%; and nilotinib, 40%, with higher risks among patients receiving dasatinib (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.30) and nilotinib (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.23) compared with those receiving imatinib. Over a median of 1.7 years, the cumulative incidence of safety events was higher among patients receiving dasatinib (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.38) and nilotinib (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.24) than among those receiving imatinib. One-year health care expenditures were high (median, $125,987) and were significantly higher among patients initiating second-generation TKIs compared with those receiving imatinib (difference in medians: dasatinib v imatinib, $22,393; 95% CI, $17,068 to $27,718; nilotinib v imatinib, $19,463; 95% CI, $14,689 to $24,236).

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving imatinib had the lowest risk of hospitalization or emergency department visits and 1-year health care expenditures. Given a lack of significant differences in overall survival, imatinib may represent the ideal first-line therapy for patients, on average.

Unlocking Access To Novel Medicines In China-A Review From A Health System Perspective

China's healthcare reform aims to provide affordable and equitable basic healthcare for all by 2020. Access to medicines is an essential part of the healthcare. The efforts of promoting access to medicines have been moving from meeting the needs of the basic healthcare, towards increasingly dedicated resources to offer breakthrough therapies. Looking at access to novel medicines from a health system perspective, and placing the changes China has made into that system context, this paper makes a comprehensive review of the progress of access to novel medicines in China. The review drew on two sources of information, which included desk review of published and grey literature, and key informant interview. Five hurdles were identified which create barriers of access to novel medicines, ranging from regulation and financing of medicines, intellectually property rights protection, and development of innovation capacity, to other health system components. Multiple policies have been implementing in China to remove the multiple access barriers gradually. Universal access to medicines has been moving from towards the basic common conditions to the world breakthrough technologies. We see cause for optimism, but recognize that there is a long way to go. Achieving broader and better access to modern medicines for Chinese patients will require multiple and coordinated government efforts, which would need to target the whole lifecycle regulation of novel medicines with a health system perspective, from balancing IP protection, strengthening R&D and public health, to appropriate regulatory approach and financing mechanism, and to supply chain management, as well as smart use.

Cure at what (systemic) financial cost? Integrating novel therapies into first-line Hodgkin lymphoma treatment

Classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) stands out as success story in the field of medical oncology, with multiagent chemotherapy with or without radiation leading to durable remission for most patients. Large-scale clinical trials during the past 40 years have sought to minimize toxicities while maintaining strong efficacy, including efforts to reduce the size of radiation fields, minimize alkylator chemotherapy, reduce the number of chemotherapy cycles, and omit radiation in select populations. The last decade has also ushered in novel therapies, including brentuximab vedotin (BV), that have improved clinical outcomes for patients with cHL resistant to standard cytotoxic therapies. More recently, a large randomized trial compared BV plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of advanced stage cHL. With ∼24 months of available follow-up, the BV containing regimen was found to be associated with a reduction in the risk of progression, death, or incomplete response to first-line treatment (modified progression-free survival). Whether this early signal of improved efficacy is worth the additional acute toxicities and added drug-related expenses associated with incorporating BV into first-line treatment remains controversial. This chapter provides historical background; reviews the cost-effectiveness of available cHL therapies; and summarizes potential ways to balance innovation, affordability, and patient access to novel therapeutics.

Adjuvant systemic therapy for intermediate and large gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs): Is there a survival benefit following margin negative surgical resection?

BACKGROUND

The value of adjuvant systemic therapy after margin-negative resection for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) remains unclear.

METHODS

The National Cancer Data Base was queried to identify patients undergoing margin negative resections for gastric GISTs >2 cm between 2010 and 2015. Patients were stratified by tumor size (small: 2.1-5 cm, intermediate: 5.1-10 cm, large: >10 cm), histologic grade (low: ≤5 mitoses/50 HPF and high: >5 mitoses/50 HPF), and use of adjuvant therapy. Multivariable cox proportional hazard methods were used to compare overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

3520 patients met inclusion criteria. Adjuvant therapy was associated with a statistical improvement in OS (86% vs. 76%, p = 0.014) for those with large tumors but had no measurable effect in patients with small or intermediate sized tumors. On multivariable analysis, this association was independent of grade.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant therapy is associated with improved OS for patients with gastric GISTs >10 cm but provides no statistically significant benefit in OS for those with GISTs 2-10 cm.

Initiation of generic imatinib may improve medication adherence for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia

PURPOSE

To compare adherence to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) between patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) who initiated branded or generic imatinib.

METHODS

We used MarketScan commercial claims data (January 2011-June 2018) to identify patients with CML who newly initiated branded imatinib before 1 August 2015 or generic imatinib on or after 2 February 2016, and were continuously enrolled in health plans for 6 months before through 6 months following their initial fill. After inverse probability of treatment weighting, we compared adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC]) and persistence (no gaps ≥30 and ≥60 consecutive days in therapy) to TKI therapy.

RESULTS

Patients initiating generic imatinib consistently had higher average PDC per month and over the 6-month follow-up period than initiators of branded imatinib. Average 6-month PDC was 92% (95%CI:89%-94%) for generic initiators and 85% (95%CI:83%-86%) for brand initiators. Compared with branded imatinib initiators, a larger proportion of generic imatinib initiators were adherent and persistent to TKI therapy (PDC ≥ 90%:78% versus 64%; no≥60-day gap:94% versus 86%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients initiating generic imatinib achieved clinically significant improvements in adherence to TKI therapy relative to branded drug users, presumably due to lower out-of-pocket costs. Given the importance of optimal adherence in CML, considering barriers to adherence (eg, patient-cost sharing and health benefit design) when selecting initial treatment may improve long-term medication adherence. Pharmacoepidemiologic studies should consider how best to account for expected cost-sharing and its impact on adherence and subsequent clinical outcomes.

Beyond the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve: The appropriateness of rank probabilities for presenting the results of economic evaluation in multiple technology appraisal

The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) shows the probability that an option ranks first for net benefit. Where more than two options are under consideration, the CEAC offers only a partial picture of the decision uncertainty. This paper discusses the appropriateness of showing the full set of rank probabilities for reporting the results of economic evaluation in multiple technology appraisal (MTA). A case study is used to illustrate the calculation of rank probabilities and associated metrics, based on Monte Carlo simulations from a decision model. Rank probabilities are often used to show uncertainty in the results of network meta-analysis, but until now have not been used for economic evaluation. They may be useful decision-making tools to complement the CEAC in specific MTA contexts.

Medicare and patient spending among beneficiaries diagnosed with chronic myelogenous leukemia

BACKGROUND

The authors examined Medicare spending and patient spending in older patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) over the first 5 years from the time of CML diagnosis in the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) era.

METHODS

Medicare beneficiaries with CML who were diagnosed between 2007 and 2012 at age >65 years were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database (805 beneficiaries). A noncancer Medicare beneficiary sample was frequency-matched based on age, sex, and race/ethnicity (805 individuals). Patients were followed until 5 years from diagnosis, disenrollment, death, or December 31, 2014, whichever came first. Total Medicare spending, service-specific spending, and amount owed by patients was estimated monthly and then summed over 60 months and averaged to generate annual spending.

RESULTS

The median age at the time of diagnosis of CML was 76 years (range, 66-102 years). Overall, 51.4% of patients received TKIs (27.8% received imatinib alone), 28% received non-TKI therapy, and 21% received no treatment. The 5-year survival rate for patients with ≥85% time receiving TKIs was 79% compared with 76% for noncancer controls versus 62% for those with <85% time receiving TKIs. Annual Medicare spending was found to be significantly higher for patients treated with TKIs ($143,053) compared with those treated without TKIs ($41,268 vs $10,498 for noncancer controls). Annual patient cost responsibility was $11,712 per patient receiving any TKIs versus $7330 for those receiving non-TKI outpatient chemotherapy versus $3561 for noncancer controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Older patients with CML with adequate time receiving TKI therapy have 5-year survival rates that are comparable to those of their counterparts without cancer. However, TKI use is accompanied with significant Medicare and patient spending; patients receiving multiple TKIs (ie, dasatinib or nilotinib along with imatinib) constitute the group with the highest spending.

The price of innovation - the role of drug pricing in financing pharmaceutical innovation. A conceptual framework

The debate on drug prices has reached new heights with the controversy around the role of prices in promoting innovation. Critics claim that prices of innovative drugs are excessive and argue that lowering prices will not harm the flourishing innovation. On the opposite end, the pharmaceutical industry insists that restrictive pricing policies will have a detrimental impact on their ability to generate innovation. Amid these two divergent positions, this manuscript presents a conceptual framework to better understand the role played by drug prices to influence the ability of pharmaceutical firms to raise money in capital markets and hence finance pharmaceutical innovation. We argue that deviations from established value-based pricing principles, by either firms or payers, will distort access by firms to capital and lead to an undesirable level of innovation in the long term. We hope that this framework helps policy-makers anticipate the impact of their proposals, and ultimately guide policies towards setting optimal drug prices as a means to maximise social welfare.