Patient Health and Impact (PHI), Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, and Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy (ISERP), Columbia University, New York, NY.
Milliman Inc., New York, NY.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021 Dec;27(12):1642-1651. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2021.21202. Epub 2021 Oct 22.
Biologics are an important treatment option for solid tumors and hematological malignancies but are a primary driver of health care spending growth. The United States has yet to realize the promise of reduced costs via biosimilars because of slow uptake, partially resulting from commercial payer reimbursement models that create economic incentives favoring the prescribing of reference biologics. To examine the economic feasibility of an alternative reimbursement methodology that prospectively shares savings across commercial payers and providers to shift economic incentives in favor of lower-cost oncology biosimilars. Using 3 oncology monoclonal antibody drugs (trastuzumab, bevacizumab, and rituximab) as examples, we developed an alternative reimbursement model that would offer an additional per unit payment (or "extra consideration") such that providers' net income per unit for biosimilars and reference biologics become equal. Provider-negotiated rates (or payer-allowable amounts) and average sales prices were obtained from claims data and projected to develop prices/costs from 2021 through 2025. Scenario analyses by varying key model assumptions were performed. The alternative reimbursement model achieved 1-year and 5-year payer savings in the commercial market for all 3 drugs in the sites of service analyzed. The base analysis showed first-year cost savings to payers, net of cost sharing, of up to 9% in physician offices (POs) and up to 1% in non-340B hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) for patients using the drugs analyzed. Five-year cumulative savings per patient ranged from about $12,600-$16,100 in PO and $2,200-$4,100 in HOPD. Payer savings varied depending on the characteristics of the provider with which the payer was negotiating (eg, lower- vs highermarkup providers, POs vs HOPDs). Positive payer savings shown in our modeling suggest that an alternative reimbursement arrangement could facilitate an economic compromise wherein commercial payers can save on biosimilars while providers' incomes are preserved. Research funding was provided by Pfizer Inc. Yang and Shelbaya are employees of Pfizer Inc. and own Pfizer stock. Carioto, Pyenson, Smith, Jacobson, and Pittinger are employees of Milliman Inc., which received research funding from Pfizer Inc., for work on this study. Milliman, Inc., provides actuarial and other professional services to organizations throughout the healthcare industry. None of these are contingent, equity or investment relationships.
生物制剂是治疗实体瘤和血液恶性肿瘤的重要选择,但也是医疗保健支出增长的主要驱动因素。美国尚未通过生物类似药实现降低成本的承诺,因为采用缓慢,部分原因是商业支付者的报销模式创造了有利于开处参考生物制剂的经济激励。为了研究一种替代报销方法的经济可行性,该方法前瞻性地在商业支付者和提供者之间分享节省的费用,以有利于低成本的肿瘤生物类似药的经济激励。我们使用 3 种肿瘤单克隆抗体药物(曲妥珠单抗、贝伐珠单抗和利妥昔单抗)作为示例,开发了一种替代报销模型,该模型将提供额外的单位支付(或“额外考虑”),以使生物类似药和参考生物制剂的提供者每单位净收入相等。从索赔数据中获得了提供商协商的费率(或支付者可允许的金额)和平均销售价格,并预测从 2021 年到 2025 年的价格/成本。通过改变关键模型假设进行了方案分析。在分析的服务地点中,对于所有 3 种药物,替代报销模型在商业市场上实现了 1 年和 5 年的支付者节省。基础分析显示,扣除自付额后,在使用分析药物的患者中,在医生办公室(PO)中的支付者第一年的成本节省最高可达 9%,在非 340B 医院门诊部门(HOPD)中节省最高可达 1%。每位患者的 5 年累计节省额从 PO 中的约 12600 美元至 16100 美元不等,在 HOPD 中从 2200 美元至 4100 美元不等。支付者的节省取决于与支付者进行谈判的提供者的特征(例如,较低的与较高的加价提供者、PO 与 HOPD)。我们的模型显示出积极的支付者节省,这表明替代报销安排可以促进一种经济上的妥协,即商业支付者可以在生物类似药上节省成本,而提供者的收入则得到保留。研究资金由辉瑞公司提供。Yang 和 Shelbaya 是辉瑞公司的员工,拥有辉瑞公司的股票。Carioto、Pyenson、Smith、Jacobson 和 Pittinger 是 Milliman,Inc. 的员工,该公司为这项研究从辉瑞公司获得了研究资金,并提供了专业服务。Milliman,Inc. 为整个医疗保健行业的组织提供精算和其他专业服务。这些都不是有条件的、股权或投资关系。