Health Policy Center, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
Salt Lake County Human Services Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.
JAMA Health Forum. 2023 Jan 6;4(1):e225012. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.5012.
The US spends far more on brand-name prescription drugs than other comparable countries. However, studies of prescription drug spending in the US are often limited because there can be substantial differences in the confidential rebates that drug manufacturers pay to Medicaid vs other payers.
To demonstrate an approach for improved estimation of Medicaid rebates through case studies of 18 top-selling drugs to better understand trends in net Medicaid and non-Medicaid spending and prices for brand-name drugs.
DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a cross-sectional study of US pricing data from 2015 to 2019 derived from Medicaid State Drug Utilization data SSR Health, Medi-Span, the Federal Supply Schedule, and IQVIA. Pricing data for 18 top-selling brand-name drugs measured consistently in both SSR Health, which captures US sales reported by publicly traded companies, and IQVIA's top US prescription drugs by nondiscounted spending in 2015 to 2019. Data were accessed and analyzed from January 2019 to June 2021.
Gross and net Medicaid and non-Medicaid drug spending for the sample of 18 drugs and prices corresponding to a 30-day supply of medication.
Medicaid aggregate gross spending for the 18 drugs in the sample increased 173%, from $3.6 billion in 2015 to $9.9 billion in 2019, and estimated net spending after discounts increased by 119%, from $1.4 billion to $3.0 billion. Medicaid inflation-linked rebates reduced average gross price per 30-day supply by an estimated 43% in 2019, and up to 67% for individual drugs. In addition to the basic rebate, the best price provision reduced the average gross price per 30-day supply by an estimated 3% in 2019 and up to 54% for individual drugs. Between 2015 and 2019 across all study drugs, estimated average non-Medicaid net 30-day prices were between 1.9 and 2.6 times higher than Medicaid net prices. Excluding adalimumab-a spending anomaly because of the entry of a new high-cost formulation-net prices weighted by average gross spending decreased annually by 1% from 2015 through 2019 for Medicaid, while increasing by 2% for non-Medicaid payers.
In this cross-sectional study of 18 top-selling brand-name drugs, excluding 1 anomaly, Medicaid average net prices declined from 2015 to 2019. Simultaneously, for non-Medicaid payers, net price increased more than previously published marketwide growth rates, raising the importance of restraining drug price growth in non-Medicaid markets. Rigorous and transparent methods to estimate Medicaid discounts are imperative to understand patterns in Medicaid and non-Medicaid prices and develop policies that better align drug prices with clinical benefits.
美国在品牌处方药上的支出远远超过其他可比国家。然而,由于药品制造商向医疗补助计划支付的回扣与向其他支付者支付的回扣之间可能存在实质性差异,因此美国处方药支出的研究往往受到限制。
通过对 18 种畅销药品的案例研究,展示一种改进的医疗补助计划回扣估算方法,以更好地了解品牌药品的净医疗补助计划和非医疗补助计划支出和价格的趋势。
设计、设置和参与者:这是一项横截面研究,使用了来自 2015 年至 2019 年美国定价数据,这些数据来自 Medicaid 州药物利用数据 SSR Health、Medi-Span、联邦供应时间表和 IQVIA。在 SSR Health 中一致测量了 18 种畅销品牌药品的定价数据,SSR Health 捕捉了公开上市公司报告的美国销售额,而 IQVIA 则根据 2015 年至 2019 年非折扣支出衡量了美国顶级处方药。数据于 2019 年 1 月至 2021 年 6 月访问和分析。
样本中 18 种药物的总毛额和净医疗补助计划和非医疗补助计划药物支出以及相应的 30 天用药供应价格。
样本中 18 种药物的医疗补助计划总毛额增长了 173%,从 2015 年的 36 亿美元增至 2019 年的 99 亿美元,而折扣后估计净支出增长了 119%,从 14 亿美元增至 30 亿美元。与 2019 年相比,与通货膨胀挂钩的医疗补助计划回扣将每 30 天供应的平均毛额降低了约 43%,对于个别药物则高达 67%。除了基本回扣外,最佳价格条款还将 2019 年每 30 天供应的平均毛额降低了约 3%,对于个别药物则高达 54%。在所有研究药物中,2015 年至 2019 年期间,估计非医疗补助计划的平均净 30 天价格是医疗补助计划净价格的 1.9 至 2.6 倍。排除阿达木单抗(由于一种新的高成本配方的出现而成为支出异常)后,医疗补助计划加权平均毛额支出的净价格从 2015 年到 2019 年每年下降 1%,而非医疗补助计划的净价格则增加了 2%。
在这项对 18 种畅销品牌药品的横截面研究中,排除 1 个异常值,从 2015 年到 2019 年,医疗补助计划的平均净价格下降。与此同时,对于非医疗补助计划的支付者,净价格的增长超过了之前公布的市场增长速度,这增加了在非医疗补助计划市场控制药品价格增长的重要性。为了更好地了解医疗补助计划和非医疗补助计划价格的模式并制定更好地使药品价格与临床效益保持一致的政策,必须采用严格和透明的方法来估算医疗补助计划的折扣。