Search

Background: Brand-name prescription drugs are an important driver of prescription drug spending, but different payers may bear these costs differentially necessitating different policy goals for each payer. But little is known about how the top 10 selling drugs in the U.S. impact spending across payers. Objective: To estimate the differential spending burden of top prescription drugs on Medicaid, Medicare, commercial coverage, and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending. Methods: The percentage of total prescription drug spending, total spending, total prescriptions, and average cost per prescription overall and for each of the following payers – Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance, and OOP – was calculated for each of the top 10 selling prescription drugs using 2017–2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data. Results: These 10 prescription drugs accounted for average annual spending of $83.4 billion and 19.0% of all prescription drug spending. Medicare tended to contribute the highest fraction of spending. The average annual cost per prescription ranged from $500 for Advair to $7400 for Tecfidera. Significant variation in the average annual number of prescriptions filled was observed, ranging from 1.4 million for Tecfidera to 13.6 million for Lantus. Conclusions: The findings highlight the significant impact of the top 10 selling prescription drugs on U.S. prescription drug spending. The wide variation in per prescription cost as well as contribution to each payer's prescription drug burden emphasizes how policies targeting top-selling drugs may differentially impact payers as well as how payer-specific policies may differ substantially even for top selling drugs.

Objective: To examine whether Annual Wellness Visits (AWVs) were associated with increased use of preventive services in Medicare patients with diabetes living in the Diabetes Belt. Methods: We used a case-control design where outcomes were utilization of preventive services recommended for patients with diabetes (foot exam, eye exam, A1c test, and microalbuminuria test) and the exposure was AWVs using data for Medicare patients with diabetes in 2014 – 2015 residing in the Diabetes Belt (N = 412,009). Results: Only 13.4% of patients in 2014 and 17.4% in 2015 used AWVs. Eye exams (61% vs 53%), foot exams (93% vs 79%), A1c tests (81% vs 71%), and microalbuminuria tests (45% vs 28%) were more common among patients who had an AWV in the preceding year compared with those who did not. These differences remained significant after adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, county level medical resources, and geographic factors. Conclusions: AWVs were significantly associated with increased preventive care use among patients with diabetes living in the Diabetes Belt. Low AWV utilization by patients with diabetes in and around the Diabetes Belt is concerning.

Objective: Treatment options for HER-2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients have expanded markedly since trastuzumab approval in 1998. Several other regimens are now available, including pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel, T-DM1, capecitabine plus lapatinib, and trastuzumab plus lapatinib. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of four treatment sequences for HER-2-positive mBC according to the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration (TNHIA). Methods: Costs (U.S. Dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years) of four treatment sequences for HER-2-positive mBC patients were examined using a Markov model over a lifetime horizon. Transition probabilities, disease progression, and probability of adverse events and survival were derived from clinical trial data. Costs and health utilities were estimated from TNHIA, Taipei Medical University Hospital, and the literature. Deterministic, probabilistic sensitivity analyses and a scenario analysis examined parameter uncertainty and accounted for drug wastage in dosage and cost calculations. Results: Sequence 3 (1st line: trastuzumab plus docetaxel; 2nd line: T-DM1; 3rd line: trastuzumab plus lapatinib) was the most cost-effective sequence followed by sequence 1 (1st line: pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel; 2nd line: T-DM1; 3rd line: capecitabine plus lapatinib), and sequence 4 (1st line: trastuzumab plus docetaxel; 2nd line: trastuzumab plus lapatinib; 3rd line: trastuzumab plus capecitabine), respectively. The model was sensitive to costs and transition probabilities, but not particularly sensitive to the wastage assumption. Conclusions: From the perspective of the TNHIA, trastuzumab plus docetaxel as 1st line followed by T-DM1 and trastuzumab plus lapatinib as 2nd and 3rd line represents the most cost-effective strategy among the four sequences considered for treating HER-2-positive mBC patients.

The present data article aims to describe the input parameters for a Markov model assessing the cost-effectiveness of four treatment sequences for patients with HER-2 positive metastatic breast cancer. The model input parameters include costs for physician visits, drugs, adverse event management, computed tomography (CT) scan, laboratory tests, echocardiogram, utilities, disutilities as well as the shape and scale parameters of a log-logistic distribution used for the transition probabilities. Keywords: Markov model, Metastatic breast cancer, Cost-effectiveness analysis, Treatment sequence