Medicare Part D enrollees may actually pay more for some generic drugs than they would for their brand-name counterparts because of the Part D benefit, according to findings of a new study appearing in Health Affairs.
Medicare Part D enrollees may actually pay more for some generic drugs than they would for their brand-name counterparts because of the Part D benefit, according to findings of a new study appearing in Health Affairs.
Since 2012, beneficiaries who purchase brand-name drugs receive a manufacturer discount that goes toward their out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, which allows them to reach the catastrophic coverage phase with lower OOP spending compared with beneficiaries who purchase generic drugs and receive no such discount. The benefit was implemented by the Affordable Care Act, which attempted to close the Medicare Part D coverage gap.
“As a result of this concern, in early 2018 the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) modified the Part D benefit to ensure that beneficiaries would not pay more for biosimilars than for their brand-name counterparts,” wrote the researchers. “While this change corrected the misaligned incentives for biosimilars, it did not extend the protection to generic drugs.”
These findings are based on data from the Medicare Formulary Files for the first quarter of 2018. The researchers focused on the prices of 9 brand-name drugs with an approved generic or biosimilar, including:
Prior to the BBA, biosimilars and specialty generic drugs required higher OOP costs compared with brand-name drugs. The difference ranged from $591 for imatinib compared with Gleevec to $1949 for Zarxio compared with Neupogen. A year’s worth of biosimilar Inflectra would cost a beneficiary $4097 compared with $2858 for brand-name Remicade.
During the same period, traditional generics carried an average annual OOP savings of $709 compared with brand-name drugs, ranging from $100 for basaglar compared with Lantus to as much as $1219 for aripiprazole compared with Abilify.
Since early this year, the BBA has resulted in a decrease in OOP spending for biosimilars. For example, patients using biosimilar Inflectra will save $1573 in annual OOP spending relative to pre-BBA spending. On the flip side, OOP spending for specialty generics is still increasing in relation to brand-name drugs because the manufacturer discounts on brand-name drugs have increased from 50% to 70% and are now applied to biosimilars but not other generics.
The researchers noted that, to date, guidance from CMS on biosimilar coverage under Part D has not fully addressed variations in the FDA approval processes for biosimilar products. Of the 9 drugs included in the analysis, just Inflectra and Zarxio are currently approved as biosimilars, while basaglar is not considered a biosimilar product under the Part D benefit because it was not approved or licensed under the abbreviated licensure pathway.
“Considering the distinction between biosimilars and generics within the Part D benefit, where the former is now subject to a substantial discount and the latter is not, it will be important to ensure that approval pathways do not create artificial barriers to the adoption of lower-price generic or biosimilar medications,” noted the researchers.
Reference
Dusetzina SB, Jazowski S, Cole A, Nguyen J. Sending the wrong price signal: why do some brand-name drugs cost Medicare beneficiaries less than generics? Health Aff (Millwood). 2019;38(7):1188-1194. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05476.
Partnering for Biosimilar Security: India's Role in US Health Care Savings, Supply Chain Stability
May 9th 2024As Indian pharmaceutical companies supplied 4 of every 10 prescriptions in the US in 2022, generating $1.3 trillion in health care savings, a new IQVIA report highlights concerns about supply chain risks and advocates for partnerships to bolster biosimilar security and overall supply chain resilience.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for April 2024—Podcast Edition
May 5th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® glances back at all the major biosimilar policy updates from April, including 2 FDA approvals, 1 European approval, and several insights into possible policy changes from the Festival of Biologics USA conference.
Cencora Analysis Shows Differences in Payer Coverage Between G-CSF Biosimilars
May 2nd 2024Data from a Cencora study showed some misalignment in payer coverage of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilars, highlighting that while filgrastim biosimilars are often favored over the originator, reference pegfilgrastim still dominates over its biosimilars.
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
Dr Sophia Humphreys Provides Calls to Action to Ensure Biosimilar Market Sustainability
April 30th 2024During her presentation during Festival of Biologics USA, Sophia Humphreys, PharmD, director of formulary management at Sutter Health, gave an overview of current challenges and opportunities for the biosimilar market and offered calls to action for multiple stakeholders.
Eye on Pharma: EU Ustekinumab Approval; New Golimumab Data; Evernorth Adds Humira Biosimilar
April 29th 2024The European Union gained a new ustekinumab biosimilar; Alvotech released positive results from a clinical trial evaluating a golimumab biosimilar and the reference products (Simponi and Simponi Aria), and Evernorth announced that it is set to cover an adalimumab biosimilar at zero cost to patients.