Branded drug products have fewer potential cost-saving limits on them in Medicare Part D formularies, researchers at John Hopkins University have found.
Branded drug products have fewer potential cost-saving limits on them in Medicare Part D formularies, researchers at John Hopkins University have found.
The results were published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine. Writing in a research letter, the authors noted that even when generics are available, brands may still receive favorable placement on a formulary, typically through rebates and other price breaks. The cost of drugs in Medicare has been a focus of the Trump administration, which is seeking to halt such rebates in taxpayer-funded plans.
The researchers examined the 57 unique drug formularies offered across all 750 Medicare Part D stand-alone prescription drug plans in 2016 to see how often branded products were given more favorable formulary placement than generic products.
They defined favorable placement as the placement of a branded product in a lower cost-sharing tier or the presence of fewer utilization controls such as prior authorization, step therapy, or quantity limits than its corresponding generic.
The study looked at multisource drugs, meaning drugs for which both versions were available, and examined the lowest strength per drug when multiple strengths were available. Drug prices were compared by dividing the mean cost per unit of the branded products by the mean cost per unit of the corresponding generic drugs in 2016 Medicare Part D claims data.
The 57 formularies covered, on average, 1657 different drugs, of which 935 were multisource. Results showed the following:
The researchers also examined 222 multisource drugs that were covered in all formularies and had branded and generic products covered in at least 1 formulary. Differences were seen here as well:
Drug price often determines beneficiaries’ cost sharing, the authors noted, and favorable formulary placement of branded drugs encourages the use of more expensive products and can lead to higher out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries as well as higher expenditures for the Part D program.
Besides enacting the HHS proposal to remove the “safe-harbor” provision that allows drug manufacturer rebates to be paid without triggering the federal anti-kickback statute, another option is to prohibit branded drugs from obtaining favorable placement on Medicare formularies.
However, the authors noted that it is still possible for pharmaceutical makers to restructure payments to drug plans to avoid this restriction.
In their letter, the authors noted that their analysis may have overestimated the difference in price between branded and generic products because of the confidentiality of price concessions.
Reference
Socal MP, Bai G, Anderson GF. Favorable formulary placement of branded drugs in Medicare prescription drug plans when generics are available [published online March 18, 2019]. JAMA Intern Med. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7824.
Biosimilars in America: Overcoming Barriers and Maximizing Impact
July 21st 2024Join us as we explore the complexities of the US biosimilars market, discussing legislative influences, payer and provider adoption factors, and strategies to overcome industry challenges with expert insights from Kyle Noonan, PharmD, MS, value & access strategy manager at Cencora.
Hesitancy in MENA Nations to Adopt WHO Biosimilar Guidelines Hinders Market Development
July 17th 2024The World Health Organization’s (WHO) new guidelines for biosimilar approvals aim to save time and money for manufacturers in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), but hesitancy among nations to adopt the guidelines is stifling market development of biosimilars.
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.