Recent research attempted to assess consumer response to the disclosure of drugs' list prices in direct-to-consumer advertising.
When the Trump administration announced its intention to require drug makers to list the prices of their products in direct-to-consumer advertising, HHS Secretary Alex Azar said that the move would usher in “a very different world for American drug pricing.” Other stakeholders, however, such as the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), have voiced concerns that, if patients are exposed to list prices in advertising, they will be reluctant to seek treatment for diseases because of worries about how to pay for high out-of-pocket costs.
Recently, a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine describes an attempt to assess consumers’ responses to list price disclosure. The letter’s authors write that they enrolled 580 participants, recruited via an online job board, who represented a wide range of ages, incomes, education levels, insurance coverage, and health statuses. These participants were asked to assume that they each had a recent diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, and they were randomly assigned to view 1 of 5 advertisements for a fictitious diabetes drug.
One ad did not mention price, and the remaining ads disclosed low ($50 per month) or high ($15,500 per month) prices. Two ads included a modifying statement that informed the consumer that, if eligible for patient support, they could pay as little as $0 per month.
The researchers found that, for the cheaper drug, price disclosure had little influence on consumer responses. However, for the high-priced drug, price disclosure significantly reduced the likelihood that participants would ask their provider or insurer about the product, research the drug online, or take the drug. However, when the modifier clause was included in the ad, these reductions were mitigated.
“Although many challenges remain in designing the ultimate US Food and Drug Administration regulation, our results suggest that requiring pharmaceutical companies to disclose the price in [advertising] can be potentially effective in reducing consumer interest in high-priced drugs, but the inclusion of modifiers in these disclosures can reduce or eliminate the influence of disclosure,” conclude the authors.
These findings coincide with an announcement from Johnson & Johnson (J&J) that it plans to begin including list prices—and “potential patient out-of-pocket costs”—in advertising during the first quarter of 2019. J&J will start by disclosing price information for rivaroxaban (Xarelto), the company’s most-prescribed drug. According to a company statement, J&J will take into account consumer feedback as it rolls out list prices and out-of-pocket cost information for other drugs that it advertises directly to consumers.
J&J’s announcement follows shortly after a statement by Eli Lilly, which said in January 2019 that it would provide pricing information online or via a toll-free phone number for its dulaglutide (Trulicity) immediately, and it added that it would roll out similar pricing information for other drugs by the end of February 2019.
Reference
Garrett JB, Tayler WB, Bai G, Socal MP, Trujillo AJ, Anderson GF. Consumer responses to price disclosure in direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising [published online January 22, 2019]. JAMA Intern Med. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.5976.
Budget Impact Analysis of Biosimilar Natalizumab in the US
Projected savings from biosimilar natalizumab were $452,611 over 3 years, driven by decreased drug acquisition costs and a utilization shift from reference to biosimilar natalizumab.
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.
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.
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.
BioRationality: Time to Get Rid of PBMs if Biosimilars Are to Succeed
July 15th 2024Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, discusses the challenges with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that plague the biosimilar industry and new legislation that attempts to reform their practices and encourage biosimilar adoption.