9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Medicare Spending on Brand-name Combination Medications vs Their Generic Constituents

      1 , 1 , 1 , 1
      JAMA
      American Medical Association (AMA)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180085-1"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d2063070e246">Question</h5> <p id="d2063070e248">What is the annual incremental cost to the Medicare Part D drug benefit program of using brand-name combination products instead of their generic components? </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180085-2"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d2063070e251">Findings</h5> <p id="d2063070e253">In this retrospective analysis of Medicare Part D expenditures, the difference between the amount Medicare reported spending in 2016 on 29 brand-name combination products and the estimated spending for their generic constituents for the same number of doses would have been $925 million, which includes $235 million if generic products had been prescribed at the same doses, $219 million using generic substitution at different doses, and $471 million from substitution of similar generic medications in the same therapeutic class. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180085-3"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d2063070e256">Meaning</h5> <p id="d2063070e258">Generic substitution and therapeutic interchange may offer important opportunities to achieve substantial savings. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180085-4"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d2063070e263">Importance</h5> <p id="d2063070e265">Brand-name combination drugs can be more expensive than the sum of their components, especially when the constituent products are available as generic medications. The potential savings that could be achieved using generic components is not known. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180085-5"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d2063070e268">Objective</h5> <p id="d2063070e270">To estimate the additional cost to Medicare of prescribing brand-name combination medications instead of generic constituents. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180085-6"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d2063070e273">Design, Setting, and Participants</h5> <p id="d2063070e275">Retrospective analysis for 2011 through 2016 using the Medicare data set of Part D beneficiaries prescribed any of the 1500 medications that accounted for the highest total spending in 2015. Brand-name combination drugs that had identical or therapeutically equivalent generic constituents were included. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180085-7"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d2063070e278">Exposures</h5> <p id="d2063070e280">Brand-name, oral combination medications with constituents available either as generic drugs or therapeutically equivalent generic substitutes. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180085-8"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d2063070e283">Main Outcomes and Measures</h5> <p id="d2063070e285">The estimated difference between the amount spent by Medicare on brand-name combination drugs and the estimated amount that would have been spent on substitutable generic components. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180085-9"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d2063070e288">Results</h5> <p id="d2063070e290">Among the 1500 medications evaluated, 29 brand-name combination medications were separated into 3 mutually exclusive categories: constituents available as generic medications at identical doses (n = 20), generic constituents at different doses (n = 3), and therapeutically equivalent generic substitutes (n = 6). For the constituents available as generic medications at identical doses category, total spending by Medicare in 2016 on the brand-name combination products was $303 million and the estimated spending for the generic constituents would have been $68 million, which is an estimated difference of $235 million. For the generic constituents at different doses category, total spending by Medicare in 2016 on the brand-name combination products was $232 million and the estimated spending for the generic constituents would have been $13 million, which is an estimated difference of $219 million. For the therapeutically equivalent generic substitutes category, total spending by Medicare in 2016 on the brand-name combination products was $491 million and the estimated spending for the generic constituents would have been $20 million, which is an estimated difference of $471 million. In 2016, the estimated spending for the generic constituents for these 29 drugs would have been $925 million less than the estimated spending for the brand-name combinations. For the 10 most costly combination products available during the entire study period, the listed Medicare spending could have been an estimated $2.7 billion lower between 2011 and 2016 if the generic constituents had been prescribed. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180085-10"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d2063070e293">Conclusions and Relevance</h5> <p id="d2063070e295">In 2016, the difference between the amount that the Medicare drug benefit program reported spending on brand-name combination medications and the estimated spending for generic constituents for the same number of doses was $925 million. Promoting generic substitution and therapeutic interchange through prescriber education and more rational substitution policies may offer important opportunities to achieve substantial savings in the Medicare drug benefit program. </p> </div><p class="first" id="d2063070e298">This retrospective analysis estimates the additional cost to Medicare of prescribing brand-name combination medications instead of generic constituents by using the Medicare data set of Part D beneficiaries prescribed any of the 1500 medications that accounted for highest total spending in 2015. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Full coverage for preventive medications after myocardial infarction.

          Adherence to medications that are prescribed after myocardial infarction is poor. Eliminating out-of-pocket costs may increase adherence and improve outcomes. We enrolled patients discharged after myocardial infarction and randomly assigned their insurance-plan sponsors to full prescription coverage (1494 plan sponsors with 2845 patients) or usual prescription coverage (1486 plan sponsors with 3010 patients) for all statins, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, or angiotensin-receptor blockers. The primary outcome was the first major vascular event or revascularization. Secondary outcomes were rates of medication adherence, total major vascular events or revascularization, the first major vascular event, and health expenditures. Rates of adherence ranged from 35.9 to 49.0% in the usual-coverage group and were 4 to 6 percentage points higher in the full-coverage group (P<0.001 for all comparisons). There was no significant between-group difference in the primary outcome (17.6 per 100 person-years in the full-coverage group vs. 18.8 in the usual-coverage group; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.04; P=0.21). The rates of total major vascular events or revascularization were significantly reduced in the full-coverage group (21.5 vs. 23.3; hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.99; P=0.03), as was the rate of the first major vascular event (11.0 vs. 12.8; hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.99; P=0.03). The elimination of copayments did not increase total spending ($66,008 for the full-coverage group and $71,778 for the usual-coverage group; relative spending, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.56; P=0.68). Patient costs were reduced for drugs and other services (relative spending, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.80; P<0.001). The elimination of copayments for drugs prescribed after myocardial infarction did not significantly reduce rates of the trial's primary outcome. Enhanced prescription coverage improved medication adherence and rates of first major vascular events and decreased patient spending without increasing overall health costs. (Funded by Aetna and the Commonwealth Fund; MI FREEE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00566774.).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of Dextromethorphan-Quinidine on Agitation in Patients With Alzheimer Disease Dementia

            Agitation is common among patients with Alzheimer disease; safe, effective treatments are lacking.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The comparative efficacy and safety of the angiotensin receptor blockers in the management of hypertension and other cardiovascular diseases.

              All national guidelines for the management of hypertension recommend angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) as an initial or add-on antihypertensive therapy. The eight available ARBs have variable clinical efficacy when used for control of hypertension. Additive blood pressure-lowering effects have been demonstrated when ARBs are combined with thiazide diuretics or dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, augmenting hypertension control. Furthermore, therapeutic use of ARBs goes beyond their antihypertensive effects, with evidence-based benefits in heart failure and diabetic renal disease particularly among angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-intolerant patients. On the other hand, combining renin-angiotensin system blocking agents, a formerly common practice among medical subspecialists focusing on the management of hypertension, has ceased, as there is not only no evidence of cardiovascular benefit but also modest evidence of harm, particularly with regard to renal dysfunction. ARBs are very well tolerated as monotherapy, as well as in combination with other antihypertensive medications, which improve adherence to therapy and have become a mainstay in the treatment of stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA
                JAMA
                American Medical Association (AMA)
                0098-7484
                August 21 2018
                August 21 2018
                : 320
                : 7
                : 650
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                Article
                10.1001/jama.2018.11439
                6142946
                30140875
                d44886f9-cfa9-474b-a6e3-e2aab6fa8c6d
                © 2018
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article