Colcrys and Copaxone are among the exceptions.
Where generics get put Medicare Part D plan formularies and whether rebates for brand-name drugs have an undue influence on theri tiering has been a hot topic in the world of drug pricing and sales.
Avalere has helped stirred the pot with provocative reports on Part D formulary tiers and generics. For example, in February, the healthcare consulting firm came out a report that said in 2020, for the first time, more generics had been put on higher, non-generic tiers (or, you might say, a tier shared by branded and generic drugs) than on the lower tiers just for generics that usually have lower cost sharing. According to Avalere's research, 47% of generics were on tiers set aside for generics in 2020 compared with 64% in 2016.
But research published in this month’s Heath Affairs looks at the formulary and generics issues from a different angle and, with a with exceptions, paints a quite different picture.
A research team led by Stacie G. Dusetzina, an associate professor at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, that included several Kaiser Family Foundation researchers, looked at 1,361 generic drugs that had an exact match (including the dose) to a brand-name drug in 2019. What they found was that 84% of the time, plans had generic-only coverage while 15% of the time both the brand-name and generic versions of the product were covered.
“Overall, our analysis suggests that the vast majority of Part D plan formularies are designed to encourage the use of generic drugs rather than their brand-name counterparts,” Dusetzina and her colleagues wrote in the conclusion of the Health Affairs paper.
When they looked at Part D plan formulary tiers, they found 125 products in which the brand-name drug was placed on a lower cost-sharing tier than the generic equivalent in at least one plan; 652 in which brand-name and their generic equivalents were on the same tier in at least one plan, and 1,334 in which the generics were placed on a lower cost-sharing tier than their brand-name counterparts.
They did, though, identify 218 products for which the generic was excluded, and the brand-name version covered, by at least plan. For the most part, these drugs were rarely prescribed, so not a lot of money is at stake.
But there are two exceptions, they noted: Colcrys, the brand-name version of colchicine, the medication for gout, and Copaxone, the brand-name version of glatiramer acetate, a multiple sclerosis medication.
There were fewer (511,036) Part D claims for brand-name Colcrys in 2018 than generic colchicine (823,663), but with Copaxone, the tables turn: The 185,180 claims for Copaxone far exceed the 27,616 for generic glatiramer acetate, according to the researchers’ tally. The spending per claim difference between Copaxone and generic glatiramer was $2,239 in 2018, according to Dusetizna and her colleagues, so the math shows that those 185,180 brand-name prescriptions translated into approximately $414 million in additional spending
In 2019, generic colchicine was excluded by 20%-46% of Part D plans in favor of the brand-name Colcrys in 2019, the researchers reported. A much smaller proportion — 10%-13% — of the Part D plans exclude generic glatiramer acetate in favor of Copaxone.
When Dusetzina looked at formulary tiers, they found 125 products in which the brand-name drug was placed on a lower cost-sharing tier than the generic equivalent in at least one plan; 652 in which brand-name and their generic equivalents were on the same tier in at least one plan, and 1,334 in which the generics were placed on a lower cost-sharing tier than their brand-name counterparts.
Bridging the Diversity Gap in Rare Disease Clinical Trials with Harsha Rajasimha of IndoUSrare
November 8th 2023Briana Contreras, an editor with Managed Healthcare Executive, spoke with Harsha Rajasimha, MD, founder and executive chairman of IndoUSrare, in this month's episode of Tuning in to the C-Suite podcast. The conversation was about how the disparity in diversity and ethnicity in rare disease clinical trials in the U.S. has led to gaps in understanding diseases and conditions, jeopardizing universal health, and increasing the economic burden of healthcare.
Listen
35th World AIDS Day Marks 20 Years of PEPFAR: Challenges and Strategies to Combat HIV/AIDS
November 29th 2023PEPFAR, having invested $100 billion and saved 25 million lives in the global fight against HIV/AIDS, faces Congressional hurdles in its reauthorization due to abortion debates. Despite widespread support and no evidence of abortion-related activities, the legislative process is at a standstill. Members of PEPFAR and authors of a recent editorial stress the significance of PEPFAR and advocate for integrating behavioral and social science into healthcare programs to achieve UNAIDS targets and address barriers in HIV/AIDS testing and treatment.
Read More
Managing Editor of Managed Healthcare Executive, Peter Wehrwein, had a discussion with William Shrank, M.D., a venture partner with Andreessen Horowitz, a venture capital firm in Menlo Park, California, about how artificial intelligence's role is improving healthcare, where we are today with value-based care and the ongoing efforts of reducing waste in the healthcare space for this episode of the "What's on Your Mind" podcast series.
Listen
Study Raises Concerns Over Insurance Barriers to HIV Prevention Medications
November 29th 2023Despite its efficacy, PrEP remains underutilized compared to the need for it. High costs are among the barriers to PrEP use, along with limited knowledge among clinicians, lack of health insurance, stigma, and underestimation of personal HIV risk.
Read More