Price benchmarks of drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation and their therapeutic alternatives.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Inmaculada Hernandez, Emma M Cousin, Olivier J Wouters, Nico Gabriel, Teresa Cameron, Sean D Sullivan
{"title":"Price benchmarks of drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation and their therapeutic alternatives.","authors":"Inmaculada Hernandez, Emma M Cousin, Olivier J Wouters, Nico Gabriel, Teresa Cameron, Sean D Sullivan","doi":"10.18553/jmcp.2024.24153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are currently negotiating prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers for the first 10 Part D drugs selected for Medicare drug price negotiation. Non-publicly available data, including the net prices of selected drugs and their therapeutic alternatives, will play a central role in the determination of the maximum fair prices (MFPs).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To estimate price benchmarks involved in the derivation of the starting point of the CMS initial price offer for the 10 drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For the 10 drugs selected for negotiation, we reported (1) the list price, (2) the net price after manufacturer discounts, (3) the maximum negotiated price based on the minimum statutory discount, and (4) the ceiling of the MFP, estimated as the lowest of the latter 2. We also estimated net prices for therapeutic alternatives to the selected drugs. Net prices were estimated using peer-reviewed methodology that isolates commercial discounts negotiated between payers and manufacturers from mandatory discounts under government programs. All price benchmarks were estimated at the product level, for 30-day equivalent dosing, using 2021 data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>6 products (apixaban, rivaroxaban, empagliflozin, sacubitril/valsartan, etanercept, and insulin aspart) had therapeutic alternatives with lower net prices, which will be integrated with clinical benefit data in the derivation of initial price offers. The other 4 products (ustekinumab, ibrutinib, sitagliptin, and dapagliflozin) had therapeutic alternatives with higher net prices than the drugs selected for negotiation. For ibrutinib and ustekinumab, prices based on the minimum discounts were considerably lower than the estimated net prices and will likely set the starting point of the initial price offer. For dapagliflozin and sitagliptin, the starting point of the initial price offer will likely resemble their existing net prices.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our analyses identify different negotiation scenarios for the first 10 drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation, based on key elements involved in the derivation of the initial price offer. Our analyses can help improve transparency in the negotiation process, because the CMS is not required to reveal the information used in the derivation of price offers.</p>","PeriodicalId":16170,"journal":{"name":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","volume":" ","pages":"762-772"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11293770/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2024.24153","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are currently negotiating prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers for the first 10 Part D drugs selected for Medicare drug price negotiation. Non-publicly available data, including the net prices of selected drugs and their therapeutic alternatives, will play a central role in the determination of the maximum fair prices (MFPs).

Objective: To estimate price benchmarks involved in the derivation of the starting point of the CMS initial price offer for the 10 drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation.

Methods: For the 10 drugs selected for negotiation, we reported (1) the list price, (2) the net price after manufacturer discounts, (3) the maximum negotiated price based on the minimum statutory discount, and (4) the ceiling of the MFP, estimated as the lowest of the latter 2. We also estimated net prices for therapeutic alternatives to the selected drugs. Net prices were estimated using peer-reviewed methodology that isolates commercial discounts negotiated between payers and manufacturers from mandatory discounts under government programs. All price benchmarks were estimated at the product level, for 30-day equivalent dosing, using 2021 data.

Results: 6 products (apixaban, rivaroxaban, empagliflozin, sacubitril/valsartan, etanercept, and insulin aspart) had therapeutic alternatives with lower net prices, which will be integrated with clinical benefit data in the derivation of initial price offers. The other 4 products (ustekinumab, ibrutinib, sitagliptin, and dapagliflozin) had therapeutic alternatives with higher net prices than the drugs selected for negotiation. For ibrutinib and ustekinumab, prices based on the minimum discounts were considerably lower than the estimated net prices and will likely set the starting point of the initial price offer. For dapagliflozin and sitagliptin, the starting point of the initial price offer will likely resemble their existing net prices.

Conclusions: Our analyses identify different negotiation scenarios for the first 10 drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation, based on key elements involved in the derivation of the initial price offer. Our analyses can help improve transparency in the negotiation process, because the CMS is not required to reveal the information used in the derivation of price offers.

医疗保险价格谈判所选药品的价格基准及其治疗替代品。
背景:医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)目前正在与制药商就首批 10 种选定的 D 部分药品进行价格谈判。非公开数据,包括选定药物及其治疗替代品的净价格,将在确定最高公平价格 (MFP) 中发挥核心作用:目标:估算参与医疗保险价格谈判的 10 种选定药品的 CMS 初始报价起点所涉及的价格基准:对于选定进行谈判的 10 种药品,我们报告了 (1) 清单价格,(2) 扣除制造商折扣后的净价格,(3) 基于最低法定折扣的最高谈判价格,以及 (4) MFP 上限(估计为后两项中的最低值)。我们还估算了选定药物治疗替代品的净价格。净价格采用同行评议的方法估算,该方法将支付方与制造商之间协商的商业折扣与政府计划下的强制折扣区分开来。所有价格基准都是根据 2021 年的数据,在产品层面上按 30 天等量剂量估算的:6种产品(阿哌沙班、利伐沙班、恩格列净、沙库比特利/缬沙坦、依那西普和阿斯巴胰岛素)的治疗替代品净价格较低,在推导初始报价时将与临床疗效数据相结合。另外 4 种产品(乌司替吉单抗、伊布替尼、西格列汀和达帕利洛嗪)的替代治疗药物的净价格高于谈判所选药物的净价格。对于伊布替尼和乌司替尼,基于最低折扣的价格大大低于估算的净价,很可能会成为初始报价的起点。对于达帕格列净和西他列汀,初始报价的起点可能与它们现有的净价相似:我们的分析根据初始报价推导过程中涉及的关键因素,确定了医疗保险价格谈判所选择的前 10 种药物的不同谈判方案。我们的分析有助于提高谈判过程的透明度,因为 CMS 无需披露价格报价推导过程中使用的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy Health Professions-Pharmacy
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
131
期刊介绍: JMCP welcomes research studies conducted outside of the United States that are relevant to our readership. Our audience is primarily concerned with designing policies of formulary coverage, health benefit design, and pharmaceutical programs that are based on evidence from large populations of people. Studies of pharmacist interventions conducted outside the United States that have already been extensively studied within the United States and studies of small sample sizes in non-managed care environments outside of the United States (e.g., hospitals or community pharmacies) are generally of low interest to our readership. However, studies of health outcomes and costs assessed in large populations that provide evidence for formulary coverage, health benefit design, and pharmaceutical programs are of high interest to JMCP’s readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信