Search

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulants (OAC) is indicated for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with a moderate or high risk of stroke. Despite the benefits of stroke prevention, only 50%-60% of Americans with nonvalvular AF and a moderate or high risk of stroke receive OAC medication. OBJECTIVE: To understand the extent to which low OAC use by patients with AF is attributed to underprescribing or underfilling once the medication is prescribed. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study that used linked claims data and electronic health records from Optum Integrated data. Participants were adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with first AF between January 2013 and June 2017. The outcomes included (1) being prescribed OACs within 180 days of AF diagnosis or not and (2) filling an OAC prescription or not among patients with AF who were prescribed an OAC within 150 days of AF diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to determine factors associated with underprescribing and underfilling. RESULTS: Of the 6,141 individuals in the study cohort, 51% were not prescribed OACs within 6 months of their AF diagnosis. Of the 2,956 patients who were prescribed, 19% did not fill it at the pharmacy. In the final adjusted model, younger age, location (Northeast and South), a low CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score, and a high HAS-BLED score were associated with a lower likelihood of being prescribed OACs. Among patients who were prescribed, Medicare enrollment (odds ratio [OR] [95% CI] = 2.2 [1.3-3.7]) and having a direct oral anticoagulant prescription (1.5 [1.2-1.9]) were associated with a lower likelihood of filling the prescription. CONCLUSIONS: Both underprescribing and underfilling are major drivers of low OAC use among patients with AF, and solutions to increase OAC use must address both prescribing and filling. DISCLOSURES: Research reported in this study was supported by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (K01HL142847 and R01HL157051). Dr Guo is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK133465), PhMRA Foundation Research Starter Award, and the University of Florida Research Opportunity Seed Fund. Dr Hernandez reports scientific advisory board fees from Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb, outside of the submitted work.

BACKGROUND: For atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, oral anticoagulants (OACs) can reduce the risk of stroke by 60%; however, nearly 50% of patients recommended to receive OACs do not receive therapy. Integrated insurers that cover pharmacy and medical benefits may be incentivized to improve OAC use and adherence because they benefit from offsets in medical costs associated with prevented strokes. OBJECTIVE: To compare OAC use and adherence between AF patients enrolled in Medicare stand-alone prescription drug plans (PDPs), which only cover pharmacy benefits, and those enrolled in Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MAPD) plans, which cover medical and pharmacy benefits. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study, conducted using 2014-2016 Medicare claims data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and a large regional health plan in Pennsylvania. Primary outcomes included OAC use and OAC adherence. OAC use was measured as filling at least 1 prescription for an OAC after AF diagnosis. OAC adherence was defined as having greater than or equal to 80% of days covered with an OAC. We constructed conditional logistic regression models in propensity score-matched samples to test the association between enrollment in PDPs or MAPD plans and outcomes. RESULTS: There were 2,551 AF patients enrolled in PDPs and 4,502 in MAPD plans before propensity score matching. The propensity score-matched sample included 2,537 patients in each group. OAC use was higher among MAPD beneficiaries (74%-76%) compared with PDP beneficiaries (70%; P < 0.001), and 41%-42% of MAPD beneficiaries were adherent to OACs, compared with 34% of PDP beneficiaries ( P < 0.001). In adjusted analyses among propensity score-matched samples, PDP enrollment was associated with lower odds of OAC use (OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.56-0.81) and adherence (OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.59-0.78) compared with MAPD enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: AF patients enrolled in MAPD plans were more likely to use and adhere to OACs compared with PDP enrollees. These results may reflect the financial incentives of MAPD plans to improve guideline-recommended OAC use, since MAPD insurers bear the risk of pharmacy and medical costs and thus may benefit from cost savings associated with averted stroke events. As efforts to improve use and adherence of OACs in AF patients increase, focus should be given to how insurance benefit designs can affect medication use. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Hernandez has received personal fees from BMS and Pfizer, unrelated to this study. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulation (OAC) is recommended for the prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF). However, only 50%-60% of AF patients in the United States are treated with OAC, and 60% of them adhere to OAC therapy over time. OBJECTIVES: To (1) compare adherent use of OAC between AF patients who received primary care from practices involved in shared-savings models and patients who received care from practices not involved in shared savings and (2) examine the trend of adherence to OAC over time. Because OAC can save downstream medical costs associated with averted stroke events, we hypothesized that OAC adherence would be higher among patients receiving care from practices involved in shared savings. METHODS: Using 2014-2019 claims data from a health insurer in western Pennsylvania, we identified 20,637 AF patients from 2015-2018. Patients were followed from the first AF diagnosis (index date) for 12 months or until disenrollment. We categorized patients according to the payment model of the practice from which they received primary care: shared savings (n = 8,844) and no shared savings (n = 11,793). The primary outcome was adherent use of OAC therapy, which was defined as having at least 80% of the followup period covered with OAC. Secondary outcomes included adherent use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and adherent use of warfarin. We constructed logistic regression models to assess the association between involvement in shared savings and adherent use of OAC, while controlling for demographics, clinical characteristics, and index year. RESULTS: 34% of patients in the shared-savings group adhered to OAC, compared with 32.7% in the no shared-savings group ( P = 0.04). After adjustment, adherence was higher for the shared-savings group for OAC (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.01-1.14) and warfarin (aOR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.02-1.20) compared with the no shared-savings group. However, the odds of adherent use of DOACs did not statistically differ between shared savings and no shared savings (aOR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.91-1.08). The odds of adherent OAC use increased over time: the aOR of adherent use of OAC was 1.21 (95% CI = 1.09-1.34) for index year 2016; 1.50 (95% CI = 1.36-1.67) for 2017; and 1.78 (95% CI 1.60-1.98) for 2018, all compared with 2015. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of primary care from a practice involved in shared savings was associated with a higher adherent use of OAC and warfarin for patients with atrial fibrillation. Furthermore, adherent use of OAC improved over time for both treatment groups. Our research demonstrates that the alignment of financial incentives between providers and insurers may improve the use of therapies with downstream cost-saving potential. DISCLOSURES : This project was funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (grant number K01HL142847). Hernandez has received consulting fees from Pfizer and BMS, outside of the submitted work. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

BACKGROUND: Medicare Part B pharmaceutical spending has increased rapidly, more than doubling in 2006-2017. Yet, it is unclear whether this increase was driven by increased utilization or increased cost per claim. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative impact of changes in drug utilization and cost per claim on changes in Medicare Part B pharmaceutical spending in 2008-2016 overall, by drug type (specialty and nonspecialty) and therapeutic category. METHODS: In this retrospective descriptive study, we extracted all claims in 2008-2016 for separately payable Part B drugs from a 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries. Our study included 3 outcomes calculated annually for all included drugs: (1) spending, defined as the sum of total payments; (2) utilization, defined as total number of claims; and (3) cost per claim, defined as spending divided by the number of claims. Estimates of spending and utilization were expressed per beneficiary-year. Spending and cost per claim were adjusted for inflation. For each outcome, we calculated relative changes in 2008-2016. We repeated analyses stratifying by drug type (specialty and nonspecialty) and therapeutic class. RESULTS: Pharmaceutical spending in Medicare Part B increased by 34% from 2008-2016, driven by a 53% increase in the cost per claim. Utilization decreased by 12%. Spending on specialty drugs increased by 56%, driven by a 48% increase in the cost per claim and a 6% utilization increase. Spending on nonspecialty drugs decreased by 32% driven by an 18% reduction in the cost per claim and a 17% reduction in utilization. Spending on ophthalmic preparations increased by 281%, driven by a 238% utilization increase and a 13% increase in the cost per claim. Spending on antiarthritic and immunologic agents increased by 159%, driven by a 117% increase in the cost per claim and a 19% utilization increase. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare Part B pharmaceutical spending grew in recent years, despite decreased utilization, driven by an overall increase in the cost per claim. This was a product of rising drug prices and increased utilization of more expensive specialty drugs. These findings support the development of policies that aim to spur competition and control price growth of provider-administered drugs. DISCLOSURES: The authors acknowledge funding from the Myers Family Foundation. Hernandez was funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (grant number K01HL142847). Shrank is an employee of Humana. Good is an employee of the UPMC Health Plan Insurance Services Division. There are no other potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

BACKGROUND: List prices of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors drastically increased during the last decade, but previous research has shown that half of these increases were offset by rising manufacturer discounts. It remains unclear to what extent manufacturers' discounts have offset increases in list prices of each self-administered injectable TNF inhibitor. Evaluating trends in net prices and discounts at the product level will be paramount in understanding the role of competition in the biologic market. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe product-level changes in net prices of each self-administered injectable TNF inhibitor available in 2007-2019 and (b) quantify to what extent manufacturer discounts have offset increases in list prices. METHODS: We obtained 2007-2019 pricing data for etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, and golimumab from the investment firm SSR Health, which uses company-reported sales to estimate net prices and discounts for brand products manufactured by publicly traded companies. For each drug and year, we calculated annual costs of treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis based on list and net prices and discounts in Medicaid and other payers. RESULTS: From 2007-2019, list prices of etanercept and adalimumab increased by 293% and 295%, respectively; however, discounts offset 47% and 45% of these increases, leading to net price increases of 171% and 203%. List prices of golimumab and certolizumab increased by 183% and 182%, respectively, but with discounts offsetting 58% and 59% of these increases, net prices increased by 103% and 109%. Net prices of golimumab started to decrease after 2016, while net prices of adalimumab and certolizumab experienced their first drop in 2019. Across the study period, discounts in Medicaid and in other payers increased, respectively, from 21% to 85% and 6% to 32% for etanercept; from 26% to 88% and 19% to 35% for adalimumab; from 28% to 63% and 22% to 46% for golimumab; and from 29% to 83% and 27% to 47% for certolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Despite growing manufacturer discounts, net prices of self-administered injectable TNF inhibitors still increased at a mean annual rate of 9.6% in 2007-2019. This led to net prices tripling for adalimumab and more than doubling for etanercept, golimumab, and certolizumab. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by the Myers Family Foundation. Hernandez is funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (grant number K01HL142847). Funding sources had no role in design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Hernandez has served on Pfizer's scientific advisory board. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Background: Statutory rebates and preferred drug lists (PDLs) may result in differential use of biosimilars and generics between Medicaid fee-for-service (FFS) and managed care organizations (MCOs), particularly for branded drugs with large price increases subject to large inflation rebates, which are not retained by MCOs., Objective: To compare the use of 2 biosimilar/generics of branded drugs whose list price tripled in 2008-2018 across states with only FFS Medicaid, with MCOs not subject to statewide PDLs, with MCOs subject to statewide PDLs, and with MCOs where drug benefits have been carved out., Methods: Using 2018 Medicaid drug utilization data, we extracted reimbursement records in Q1-Q3 2018 for insulin glargine 100 IU/mL and glatiramer. We calculated the market share of the biosimilar insulin glargine and generic glatiramer among the corresponding drugs. We compared the market share of these products across 4 state groups: states with only FFS Medicaid, states with MCOs not subject to statewide PDLs for each drug, states with MCOs subject to PDLs, and states with MCOs where drug benefits have been carved out into FFS. We evaluated the correlation between state-level penetration of MCOs and share of biosimilar/generic products., Results: Nationally, the market share of these biosimilar/specialty generics was higher among MCOs than FFS (60.5% vs. 3.7% for biosimilar insulin glargine; 59.4% vs. 5.7% for generic glatiramer; all P < 0.001). The market share of these products was highest in states where MCOs were not subject to statewide PDLs for these drugs (59.1% for biosimilar insulin glargine, 52.8% for glatiramer) compared with states with MCOs subject to PDLs (2.4%, 18.0%); states with only FFS Medicaid (0.9%, 1.7%); or states where drug benefits have been carved out of MCOs (0.0%, 1.0%; all P < 0.001). There was a significant correlation between state-level MCO penetration and share of generic/biosimilar products (R = 0.50 for biosimilar insulin glargine and 0.57 for glatiramer; all P < 0.001)., Conclusions: For 2 drug classes with large price increases, use of biosimilars/generics was greater in MCOs than FFS Medicaid, specifically in states without PDL requirements for MCOs. These findings may reflect financial incentives for MCOs to use drugs with lower list prices because they do not benefit from statutory Medicaid rebates., Disclosures: No outside funding supported this study. Hernandez was funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (grant number K01HL142847). The authors have nothing to disclose.

Background: The Pharmacy Quality Alliance (PQA) recently developed 3 quality measures for prescribing opioids: high dosages, multiple providers and pharmacies, and concurrent use of opioids and benzodiazepines., Objective: To examine the prevalence of the PQA measures and identify the patient demographic and health characteristics associated with the measures., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using Pennsylvania Medicaid data (2013-2015). We limited our analyses to noncancer patients who were aged 18-64 years and not dual-eligible for Medicare/Medicaid. Per PQA specifications, patients were required to possess ≥ 2 opioid prescriptions for ≥ 15 days annual supply each year. Outcome measures included (a) high dosages, defined as > 120 morphine milligram equivalents for ≥ 90 consecutive days; (b) multiple providers/pharmacies, defined as receiving opioid prescriptions from ≥ 4 providers and ≥ 4 pharmacies; and (c) concurrent use of opioids and benzodiazepines, defined as ≥ 30 cumulative days of overlapping opioids and benzodiazepines among individuals having ≥ 2 opioid and ≥ 2 benzodiazepine fills. Patient characteristics assessed included demographics; other medication use; and physical, mental, and behavioral health comorbidities. We present descriptive and multivariable statistical analyses of the data to describe trends in quality measure prevalence and associations with enrollee health characteristics., Results: Numbers of enrollees meeting inclusion criteria ranged from 73,082 in 2013 to 85,710 in 2015. From 2013 to 2015, high dosage prevalence increased from 5.1% to 5.5%; the use of multiple providers/pharmacies decreased from 7.1% to 5.0%; and concurrent use of opioids and benzodiazepines decreased from 29.1% to 28.4% (all P < 0.05). A substantial portion of patients with > 1 PQA measure from 2013 to 2015 was eligible for Medicaid because of disability (41.8%-81.9%). Enrollees with opioid use disorder were more likely to have high dosages (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.83-2.21). Enrollees with anxiety and mood disorders were more likely to have multiple providers/pharmacies (anxiety: AOR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.43-1.65; mood: AOR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.06-1.25) and concurrent use of opioids and benzodiazepines (anxiety: AOR = 3.50, 95% CI = 3.38-3.63; mood: AOR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.36-1.48)., Conclusions: Given high levels of eligibility based on disability and the prevalence of mood, anxiety, and opioid use disorders among those identified by the quality measures, providers may require additional support to care for this patient population., Disclosures: This project was supported by a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was also supported by an intergovernmental agreement between the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services and the University of Pittsburgh. Lo-Ciganic was supported by the University of Arizona Health Sciences Career Development Award. The other authors have nothing to disclose. The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this article do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. A portion of these results was presented at the Association for Medical Education and Research in Substance Abuse 41st National Conference; November 2-4, 2017; Washington, DC.

Background: All Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) operate under a single national drug formulary, yet substantial variation in prescribing and spending exists across facilities. Local management of the national formulary may differ across VAMCs and may be one cause of this variation., Objective: To characterize variation in the management of nonformulary medication requests and pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committee member perceptions of the formulary environment at VAMCs nationwide., Methods: We performed an online survey of the chief of pharmacy and an additional staff pharmacist and physician on the P&T committee at all VAMCs. Respondents were asked questions regarding criteria for use for nonformulary medications, specific procedures for ordering nonformulary medications in general and specific lipid-lowering and diabetes agents, the appeals process, and the formulary environment at their VAMCs. We compared responses across facilities and between chiefs of pharmacy, pharmacists, and physicians., Results: A total of 212 chief pharmacists (n = 80), staff pharmacists (n = 78), and physicians (n = 54) responded, for an overall response rate of 49%. In total, 107/143 (75%) different VAMCs were represented. The majority of VAMCs reported adhering to national criteria for use, with 38 (36%) being very adherent and 69 (65%) being mostly adherent. There was substantial variation between VAMCs regarding how nonformulary drugs were ordered, evaluated, and appealed. The nonformulary lipid-lowering drugs ezetimibe, rosuvastatin, and atorvastatin were viewable to providers in the order entry screen at 67 (63%), 67 (63%), and 64 (60%) VAMCs, respectively. The nonformulary diabetes medication pioglitazone was only viewable at 58 (55%) VAMCs. In the remaining VAMCs, providers could not order these nonformulary drugs through the normal order-entry process. For questions about the formulary environment, physician respondent perceptions differed from those of staff pharmacists and chief pharmacists. Compared with pharmacy chiefs and staff pharmacists, physicians were less likely to agree that providers at their VAMC prescribed too many nonformulary medications (47% and 44% vs. 12%, P < 0.001), more likely to agree that providers must jump through too many hoops to prescribe nonformulary medication (5% and 3% vs. 25%, P < 0.001), and more likely to agree that providers make an effort to convert new patients from nonformulary to formulary lipid-lowering (65% and 73% vs. 94%, P <0.02) and diabetic medications (49% and 50% vs. 88%, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Although the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) operates under a single national formulary, we found significant differences among VAMCs regarding their management of nonformulary medication requests. We also found differences among formulary leaders regarding their perception of the environment in which their VAMC's formulary is managed. These findings have important implications not just for VA, but for any organization that develops, implements, and manages drug formularies across multiple facilities.