Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31315833›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2019

Spending on World Health Organization essential medicines in Medicare Part D, 2011-15: retrospective cost analysis.

David G Li, Mehdi Najafzadeh, Aaron S Kesselheim, Arash Mostaghimi

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

David G LiDepartment of Dermatology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Mehdi NajafzadehProgram on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston, MA, USA.
Aaron S KesselheimProgram on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston, MA, USA.
Arash MostaghimiDepartment of Dermatology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA amostaghimi@bwh.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-6084-5617

Funding

Tufts Clinical and Translational Research InstituteTL1TR001062 · NCATS · TUFTS UNIVERSITY BOSTON · PI SELKER, HARRY P. · 2013 to 2017
$2.1M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR001062
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo characterize the trends, drivers, and potential modifiers of increased spending by US Medicare beneficiaries on medicines deemed essential by the World Health Organization.

designRetrospective cost analysis of Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use File, detailing annual generic and brand name drug prescribing and spending from 2011 through 2015 by Medicare Part D participants who filled prescriptions for WHO essential medicines.

settingUS Medicare System.

main outcome measuresTotal and per beneficiary Medicare spending, total and per beneficiary out-of-pocket patient spending, cumulative beneficiary count, claim count, and per unit drug cost. All spending measures were adjusted for inflation and reported in 2015 US dollars.

resultsMedicare Part D expenditures on 265 WHO essential medicines between 2011 and 2015 was $87.2bn (£68.4bn; €76.5bn), with annual spending increasing from $11.9bn in 2011 to $25.8bn in 2015 (116%). Patients' out-of-pocket spending for essential medicines over the same period was $12.1bn. Total annual out-of-pocket spending increased from $2.0bn to $2.9bn (47%), and annual per beneficiary out-of-pocket spending on these drugs increased from $20.42 to $21.17 (4%). Total prescription count increased from 376.1m to 498.9m (33%), and cumulative beneficiary count grew from 95.9m to 135.8m (42%). Of the essential medicines included in the study, the per unit cost of 133 (50%) agents increased faster than the average inflation rate during this period. Overall, approximately 58% of the increase in total spending during this period can be attributed to the introduction of novel agents.

conclusionsSpending associated with essential medicines grew substantially from 2011 to 2015, driven largely by the increased use of two expensive novel drugs used in treating hepatitis C. Approximately 22% of increased total spending during this period can be attributed to increases in per unit cost of existing drugs. These trends may limit patients' access to essential drugs while also increasing healthcare system costs.

Indexed as

Drug CostsDrugs, EssentialDrugs, GenericHealth ExpendituresHumansMedicareMedicare Part DOutcome Assessment, Health CareRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesWorld Health OrganizationDrugs, EssentialDrugs, Generic

Identifiers

PMID31315833
PMCPMC6635813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.