ArticleArthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.)2020
Decomposition Analysis of Spending and Price Trends for Biologic Antirheumatic Drugs in Medicare and Medicaid.
Article in Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medicare expenditures for conventional and biologic disease modifying agents commonly used for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveBillions of public dollars are spent each year on biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but the drivers of recent increases in biologic DMARD spending are unclear. This study was undertaken to characterize changes in total spending and unit prices for biologic DMARDs in Medicare and Medicaid programs and quantified the major sources of these spending increases.
methodsWe accessed drug spending data from years 2012-2016, covering all Medicare Part B (fee-for-service), Medicare Part D, and Medicaid enrollees. After calculating 5-year changes in total spending and unit prices for each biologic DMARD as well as in aggregate, we performed standard decomposition analyses to isolate 4 sources of spending growth: drug prices, uptake (number of recipients), treatment intensity (mean number of doses per claim), and treatment duration (annual number of claims per recipient), both excluding and including time-varying rebates.
resultsFrom 2012 to 2016, annual spending on public-payer claims for the 10 biologic DMARDs included in this study more than doubled ($3.8 billion to $8.6 billion), with median drug price increases of 51% in Medicare Part D (mean 54%) and 8% in Medicare Part B (mean 21%). With adjustment for general inflation, unit price increases alone accounted for 57% of the 5-year, $3.0 billion spending increase in Part D, while 37% of the spending increase was from increased uptake. Accounting for time-varying rebates, prices were still responsible for 54% of increased spending. Unit prices and spending were lower under Medicaid than under Medicare Part D, though temporal trends and contributors were similar.
conclusionPostmarket drug price changes alone account for the majority of the recent spending growth in biologic DMARDs. Policy interventions targeting price increases, particularly those under Medicare Part D plans, may help mitigate financial burdens for public payers and biologic DMARD recipients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.