Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37071095›Full record

ArticleJAMA2023

Added Therapeutic Benefit of Top-Selling Brand-name Drugs in Medicare.

Alexander C Egilman, Benjamin N Rome, Aaron S Kesselheim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. For what it's worth: the complex area of medicine value assessment.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2023
    Article
  8. The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alexander C EgilmanDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL), Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Benjamin N RomeDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL), Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Aaron S KesselheimDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL), Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 authorizes Medicare to negotiate prices of top-selling drugs based on several factors, including therapeutic benefit compared with existing treatment options. Objective: To determine the added therapeutic benefit of the 50 top-selling brand-name drugs in Medicare in 2020, as assessed by health technology assessment (HTA) organizations in Canada, France, and Germany. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, publicly available therapeutic benefit ratings, US Food and Drug Administration documents, and the Medicare Part B and Part D prescription drug spending dashboards were used to determine the 50 top-selling single-source drugs used in Medicare in 2020 and to assess their added therapeutic benefit ratings through 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ratings from HTA bodies in Canada, France, and Germany were categorized as high (moderate or greater) or low (minor or no) added benefit. Each drug was rated based on its most favorable rating across countries, indications, subpopulations, and dosage forms. We compared the use and prerebate and postrebate (ie, net) Medicare spending between drugs with high vs low added benefit. Results: Forty-nine drugs (98%) received an HTA rating by at least 1 country; 22 of 36 drugs (61%) received a low added benefit rating in Canada, 34 of 47 in France (72%), and 17 of 29 in Germany (59%). Across countries, 27 drugs (55%) had a low added therapeutic rating, accounting for $19.3 billion in annual estimated net spending, or 35% of Medicare net spending on the 50 top-selling single-source drugs and 11% of total Medicare net prescription drug spending in 2020. Compared with those with high added benefit, drugs with a low added therapeutic rating were used by more Medicare beneficiaries (median 387 149 vs 44 869) and had lower net spending per beneficiary (median $992 vs $32 287). Conclusions and Relevance: Many top-selling Medicare drugs received low added benefit ratings by the national HTA organizations of Canada, France, and Germany. When negotiating prices for these drugs, Medicare should ensure they are not priced higher than reasonable therapeutic alternatives.

Indexed as

Drug CostsMedicare Part BMedicare Part DNational Health ProgramsPatents as TopicPrescription DrugsCanadaCross-Sectional StudiesDrugs, GenericFranceGermanyHealth ExpendituresUnited StatesDrugs, GenericPrescription Drugs

Identifiers

PMID37071095
PMCPMC10114018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.