Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40668561›Full record

ArticleJAMA dermatology2025

Quantifying the Role of Specialty Medications in Medicare Part D Expenditures in Dermatology.

Edward L Kong, Arash Mostaghimi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Edward L KongHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Arash MostaghimiDepartment of Dermatology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Medical Scientist Training ProgramT32GM144273 · NIGMS · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI David Shumway Jones, Jacqueline A. Lees · 2022 to 2026
$14.7M
MD-PhD Training Program in Aging and the Social/Behavioral SciencesT32AG051108 · NIA · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI MCWILLIAMS, JOHN MICHAEL · 2015 to 2025
$2.1M
NIA NIH HHS T32 AG051108NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM144273
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The rising cost of prescription drugs is a major concern in health care. Specialty medications, particularly biologics, have transformed dermatologic care but are expensive and may be factors in disproportionate growth in spending. Objective: To assess the role of specialty medications in Medicare Part D drug spending among physician dermatologists and dermatology-focused advanced practice clinicians (nurse practitioners and physician assistants) from 2013 to 2022. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic analysis used Medicare Part D prescriber data on drug prescriptions from 2013 to 2022 to report on prescription drug claims from physician dermatologists and dermatology-focused advanced practice clinicians, identified using validated administrative claims-based definitions. Data were analyzed from December 17, 2024, to May 31, 2025. Exposure: Prescription volumes, average prices, and the introduction of new drugs. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was growth in inflation-adjusted total dermatology drug spending, decomposed by specialty status, prescriptions, prices, and US Food and Drug Administration approval year assessed from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Part D prescriber data from 2013 to 2022. Results: In 94 900 359 drug claims from 24 731 dermatology care professionals, inflation-adjusted Medicare Part D spending increased by 16.1% annually, from $768 million in 2013 to $2.95 billion in 2022. Specialty medications contributed 98.4% of this growth, increasing from 30.8% of all dermatology drug spending in 2013 to 80.9% in 2022, despite being only 2.9% of prescriptions. Average inflation-adjusted prices per 30-day prescription for specialty medications increased by 5.1% per year, from $3738 in 2013 to $5872 in 2022. In contrast, prices for nonspecialty medications decreased by 5.3% annually relative to inflation, from $68 in 2013 to $42 in 2022. Most of the growth in specialty medication spending was due to increased prescribing (80.5%) rather than higher prices (19.5%). New therapies approved after 2013 (Otezla, Cosentyx, Taltz, Dupixent, Tremfya, Skyrizi, and Odomzo) accounted for 69.5% of all spending growth. Prescription rates increased more slowly for older specialty drugs (Humira, Enbrel, Stelara, and Erivedge), but their prices increased more (9.2% annually) than prices for newer agents. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this economic evaluation suggest that specialty medications have become a substantial factor in dermatology drug spending. While the price of the average dermatologic medication has increased rapidly, this primarily reflects increased prescribing of newly introduced specialty drugs. While these therapies expand treatment options, their rising share of costs highlights the need for policies that balance innovation, access, and affordability.

Identifiers

PMID40668561
PMCPMC12268527

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.