For 4 drugs—Crestor, Lantus, Advair, and Humira—the United States had higher prices than did any other nation—even more than double the next highest price.
A study published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that the United States spends more per capita on healthcare than any other nation, even other high-income nations, despite poor healthcare coverage and health outcomes, and that prices of pharmaceuticals are a driver of that outsized spending.
Using data primarily from 2013 to 2016, derived from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Commonwealth Fund, a research team led by Irene Papanicolas, PhD, compared the United States’ performance with that of 10 other high-income countries (the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Australia, Japan, Sweden, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Switzerland) on key metrics related to healthcare spending.
The authors report that the United States spent 17.8% of its total national gross domestic product (GDP) on healthcare. By comparison, the next-highest spender is Switzerland, at 12.4% of its GDP. The lowest spender, Australia, expends just 9.6%. The US also has the highest mean per capita spending, at $9403, well ahead of Sweden’s $6808.
The United States also spent the most on pharmaceuticals, with an annual per capita spend of $1443. The next highest was Switzerland at $939, compared to a mean spend of $749 for all 11 countries. While the percentage of total pharmaceutical spending represented by retail spending in the United States (71%) is consistent with the group mean of 72%, retail spending was highest per capita in the US at $1026. For 4 drugs—Crestor, Lantus, Advair, and Humira—the United States had higher prices than did any other nation—even more than double the next highest price.
The United States had high generic penetration at 84% of the market, while Australia and the Netherlands had comparably low generic penetration (30% and 17%, respectively). The United States spent approximately the same on generic products as a percentage of its total drug spending as did the other nations, which the researchers suggest points to brand-name drugs as the driver of spending.
The United States also had higher private spending on pharmaceuticals than the other nations; while the mean private share was 8%, the United States had a 36% private share. US patients’ out-of-pocket spending comprised 30% of spending, compared with a mean of 36%, however.
The authors note that, “Although the United States’ high prices of pharmaceuticals are controversial, these prices have been viewed as critical to innovation, including US production of new chemical entities. Whether innovation justifies high levels of spending is not clear.”
Other areas in which the United States outpaced the other nations in spending included prices of physician and hospital services, diagnostic tests, administrative costs, and physician salaries. Interestingly, say the authors, “The data also suggest that some of the more common explanations about higher health care spending in the United States, such as underinvestment in social programs, the low primary care/specialist mix, the fee-for-service system encouraging high volumes of care, or defensive medicine leading to overutilization, did not appear to be major drivers of the substantially higher US [healthcare] spending compared with other high-income countries.”
Reference
Papanicolas I, Woskie LR, Jha AK. Health care spending in the United States and other high-income countries. JAMA. 2018;319(10):1024-1039. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.1150.
How AI Can Help Address Cost-Related Nonadherence to Biologic, Biosimilar Treatment
March 9th 2025Despite saving billions, biosimilars still account for only a small share of the biologics market—what's standing in the way of broader adoption and how can artificial intelligence (AI) help change that?
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
Experts Pressure Congress to Remove Roadblocks for Biosimilars
April 12th 2025Lawmakers and expert witnesses emphasized the potential of biosimilars to lower health care costs by overcoming barriers like pharmacy benefit manager practices, limited awareness, and regulatory delays to improve access and competition in chronic disease management during a recent congressional hearing.