Branded drug products have fewer potential cost-saving limits on them in Medicare Part D formularies, researchers at John Hopkins University have found.
Branded drug products have fewer potential cost-saving limits on them in Medicare Part D formularies, researchers at John Hopkins University have found.
The results were published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine. Writing in a research letter, the authors noted that even when generics are available, brands may still receive favorable placement on a formulary, typically through rebates and other price breaks. The cost of drugs in Medicare has been a focus of the Trump administration, which is seeking to halt such rebates in taxpayer-funded plans.
The researchers examined the 57 unique drug formularies offered across all 750 Medicare Part D stand-alone prescription drug plans in 2016 to see how often branded products were given more favorable formulary placement than generic products.
They defined favorable placement as the placement of a branded product in a lower cost-sharing tier or the presence of fewer utilization controls such as prior authorization, step therapy, or quantity limits than its corresponding generic.
The study looked at multisource drugs, meaning drugs for which both versions were available, and examined the lowest strength per drug when multiple strengths were available. Drug prices were compared by dividing the mean cost per unit of the branded products by the mean cost per unit of the corresponding generic drugs in 2016 Medicare Part D claims data.
The 57 formularies covered, on average, 1657 different drugs, of which 935 were multisource. Results showed the following:
The researchers also examined 222 multisource drugs that were covered in all formularies and had branded and generic products covered in at least 1 formulary. Differences were seen here as well:
Drug price often determines beneficiaries’ cost sharing, the authors noted, and favorable formulary placement of branded drugs encourages the use of more expensive products and can lead to higher out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries as well as higher expenditures for the Part D program.
Besides enacting the HHS proposal to remove the “safe-harbor” provision that allows drug manufacturer rebates to be paid without triggering the federal anti-kickback statute, another option is to prohibit branded drugs from obtaining favorable placement on Medicare formularies.
However, the authors noted that it is still possible for pharmaceutical makers to restructure payments to drug plans to avoid this restriction.
In their letter, the authors noted that their analysis may have overestimated the difference in price between branded and generic products because of the confidentiality of price concessions.
Reference
Socal MP, Bai G, Anderson GF. Favorable formulary placement of branded drugs in Medicare prescription drug plans when generics are available [published online March 18, 2019]. JAMA Intern Med. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7824.
BioRationality: EMA Accepts Waiver of Clinical Efficacy Testing of Biosimilars
April 21st 2025Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, shares his latest citizen's petition to the FDA, calling on the agency to waive clinical efficacy testing in response to the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) efforts towards the same goal.
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.
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.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
BioRationality: Commemorating the 15th Anniversary of the BPCIA
April 8th 2025Affirming that analytical characterization is often sufficient for biosimilar approval, minimizing unnecessary clinical testing, and enhancing FDA-led education to counter stakeholder misconceptions are key recommendations put forth in this opinion piece by Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD.