cost sharing, benefit design, and adherence: The case of multiple sclerosis

Author(s):  
Avi Dor ◽  
Maureen J. Lage ◽  
Marcy L. Tarrants ◽  
Jane Castelli-Haley
Vaccines ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Stoecker ◽  
Alexandra Stewart ◽  
Megan Lindley

2020 ◽  
pp. 10.1212/CPJ.0000000000000929
Author(s):  
Daniel M Hartung ◽  
Kirbee Johnston ◽  
Dennis Bourdette ◽  
Randi Chen ◽  
Chien-Wen Tseng

ABSTRACTObjective:To determine whether closing the Part D coverage gap (“donut hole”) between 2010 and 2019 lowered patients’ out-of-pocket costs for disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS).Methods:Using nationwide Medicare Formulary and Drug Pricing Files, we analyzed Part D drug benefit design and DMT prices in 2010, 2016, and 2019. We calculated average monthly list prices for DMTs available in each year (4 DMTs in 2010, 11 DMTs in 2016, and 14 DMTs in 2019). We projected patients’ annual out-of-pocket cost for each DMT alone under a standard Part D plan in that year. We estimated potential savings attributable to closing the coverage gap between 2010 to 2019 (beneficiaries’ cost-sharing dropped from 100% to 25%) under three scenarios; no increase in price, an inflation-indexed price increase (3% annually), and the observed price increase.Results:Median monthly DMT prices rose from $2804, $5987, to $7009 over the years 2010, 2016, and 2019 respectively. Median projected annual out-of-pocket costs rose from $5916, $6229, to $6618. With unchanged or inflation-indexed DMT prices changes, closing the coverage gap would have reduced annual out-of-pocket costs by $2260 (38% reduction) and $1744 (29% reduction) respectively. Despite having the lowest monthly price, generic glatiramer acetate had among the highest out-of-pocket costs ($6731 to $6939 a year) in 2019.Conclusions:Medicare Part D beneficiaries can pay thousands of dollars yearly out-of-pocket for DMTs. Closing the Part D coverage gap did not reduce out-of-pocket costs for patients because of simultaneous increases in DMT prices.


2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. 1083-1089 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui Shao ◽  
Charles Stoecker ◽  
Alisha M. Monnette ◽  
Lizheng Shi

Author(s):  
Steven D Pearson ◽  
Adrian Towse ◽  
Maria Lowe ◽  
Celia S Segel ◽  
Chris Henshall

At the heart of all health insurance programs lies ethical tension between maximizing the freedom of patients and clinicians to tailor care for the individual and the need to make healthcare affordable. Nowhere is this tension more fiercely debated than in benefit design and coverage policy for pharmaceuticals. This paper focuses on three areas over which there is the most controversy about how to judge whether drug coverage is appropriate: cost-sharing provisions, clinical eligibility criteria, and economic-step therapy and required switching. In each of these domains we present ‘ethical goals for access’ followed by a series of ‘fair design criteria’ that can be used by stakeholders to drive more transparent and accountable drug coverage.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document