Will savings from biosimilars offset increased costs related to dose escalation? A comparison of infliximab and golimumab for rheumatoid arthritis

Introduction Biosimilar infliximab has the potential for appreciable cost savings compared to its reference biologic, but dose escalation is common and increases costs. We compared frequency of dose escalation and associated Medicare-approved amount so as to determine the break-even point at which infliximab dose escalation would offset the cost savings of using a biosimilar, referent to alternatively using golimumab. Methods We studied Medicare enrollees with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating infliximab or golimumab. Frequency of dose escalation was summarized descriptively over 18 months, as were Medicare-approved amounts for reimbursement. Analyses were repeated conditioning on high adherence (i.e., non-discontinuation, > 10-week gap). Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression and mixed models evaluated factors associated with infliximab dose escalation. Results A total of 5174 infliximab and 2843 golimumab initiators were observed. Dose escalation was rare for golimumab (5%) but common for infliximab (49%), and was even more common (72%) for infliximab among patients who persisted on treatment. Regardless of dose escalation, the adjusted least square mean dollar amounts were appreciably higher for golimumab ($28,146) than for infliximab ($21,216) and greater among persistent patients (cost difference $9269, favoring infliximab). Only when patients escalated infliximab to ≥ 8 mg/kg every 6 weeks was golimumab IV at break-even or less expensive. After controlling for multiple factors, physician ownership of the infusion center was associated with greater likelihood of infliximab dose escalation (odds ratio = 1.25, 95% CI 1.09–1.44). Conclusion Despite frequent dose escalation with infliximab that often increase its dose by threefold or more, the savings from the current price of its biosimilar substantially offsets the costs of an alternative infused TNFi biologic for which no biosimilar is available.

Association Between Ownership of Imaging Equipment and Appropriateness of Staging Positron-Emission Tomography in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Physician ownership of imaging equipment has been shown to be associated with greater use of low-value imaging. However, it is unclear whether ownership also influences utilization of appropriate imaging. We conducted a cohort study of older adults diagnosed with three non-Hodgkin lymphomas with distinct guideline recommendations concerning the use of positron emission tomography (PET) during staging (recommended, not recommended, or equivocal). We found patients who were treated by oncologists with PET ownership were more likely to receive a staging PET regardless of lymphoma subtype. However, the difference in utilization by ownership status was smallest (6%, 95% confidence interval = 2% to 11%, P = .01) in the setting of diffuse large B cell lymphoma, where consensus guidelines recommend routine use of PET. Overall, removing financial incentives related to imaging self-referral may reduce utilization during cancer care, with the potential for greatest impact on imaging of equivocal or low clinical utility.

Increasing Industry Involvement in Otolaryngology: Insights from 3 Years of the Open Payments Database

Objectives To characterize industry payments to otolaryngologists in 2016 versus 2014 and 2015. Study Design Cross-sectional retrospective analysis. Setting Open Payments Database. Subjects and Methods Using the Open Payments Database, we identified otolaryngologists receiving payments from industry sponsors from 2014 to 2016. We characterized the number and value of payments per physician overall and by census region, as well as by sponsor subspecialty and payment type. Study years were compared via analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Trends in payments to otolaryngologists were compared with trends in 21 other specialties. Results Payment to otolaryngologists increased 67% from 2014 to 2016—from $8.7 million in 2014 to $9.9 and $14.5 million in 2015 and 2016, respectively ( P < .001). While mean payment per compensated otolaryngologist increased ($1095, $1243, and $1834 in 2014, 2015, and 2016, respectively, P < .001), median payments stayed relatively constant ($169, $165, and $172), suggesting an increasingly unequal distribution. Much of the increase is accounted for by an increased number of payments for consulting fees and physician ownership. Most payments were made by companies specializing in rhinology. Otolaryngology received the lowest industry compensation per physician among the surgical specialties examined and lower compensation than most nonsurgical specialties. The increase in payments to otolaryngologists was proportionally greater than all but 1 of the other 21 specialties examined. Conclusions Industry compensation to otolaryngologists is increasing and increasingly unequal, although it is still less than that in most other specialties. In otolaryngology, the Open Payments Database has not decreased physician-industry relationships as intended.

Physician Self-Referral of Physical Therapy Services for Patients with Low Back Pain: Implications for Use, Types of Treatments Received and Expenditures

Prior research on treatment of low back pain has documented large increases in use of spinal surgery, MRIs and lumbosacral injections linked to physician self-referral arrangements. No recent research has examined whether physician ownership of physical therapy services results in greater use of physical therapy to treat low back pain. The objective of this study is to investigate whether physician ownership of physical therapy services affects frequency of use, visits and types of physical therapy services received by patients with low back pain. Using claims records from insured patients covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas (2008–2011) we compared several metrics of use of physical therapy services for low back pain episodes controlling for self-referral status. We identified 158,151 low back pain episodes, 27% met the criteria to be classified as “self-referral.” Only 10% of “non-self-referral” episodes received physical therapy compared to 26% of self-referral episodes (p<0.001). The unadjusted and regression adjusted self-referral effect was identical – about 16 percentage point difference (p<0.001). Among patients who received some physical therapy, self-referral episodes were comprised of 2.26 fewer visits and 11 fewer physical therapy service units (p<0.001). Non-self-referring episodes included a significantly higher proportion of “active” (hands on or patient engaged) as opposed to “passive” treatments (p<0.001). The regression-adjusted difference was 30 percentage points when measured as actual counts and 29 percentage points when measured in RVUs (p<0.001). Total spending on back-related care was 35% higher for self-referred episodes compared to their non-self-referred counterparts (p<0.001). Ownership of physical therapy services influence physicians’ referral to initiate a course of physical therapy to treat low back pain, but also affect the types of physical therapy services a patient receives.

Trust and Transparency: Patient Perceptions of Physicians' Financial Relationships with Pharmaceutical Companies

Financial relationships and business transactions between physicians and the health care industry are common. These relationships take a variety of forms, including payments to physicians in exchange for consulting services, reimbursement of physician travel expenses when attending medical device and pharmaceutical educational conferences, physician ownership in life science company stocks, and the provision of free drug samples. Such practices are not intrinsic to medical practice, but as the Institute of Medicine described in its 2009 report, these relationships have the potential to produce positive collaborations that improve patient care and public health, and most physicians view it as “ethically proper to accept items ranging from drug samples to a lucrative consultantship.” However, financial relationships between physicians and pharmaceutical, medical device and biotechnology companies can also create negative influences on physician judgment that compromise patient care and jeopardize the public’s trust.