Publications

2020

Shakeri, Ahmad, Narthaanan Srimurugathasan, Katie J Suda, Tara Gomes, and Mina Tadrous. (2020) 2020. “Spending on Hepatitis C Antivirals in the United States and Canada, 2014 to 2018.”. Value in Health : The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 23 (9): 1137-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.03.021.

OBJECTIVES: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) antivirals have been shown to be highly effective with minimal adverse effects, but they are costly. Little is known about the national spending on this drug class in either Canada or the United States, 2 countries with different drug pricing regulations. Thus the objective of this study was to compare drug expenditure on HCV medications in the United States and Canada.

METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives (United States) and Geographic Prescription Monitor (Canada) databases, which contains prescription transactions from American and Canadian pharmacies. All prescription claims for the period between January 1, 2014, and June 30, 2018, were used to describe HCV antiviral expenditure in both countries.

RESULTS: The United States and Canada spent $59.7 billion and $2.8 billion on HCV medications, respectively. Population-adjusted HCV medication costs were higher in the United States ($1 million per 100 000 population) compared with Canada ($0.4 million per 100 000 population).

CONCLUSIONS: Although the rates of HCV infection are similar in the 2 countries, these findings highlight the differences in both the reimbursement utilization policy for HCV treatments in the countries and the major differences in drug pricing policies. As policies to reduce drug spending in the United States are explored, this article highlights the potential cost implications of implementing Canadian index pricing.

Kassir, Zachary, Ameet Sarpatwari, Brian Kocak, Courtney C Kuza, and Walid F Gellad. (2020) 2020. “Sponsorship and Funding for Gene Therapy Trials in the United States.”. JAMA 323 (9): 890-91. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.22214.

This study characterizes government, academia, and private funding for gene therapy trials in the United States by technology type and therapeutic and disease area.

Suda, Katie J, Jifang Zhou, Susan A Rowan, Jessina C McGregor, Rosanne I Perez, Charlesnika T Evans, Walid F Gellad, and Gregory S Calip. (2020) 2020. “Overprescribing of Opioids to Adults by Dentists in the U.S., 2011-2015.”. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 58 (4): 473-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2019.11.006.

INTRODUCTION: Dentists prescribe 1 in 10 opioid prescriptions in the U.S. When opioids are necessary, national guidelines recommend the prescription of low-dose opioids for a short duration. This study assesses the appropriate prescribing of opioids by dentists before guideline implementation.

METHODS: The authors performed a cross-sectional analysis of a population-based sample of 542,958 U.S. commercial dental patient visits between 2011 and 2015 within the Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases (data analysis October 2018‒April 2019). Patients with recent hospitalization, active cancer treatment, or chronic pain conditions were excluded. Prescription opioids were ascertained using pharmacy claims data with standardized morphine equivalents and recorded days' supply. Appropriate prescribing was determined from the 2016 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for pain management based on a recommended 3 days' supply of opioid medication and anticipated post-procedural pain.

RESULTS: Twenty-nine percent of prescribed opioids exceeded the recommended morphine equivalents for appropriate management of acute pain. Approximately half (53%) exceeded the recommended days' supply. Patients aged 18-34 years, men, patients residing in the Southern U.S., and those receiving oxycodone were most likely to have opioids prescribed inappropriately. The proportion of opioids that exceed the recommended morphine equivalents increased over the study period, whereas opioids exceeding the recommended days' supply remained unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS: Between 1 in 4 and 1 in 2 opioids prescribed to adult dental patients are overprescribed. Judicious opioid-prescribing interventions should be tailored to oral health conditions and dentists.

Anderson, Timothy S, Walid F Gellad, and Chester B Good. (2020) 2020. “Characteristics Of Biomedical Industry Payments To Teaching Hospitals.”. Health Affairs (Project Hope) 39 (9): 1583-91. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00385.

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires biomedical companies to report payments made to physicians and teaching hospitals to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Despite significant attention paid to industry payments to physicians, little is known about payments to teaching hospitals, which create the potential for both benefits and institutional conflicts of interest. We examined 2018 CMS Open Payments program data to identify all nonresearch payments made by industry to teaching hospitals and determined that 91 percent of teaching hospitals received industry payments totaling $832 million in 2018. We observed substantial royalty payments, which may reflect the downstream benefits of research partnerships, as well as substantial payments for gifts and education, which raise concerns for institutional conflicts of interest. Hospital predictors of receiving payments included large bed size, major medical school affiliation, and inclusion on the U.S. News & World Report Best Hospitals Honor Roll. Financial payments from industry to teaching hospitals are common and previously underrecognized. Hospitals should strengthen policies to prevent the institutional conflicts of interest that may arise from these payments while promoting beneficial industry collaborations. We also suggest that CMS reporting requirements be broadened to all hospitals to meet the Sunshine Act's goals of encouraging transparency and preventing inappropriate industry influence.

Luo, Jing, and Walid F Gellad. (2020) 2020. “Origins of the Crisis in Insulin Affordability and Practical Advice for Clinicians on Using Human Insulin.”. Current Diabetes Reports 20 (1): 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-020-1286-3.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: High insulin prices and cost-related insulin underuse are increasingly common and vexing problems for healthcare providers. This review highlights several factors that contribute to high prices and limited generic competition in the US insulin market.

RECENT FINDINGS: An opaque and complex pricing and reimbursement system for insulin, allegations of collusive practices by insulin manufacturers, and a lack of generic competition drive and sustain high insulin prices. When combined with increasing insurance deductibles and cost sharing, these factors contribute to cost-related insulin underuse and are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Healthcare providers facing patients with type 2 diabetes who struggle to afford insulin should consider initiating or switching from analogue to human insulin as one way to help address the challenges of access and affordability. However, it is also important to support initiatives to advocate for affordable pricing for insulin for patients who can benefit from the flexibility offered by many of the newer insulin preparations.

Masri, Ahmad, Hongya Chen, Catherine Wong, Katherine L Fischer, Chafic Karam, Walid F Gellad, and Stephen B Heitner. (2020) 2020. “Initial Experience Prescribing Commercial Tafamidis, the Most Expensive Cardiac Medication in History.”. JAMA Cardiology 5 (9): 1066-67. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1738.

This economic evaluation study examines the authors’ experience of prescribing tafamidis in terms of their cost and the insurance status of patients.

Essien, Utibe R, Florentina E Sileanu, Xinhua Zhao, Jane M Liebschutz, Carolyn T Thorpe, Chester B Good, Maria K Mor, et al. (2020) 2020. “Racial/Ethnic Differences in the Medical Treatment of Opioid Use Disorders Within the VA Healthcare System Following Non-Fatal Opioid Overdose.”. Journal of General Internal Medicine 35 (5): 1537-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-05645-0.

BACKGROUND: After non-fatal opioid overdoses, opioid prescribing patterns are often unchanged and the use of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUDs) remains low. Whether such prescribing differs by race/ethnicity remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of race/ethnicity with the prescribing of opioids and MOUDs after a non-fatal opioid overdose.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS: Patients prescribed ≥ 1 opioid from July 1, 2010, to September 30, 2015, with a non-fatal opioid overdose in the Veterans Health Administration (VA).

MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients prescribed: (1) any opioid during the 30 days before and after overdose and (2) MOUDs within 30 days after overdose by race and ethnicity. We conducted difference-in-difference analyses using multivariable regression to assess whether the change in opioid prescribing from before to after overdose differed by race/ethnicity. We also used multivariable regression to test whether MOUD prescribing after overdose differed by race/ethnicity.

KEY RESULTS: Among 16,210 patients with a non-fatal opioid overdose (81.2% were white, 14.3% black, and 4.5% Hispanic), 10,745 (66.3%) patients received an opioid prescription (67.1% white, 61.7% black, and 65.9% Hispanic; p < 0.01) before overdose. After overdose, the frequency of receiving opioids was reduced by 18.3, 16.4, and 20.6 percentage points in whites, blacks, and Hispanics, respectively, with no significant difference-in-difference in opioid prescribing by race/ethnicity (p = 0.23). After overdose, 526 (3.2%) patients received MOUDs (2.9% white, 4.6% black, and 5.5% Hispanic; p < 0.01). Blacks (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.6; 95% CI 1.2, 1.9) and Hispanics (aOR 1.8; 95% CI 1.2, 2.6) had significantly larger odds of receiving MOUDs than white patients.

CONCLUSIONS: In a national cohort of patients with non-fatal opioid overdose in VA, there were no racial/ethnic differences in changes in opioid prescribing after overdose. Although blacks and Hispanics were more likely than white patients to receive MOUDs in the 30 days after overdose, less than 4% of all groups received such therapy.