Price Elasticities of Pharmaceuticals in a Value-Based-Formulary Setting
In: NBER Working Paper No. w22308
4 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: NBER Working Paper No. w22308
SSRN
Centralizing procurement for prescription drugs has the potential to reduce drug spending by creating economies of scale and by improving purchasing power. In March 2019, the Chinese government launched a volume-based purchasing (VBP) pilot program using a competitive bidding process to purchase accredited generic drugs for which branded drug substitutes were available. We performed an interrupted time-series design to estimate the change in monthly drug purchase quantity and spending comparing 14 months before and 7 months after the VBP pilot. We obtained monthly prescription drug purchase data for all purchases from public medical institutions in the three large pilot cities (Beijing, Shanghai and Xi'an) and two non-pilot cities (Changsha and Zhengzhou) between January 2018 to September 2019. We used negative binomial regression and log-linked Gamma Generalized Linear Model for purchase quantity and spending respectively. We evaluated heterogeneity of impact by pilot city, drug type (selected or non-selected drugs), and therapeutic class (cardiovascular disease, mental disorder and cancer) separately. The implementation of the pilot reform was associated with a 132% (95%-CI: 104–165%, p < 0.001) increase in the purchase quantity of selected drugs in pilot cities compared to an 17% decrease (95%-CI: 9–25%, p < 0.001) in control cities. In contrast, the purchase quantity of branded and other drugs in pilot cities decreased by 38% (95%-CI: 27–46%, p < 0.001) and 77% (95%-CI: 71–81%, p < 0.001), respectively; while in control cities, these remained at similar levels. Overall, in pilot cities, there was a 35% (95%-CI: 28–41%, p < 0.001) decrease in the purchase spending for all drugs in the first post-policy month, from 8.1 billion CNY estimated in the absence of VBP down to 5.3 billion CNY; in control cities, the change was negligible. The largest reduction in spending occurred for drugs for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. The evidence suggests a positive impact of the VBP pilot in ...
BASE
In: AAPI Nexus: Policy, Practice and Community, Band 12, Heft 1-2, S. 97-118
IMPORTANCE: US health care spending has continued to increase and now accounts for 18% of the US economy, although little is known about how spending on each health condition varies by payer, and how these amounts have changed over time. OBJECTIVE: To estimate US spending on health care according to 3 types of payers (public insurance [including Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs], private insurance, or out-of-pocket payments) and by health condition, age group, sex, and type of care for 1996 through 2016. DESIGN AND SETTING: Government budgets, insurance claims, facility records, household surveys, and official US records from 1996 through 2016 were collected to estimate spending for 154 health conditions. Spending growth rates (standardized by population size and age group) were calculated for each type of payer and health condition. EXPOSURES: Ambulatory care, inpatient care, nursing care facility stay, emergency department care, dental care, and purchase of prescribed pharmaceuticals in a retail setting. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: National spending estimates stratified by health condition, age group, sex, type of care, and type of payer and modeled for each year from 1996 through 2016. RESULTS: Total health care spending increased from an estimated $1.4 trillion in 1996 (13.3% of gross domestic product [GDP]; $5259 per person) to an estimated $3.1 trillion in 2016 (17.9% of GDP; $9655 per person); 85.2% of that spending was included in this study. In 2016, an estimated 48.0% (95% CI, 48.0%-48.0%) of health care spending was paid by private insurance, 42.6% (95% CI, 42.5%-42.6%) by public insurance, and 9.4% (95% CI, 9.4%-9.4%) by out-of-pocket payments. In 2016, among the 154 conditions, low back and neck pain had the highest amount of health care spending with an estimated $134.5 billion (95% CI, $122.4-$146.9 billion) in spending, of which 57.2% (95% CI, 52.2%-61.2%) was paid by private insurance, 33.7% (95% CI, 30.0%-38.4%) by public insurance, and 9.2% (95% CI, 8.3%-10.4%) by ...
BASE