BACKGROUND: The government is prohibited from directly negotiating drug prices for Medicare Part D, resulting in substantial policy debate. However, the government has an established mechanism for setting prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers for certain other federal programs--the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS). OBJECTIVE: To estimate how much could be saved nationwide if prices equivalent to the 2006 FSS were achieved for the top 200 drug formulations dispensed to seniors. DESIGN/ SETTING: Cross-sectional analysis of drug utilization patterns and costs from the nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys (MEPS), 2003-2004, and the 2006 FSS. PARTICIPANTS: Seniors who filled a prescription for any of these common drugs (n = 6,135 individuals). MEASURES: Prescription expenditures were obtained from MEPS, and a price/unit was calculated in 2006 dollars. This price/unit was compared to the 2006 FSS, and a savings/unit was calculated and summed across the observed units dispensed in MEPS. RESULTS: The potential annual savings with FSS prices would be $21.9 billion [95% confidence interval (CI), $21.1 billion to $22.8 billion]. If FSS prices were substituted for only the top ten drugs, the annual savings would be $5.9 billion (95% CI, $5.7 billion, $6.1 billion). CONCLUSIONS: Extension of existing price setting mechanisms to Medicare could save tens of billions of dollars if prices similar to those already achieved by other federal programs could be reached. Whether or not this is a political or economic possibility, the magnitude of these savings cannot be ignored.
BACKGROUND: The government is prohibited from directly negotiating drug prices for Medicare Part D, resulting in substantial policy debate. However, the government has an established mechanism for setting prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers for certain other federal programs--the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS). OBJECTIVE: To estimate how much could be saved nationwide if prices equivalent to the 2006 FSS were achieved for the top 200 drug formulations dispensed to seniors. DESIGN/ SETTING: Cross-sectional analysis of drug utilization patterns and costs from the nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys (MEPS), 2003-2004, and the 2006 FSS. PARTICIPANTS: Seniors who filled a prescription for any of these common drugs (n = 6,135 individuals). MEASURES: Prescription expenditures were obtained from MEPS, and a price/unit was calculated in 2006 dollars. This price/unit was compared to the 2006 FSS, and a savings/unit was calculated and summed across the observed units dispensed in MEPS. RESULTS: The potential annual savings with FSS prices would be $21.9 billion [95% confidence interval (CI), $21.1 billion to $22.8 billion]. If FSS prices were substituted for only the top ten drugs, the annual savings would be $5.9 billion (95% CI, $5.7 billion, $6.1 billion). CONCLUSIONS: Extension of existing price setting mechanisms to Medicare could save tens of billions of dollars if prices similar to those already achieved by other federal programs could be reached. Whether or not this is a political or economic possibility, the magnitude of these savings cannot be ignored.
Authors: John A Poisal; Christopher Truffer; Sheila Smith; Andrea Sisko; Cathy Cowan; Sean Keehan; Bridget Dickensheets Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2007-02-21 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Jeanne M Madden; Amy J Graves; Fang Zhang; Alyce S Adams; Becky A Briesacher; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Jerry H Gurwitz; Marsha Pierre-Jacques; Dana Gelb Safran; Gerald S Adler; Stephen B Soumerai Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-04-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lindsey B De Lott; James F Burke; Kevin A Kerber; Lesli E Skolarus; Brian C Callaghan Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Walid F Gellad; Julie M Donohue; Xinhua Zhao; Maria K Mor; Carolyn T Thorpe; Jeremy Smith; Chester B Good; Michael J Fine; Nancy E Morden Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-07-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Vivek Verma; Tanja Sprave; Waqar Haque; Charles B Simone; Joe Y Chang; James W Welsh; Charles R Thomas Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2018-11-23 Impact factor: 13.751
Authors: Sudeep S Gill; Neeraj Gupta; Chaim M Bell; Paula A Rochon; Peter C Austin; Andreas Laupacis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 3.240