Dan Gong1, Jonathan S Chang2, Miriam Barbany3, Borja F Corcostegui3, Mehmet Fatih Kağan Değirmenci4, Hiroto Ishikawa5, Zaid Mammo1, Emin Ozmert4, Tommaso Rossi6, Stanley Chang7. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. 2. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin. 3. Fundació de Recerca de l'Institut de Microcirugía Ocular (IMO), Barcelona, Spain; Departament de Retina, Institut de Microcirurgia Ocular (IMO), Barcelona, Spain. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, Hyogo College of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Hyogo, Japan. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy. 7. Department of Ophthalmology, Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: sc434@columbia.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare United States and international drug pricing for commonly prescribed intravitreal and topical ophthalmic medications. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. METHODS: For 25 commonly used ophthalmic medications (3 intravitreal, 22 topical), we obtained 2017 third quarter United States average wholesale price (AWP), drug acquisition cost, or consumer pricing through United States government health insurance plans (Veterans Affairs [VA], Medicaid, Medicare Part B, and Medicare Part D) and commercial drug plans (CVS Caremark and Navitus Health Solutions), online pricing without insurance through a large United States warehouse retailer (Costco), and international drug pricing through government-sponsored health plans in Italy, Spain, Turkey, Canada, and Japan. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Drug acquisition costs and consumer pricing of ophthalmic drugs through various payment systems. All prices were converted to United States dollars. RESULTS: For intravitreal medications in the United States, aflibercept and ranibizumab were priced similarly to each other and were more expensive than dexamethasone implants. Pricing of aflibercept and ranibizumab through government health insurance plans in Italy, Spain, Turkey, Canada, and Japan were less expensive by as much as 84.3% compared with the United States. For topical medications in the United States, pricing varied significantly both across different classes of medications and also between nonbranded and branded medications. Drug acquisition costs through the VA and Medicaid were inexpensive on average, but pricing through a hospital-employee drug insurance plan offered the smallest range (between $2.35 and $60.00). In all 5 non-United States countries studied, each topical medication with the exceptions of cyclosporine emulsion and difluprednate was less than $100, and 94.4% of topical medications in these countries had a nonbranded or branded option that was less than $50. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, for topical more than intravitreal medications, significant price variation exists across both different drug pricing systems and different medications. Price differentials between nonbranded and branded medications can be significant. Internationally, topical medications exhibited a more limited and lower price range compared with drug pricing in the United States.
PURPOSE: To compare United States and international drug pricing for commonly prescribed intravitreal and topical ophthalmic medications. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. METHODS: For 25 commonly used ophthalmic medications (3 intravitreal, 22 topical), we obtained 2017 third quarter United States average wholesale price (AWP), drug acquisition cost, or consumer pricing through United States government health insurance plans (Veterans Affairs [VA], Medicaid, Medicare Part B, and Medicare Part D) and commercial drug plans (CVS Caremark and Navitus Health Solutions), online pricing without insurance through a large United States warehouse retailer (Costco), and international drug pricing through government-sponsored health plans in Italy, Spain, Turkey, Canada, and Japan. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Drug acquisition costs and consumer pricing of ophthalmic drugs through various payment systems. All prices were converted to United States dollars. RESULTS: For intravitreal medications in the United States, aflibercept and ranibizumab were priced similarly to each other and were more expensive than dexamethasone implants. Pricing of aflibercept and ranibizumab through government health insurance plans in Italy, Spain, Turkey, Canada, and Japan were less expensive by as much as 84.3% compared with the United States. For topical medications in the United States, pricing varied significantly both across different classes of medications and also between nonbranded and branded medications. Drug acquisition costs through the VA and Medicaid were inexpensive on average, but pricing through a hospital-employee drug insurance plan offered the smallest range (between $2.35 and $60.00). In all 5 non-United States countries studied, each topical medication with the exceptions of cyclosporine emulsion and difluprednate was less than $100, and 94.4% of topical medications in these countries had a nonbranded or branded option that was less than $50. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, for topical more than intravitreal medications, significant price variation exists across both different drug pricing systems and different medications. Price differentials between nonbranded and branded medications can be significant. Internationally, topical medications exhibited a more limited and lower price range compared with drug pricing in the United States.
Authors: Dana M Blumberg; Alisa J Prager; Jeffrey M Liebmann; George A Cioffi; C Gustavo De Moraes Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Richard I Kaplan; C Gustavo De Moraes; George A Cioffi; Lama A Al-Aswad; Dana M Blumberg Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Evan M Chen; Ninani Kombo; Christopher C Teng; Prithvi Mruthyunjaya; Kristen Nwanyanwu; Ravi Parikh Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 14.277
Authors: Jules M Janssen Daalen; Anouk den Ambtman; Mark Van Houdenhoven; Bart J F van den Bemt Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 2.692