Almost 5.8 billion prescriptions were dispensed in the United States in 2018, an increase of 2.7% over the previous year, according to the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science’s report Medicine Use and Spending in the U.S.: A Review of 2018 and Outlook to 2023, AIS Health reported.

Almost 5.8 billion prescriptions were dispensed in the United States in 2018, an increase of 2.7% over the previous year, according to the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science’s report Medicine Use and Spending in the U.S.: A Review of 2018 and Outlook to 2023, AIS Health reported.

Retail and mail pharmacies dispensed 127 million specialty prescriptions last year, an increase of 15 million since 2014. In 2018, for the second year in a row, specialty prescription volume grew more than 5% although the medicines accounted for only 2.2% of prescriptions overall. With an increase in the availability of oral and self-injected specialty therapies, these drugs “are increasingly dispensed through retail pharmacies,” said Murray Aitken, executive director of the institute, during a May 6 press call.

Researchers found that there has been rapid uptake of the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibitors. In 2014, following the FDA approval of Merck & Co., Inc.’s Keytruda (pembrolizumab) in September, there were 2,403 people treated with an immuno- oncology checkpoint inhibitor. That number rose to 212,473 in 2018, with six products on the market boasting numerous indications.

The use of biosimilars — which the institute defines on a broader basis than only those therapies approved through the 351(k) pathway — “in terms of volume is still modest,” said Aitken, with these therapies representing less than 2% of the total biologics market in 2018. But in those areas where a biosimilar is available, “there is reasonably rapid uptake.”

When HHS unveiled a proposed rule in late January aimed at eliminating drug rebates in Medicare Part D and Medicaid managed care, the proposal was met with mixed responses. A recently released score from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calls into question whether the administration chooses to move forward with the proposal in its current form, AIS Health reported.

When HHS unveiled a proposed rule in late January aimed at eliminating drug rebates in Medicare Part D and Medicaid managed care, the proposal was met with mixed responses. A recently released score from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calls into question whether the administration chooses to move forward with the proposal in its current form, AIS Health reported.

The proposal would do away with the safe harbor protection in the anti-kickback statute for rebates negotiated between manufacturers and PBMs starting Jan. 1, 2020.

In the CBO’s report, the agency projects that if the rule is implemented as proposed, it will increase federal spending by approximately $177 billion from 2020 to 2029. Of that total, spending on Medicare Part D premiums would increase by about $170 billion. Without rebates to keep premiums low, beneficiaries would face higher premiums. The agency anticipates that “rather than lowering list prices, manufacturers would offer the negotiated discounts in the form of chargebacks,” which are shared with beneficiaries via a manufacturer payment to a pharmacy.

The report, however, also concludes that “no current system could both meet the proposed rule’s standards and facilitate chargebacks.”

If “rebates could no longer be paid to PBMs in Medicare Part D,” but “systems are not available to support retail pharmacy chargebacks,…this would be an untenable situation,” says Elan Rubinstein, Pharm.D., principal at EB Rubinstein Associates, making it “reasonable to delay” the proposed implementation date.

“The increase in premiums was expected by many, but the growth in federal spending was somewhat surprising given that lower upfront prices would generally benefit the end payer, which in this case is the federal government,” says Jeremy Schafer, Pharm.D., senior vie president, director, access experience team at Precision for Value. “It seems changing the safe harbor may not accomplish patient savings or reduced government spending as hoped for by the administration.”