IMPORTANCE The shift toward value-based care has placed emphasis on preventive care and chronic disease management services delivered by multidisciplinary health care teams. Community pharmacists are particularly well positioned to deliver these services due to their accessibility. OBJECTIVE To compare the number of patient visits to community pharmacies and the number of encounters with primary care physicians among Medicare beneficiaries who actively access health care services.

No abstract

We estimated list and net prices for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) products Truvada, Complera, and Stribild, and their tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) versions Descovy, Odefsey, and Genvoya. Gilead offered discounts for Descovy that resulted into lower net prices compared to Truvada. This strategy encouraged patients switching from Truvada to Descovy before the availability of generic Truvada. Conversely, Gilead offered lower discounts for Odefsey and Genvoya, which resulted into higher net prices compared to Complera and Stribild.

Background The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has repeatedly called for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine equity. The objective our study was to measure equity in the early distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to healthcare facilities across the US. Specifically, we tested whether the likelihood of a healthcare facility administering COVID-19 vaccines in May 2021 differed by county-level racial composition and degree of urbanicity. Methods and findings The outcome was whether an eligible vaccination facility actually administered COVID-19 vaccines as of May 2021, and was defined by spatially matching locations of eligible and actual COVID-19 vaccine administration locations. The outcome was regressed against county-level measures for racial/ethnic composition, urbanicity, income, social vulnerability index, COVID-19 mortality, 2020 election results, and availability of nontraditional vaccination locations using generalized estimating equations. Across the US, 61.4% of eligible healthcare facilities and 76.0% of eligible pharmacies provided COVID-19 vaccinations as of May 2021. Facilities in counties with >42.2% non-Hispanic Black population (i.e., > 95th county percentile of Black race composition) were less likely to serve as COVID-19 vaccine administration locations compared to facilities in counties with <12.5% non-Hispanic Black population (i.e., lower than US average), with OR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.98, p = 0.030. Location of a facility in a rural county (OR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.90, p < 0.001, versus metropolitan county) or in a county in the top quintile of COVID-19 mortality (OR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.93, p = 0.001, versus bottom 4 quintiles) was associated with decreased odds of serving as a COVID-19 vaccine administration location. There was a significant interaction of urbanicity and racial/ethnic composition: In metropolitan counties, facilities in counties with >42.2% non-Hispanic Black population (i.e., >95th county percentile of Black race composition) had 32% (95% CI 14% to 47%, p = 0.001) lower odds of serving as COVID administration facility compared to facilities in counties with below US average Black population. This association between Black composition and odds of a facility serving as vaccine administration facility was not observed in rural or suburban counties. In rural counties, facilities in counties with above US average Hispanic population had 26% (95% CI 11% to 38%, p = 0.002) lower odds of serving as vaccine administration facility compared to facilities in counties with below US average Hispanic population. This association between Hispanic ethnicity and odds of a facility serving as vaccine administration facility was not observed in metropolitan or suburban counties. Our analyses did not include nontraditional vaccination sites and are based on data as of May 2021, thus they represent the early distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. Our results based on this cross-sectional analysis may not be generalizable to later phases of the COVID-19 vaccine distribution process. Conclusions Healthcare facilities in counties with higher Black composition, in rural areas, and in hardest-hit communities were less likely to serve as COVID-19 vaccine administration locations in May 2021. The lower uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations among minority populations and rural areas has been attributed to vaccine hesitancy; however, decreased access to vaccination sites may be an additional overlooked barrier.

No abstract

ImportanceDespite the political salience of insulin prices, no study to date has quantified trends in insulin prices that account for manufacturer discounts (net prices).ObjectiveTo describe trends in insulin list prices and net prices faced by payers from 2012 to 2019 and estimate changes in net prices after the 2015 to 2017 entry of new insulin products.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis longitudinal study included an analysis of Medicare, Medicaid, and SSR Health drug pricing data from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019. Data analyses were performed from June 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022.ExposuresUS sales of insulin products.Main Outcomes and MeasuresNet prices faced by payers were estimated for insulin products as list prices minus manufacturer discounts negotiated in commercial and Medicare Part D markets (ie, commercial discounts). Trends in net prices were evaluated before and after the entry of new insulin products.ResultsNet prices of long-acting insulin products increased at an annual rate of 23.6% from 2012 to 2014 but decreased at an annual rate of 8.3% after the introduction of insulin glargine (Toujeo and Basaglar) and degludec (Tresiba) in 2015. Net prices of short-acting insulin increased at an annual rate of 5.6% from 2012 to 2017 but then decreased from 2018 to 2019 after the introduction of insulin aspart (Fiasp) and lispro (Admelog). For human insulin products, which did not experience entry of new products, net prices increased at an annual rate of 9.2% from 2012 to 2019. From 2012 to 2019, commercial discounts increased from 22.7% to 64.8% for long-acting insulin products, from 37.9% to 66.1% for short-acting insulin products, and from 54.9% to 63.1% for human insulin products.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this longitudinal study of US insulin products, results suggest that insulin prices substantially increased from 2012 to 2015, even after accounting for discounts. The introduction of new insulin products was followed by substantial discounting practices that lowered net prices faced by payers.

ImportanceInsulin list prices have grown substantially since 2010, but net prices have declined since 2015 because of manufacturer discounts, leading to an increasingly large difference between list and net prices of drugs often called the gross-to-net bubble. It remains unclear to what extent the gross-to-net bubble represents voluntary manufacturer discounts negotiated in commercial and Medicare Part D markets (hereafter called commercial discounts) vs mandatory discounts under the Medicare Part D coverage gap, Medicaid, and the 340B program.ObjectiveTo decompose the overall gross-to-net bubble of leading insulin products into discount types.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis economic evaluation obtained data from Medicare and Medicaid claims and spending dashboards, Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use File, and SSR Health for the top 4 commonly used insulin products: Lantus, Levemir, Humalog, and Novolog. The gross-to-net bubble, which represents total discounts, was estimated for each insulin product and year (from 2012 to 2019). Analyses were conducted in June to December 2022.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe gross-to-net bubble was decomposed into 4 discount types: (1) Medicare Part D coverage gap discounts, (2) Medicaid discounts, (3) 340B discounts, and (4) commercial discounts. Coverage gap discounts were estimated using Medicare Part D claims data. Medicaid and 340B discounts were estimated using a novel algorithm that accounted for best prices set by commercial discounts.ResultsTotal discounts for the 4 insulin products increased from $4.9 billion to $22.0 billion. Commercial discounts represented a majority of all discounts, increasing from 71.7% of the gross-to-net bubble in 2012 ($3.5 billion) to 74.3% ($16.4 billion) in 2019. Among mandatory discounts, coverage gap discounts remained relatively consistent as a proportion of discounts (5.4% in 2012 vs 5.3% in 2019). Medicaid rebates decreased as a proportion of total discounts, from 19.7% in 2012 to 10.6% in 2019. The 340B discounts increased as a proportion of total discounts from 3.3% in 2012 to 9.8% in 2019. Results for the contribution of discount types to the gross-to-net bubble were consistent across insulin products.Conclusions and RelevanceResults of a decomposition of the gross-to-net bubble for leading insulin products suggest that commercial discounts play a growing role in lowering net sales compared with mandatory discounts.

Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a five-fold increased risk of stroke and a two-fold increased risk of death. We aimed to quantify changes in new diagnoses of AF following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Investigating changes in new diagnoses of AF is of relevance because delayed diagnosis interferes with timely treatment to prevent stroke, heart failure, and death. Methods Using De-identified Optum’s Clinformatics® Data Mart, we identified 19,500,401 beneficiaries continuously enrolled for 12 months in 2016-Q3 2020 with no history of AF. The primary outcome was new AF diagnoses per 30-day interval. Secondary outcomes included AF diagnosis in the inpatient setting, AF diagnosis in the outpatient setting, and ischemic stroke as initial manifestation of AF. We constructed seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average models to quantify changes in new AF diagnoses after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (3/11/2020, date of pandemic declaration). We tested whether changes in the new AF diagnoses differed by race and ethnicity. Results The average age of study participants was 51.0±18.5 years, and 52% of the sample was female. During the study period, 2.7% of the study sample had newly-diagnosed AF. New AF diagnoses decreased by 35% (95% CI, 21%-48%) after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, from 1.14 per 1000 individuals (95% CI, 1.05–1.24) to 0.74 per 1000 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.83, p-value<0.001). New AF diagnoses decreased by 37% (95% CI, 13%- 55%) in the outpatient setting and by 29% (95% CI, 14%-43%) in the inpatient setting. The decrease in new AF diagnoses was similar across racial and ethnic subgroups. Conclusion In a nationwide cohort of 19.5 million individuals, new diagnoses of AF decreased substantially following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings evidence pandemic disruptions in access to care for AF, which are concerning because delayed diagnosis interferes with timely treatment to prevent complications.