EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Patent Extension Policy for Paediatric Indications: An Evaluation of the Impact within Three Drug Classes in a State Medicaid Programme

Richard Nelson, Carrie McAdam-Marx, Megan Evans, Robert Ward, Benjamin Campbell, Diana Brixner and Joanne Lafleur
Additional contact information
Richard Nelson: School of Medicine, University of Utah, Division of Epidemiology, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Carrie McAdam-Marx: School of Medicine, University of Utah, Division of Epidemiology, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Megan Evans: School of Medicine, University of Utah, Division of Epidemiology, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Robert Ward: School of Medicine, University of Utah, Division of Epidemiology, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Benjamin Campbell: School of Medicine, University of Utah, Division of Epidemiology, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Diana Brixner: School of Medicine, University of Utah, Division of Epidemiology, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joanne Lafleur: School of Medicine, University of Utah, Division of Epidemiology, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2011, vol. 9, issue 3, pages 171-181

Abstract: Background: The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (FDAMA) of 1997, Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) of 2002 and Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2007 provide an extended period of 6 months of marketing exclusivity (i.e. patent extension) to prescription drug manufacturers that conduct paediatric studies. Branded drugs in the statin, ACE inhibitor and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) classes were three of many classes with drugs granted patent extensions. Objective: We estimated the cost impact of the 6-month exclusivity extension policy on the Utah Medicaid drug programme by comparing actual costs to projected costs had the 6-month exclusivity extension not been granted for these drugs and thus less expensive generic alternatives been available sooner. Using these results, we then projected the cost impact of this policy on Medicaid programmes in the US during the 18 months following patent expiration. Methods: The Utah Medicaid prescription claims obtained for statins, ACE inhibitors and SSRIs included reimbursement amount, number of units dispensed, days supplied, date of service and drug strength. Actual expenditures for each drug were calculated for the 6 months before and 12 months after generic availability. The percentage difference between the brand name prescription reimbursement amount to Medicaid in the last 2 months of the 6-month extension and the generic prescription reimbursement amount to Medicaid in the first 2 months following exclusivity expiration was then calculated for each drug. This was done using data from the 5 months surrounding the exclusivity expiration by regressing the log-transformed Utah Medicaid reimbursement amount on an indicator for patent expiration, controlling for number of units, volume of sales, month filled and strength. This was used to estimate what the initial generic prescription price would have been without the 6-month patent extension and what costs would have been in the 18 months following the original expiration date if the patent extension had not been granted. Medicaid rebates were assumed to be 15.1% for branded products and 11% for generics. Results: The 6-month extension policy was estimated to cost Utah's Medicaid $US2.2 (95% CI 1.9, 2.4) million for these three drug classes over the 18 months following the original patent expiration date (year 2007 values). Projected to the US Medicaid population, this cost was $US430 (95% CI 371, 475) million. For the individual drugs that we examined, the percentage cost decrease in reimbursement amount resulting from exclusivity expiration and generic entry ranged from 24.4% (p < 0.001) for enalapril to 3.8% (p - 0.0951) for pravastatin sodium. Conclusions: Makers of the branded drugs evaluated were given market exclusivity extensions for conducting studies of their medications in children. The costs found in this study are just a small portion of the total paid, which include those born by other payers. Whether the benefits of this policy outweigh these costs is an open question, but these results suggest that the costs to Medicaid and thus taxpayers are substantial.

Keywords: ACE-inhibitors; Children; Cost-analysis; Health-policy; HMG-CoA-reductase-inhibitors; Serotonin-uptake-inhibitors. (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C D I Z I1 I19 I18 I11 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2011
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
http://healtheconomics.adisonline.com/pt/re/ahe/pd ... -201109030-00005.pdf (application/pdf)
http://healtheconomics.adisonline.com/pt/re/ahe/fu ... -201109030-00005.htm (text/html)
Pay per view

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wkh:aheahp:v:9:y:2011:i:3:p:171-181

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is edited by Tim Wrightson

More articles in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy from Springer Healthcare | Adis
Series data maintained by Dave Dustin ().

 
Page updated 2012-06-19
Handle: RePEc:wkh:aheahp:v:9:y:2011:i:3:p:171-181