Skip to main content
Log in

Patent extension policy for paediatric indications

An evaluation of the impact within three drug classes in a state medicaid programme

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wilson JT. An update on the therapeutic orphan. Pediatrics 1999; 104: 585–90

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Merrill RA. Modernizing the FDA: an incremental revolution. Health Aff 1999; 18(2): 96–111

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act of 2002 [online]. Available from URL: www.fda.gov/cder/pediatrics/index.htm [Accessed 2009 Jun 18]

  4. Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA). Title IV: Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2007 (PREA) and Title V: Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act of 2007 (BPCA) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/ucm049867.htm [Accessed 2009 Jun 18]

  5. Pediatric labeling changes through February 24, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/PediatricTherapeuticsResearch/UCM163159.pdf [Accessed 2010 April 15]

  6. US Food and Drug Administration. The Pediatric Exclusivity provision: January 2001 status report to Congress. Washington, DC, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  7. Li JS, Eisenstein EL, Grabowski HG, et al. Economic return of clinical trials performed under the Pediatric Exclusivity program. JAMA 2007; 297: 480–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kesselheim AS, Fischer MA, Avorn J. Extensions of intellectual property rights and delayed adoption of generic drugs: effects on Medicaid spending. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006; 25: 1637–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Card D, Krueger A. Minimum wages and employment: a case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Am Econ Rev 1994; 84: 772–93

    Google Scholar 

  10. Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Inadequate oversight raises concerns about rebates paid to states. Washington, DC: US Government Accountability Office, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  11. Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Task Force on Pharmaceutical Payment Methods. AMCP guide to pharmaceutical payment methods. J Manag Care Pharm 2007; 13(8 Suppl. C): S1–39

    Google Scholar 

  12. The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Washington, DC: National Health Policy Forum, 2009

  13. State health facts [online]. Available from URL: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=774&cat=4 [Accessed 2010 Mar 30]

  14. Schneeweiss S, Patrick AR, Pedan A, et al. The effect of Medicare Part D coverage on drug use and cost sharing among seniors without prior drug benefits. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009; 28: w305–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Byford S, Barrett B, Roberts C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and routine specialist care with and without cognitive behavioural therapy in adolescents with major depression. Br J Psychiatry 2007; 191:521–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Domino ME, Burns BJ, Silva SG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of treatments for adolescent depression: results from TADS. Am J Psychiatry 2008; 165: 588–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. CDC Diabetes Cost-Effectiveness Group. Cost-effectiveness of intensive glycemic control, intensified hypertension control, and serum cholesterol level reduction for type 2 diabetes. JAMA 2002; 287: 2542–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Briggs A, Mihaylova B, Sculpher M, et al. Cost effectiveness of perindopril in reducing cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary artery disease using data from the EUROPA study. Heart 2007; 93: 1081–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Clark WF, Churchill DN, Forwell L, et al. To pay or not to pay? A decision and cost-utility analysis of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor therapy for diabetic nephropathy. CMAJ 2000; 162: 195–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Golan L, Birkmeyer JD, Welch HG. The cost-effectiveness of treating all patients with type 2 diabetes with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Ann Intern Med 1999; 131:660–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Heidenreich PA, Davis BR, Cutler JA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of chlorthalidone, amlodipine, and lisinopril as first-step treatment for patients with hypertension: an analysis of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). J Gen Intern Med 2008; 23: 509–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tavakoli M, Pumford N, Woodward M, et al. An economic evaluation of a perindopril-based blood pressure lowering regimen for patients who have suffered a cerebrovascular event. Eur J Health Econ 2009; 10: 111–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chan PS, Nallamothu BK, Gurm HS, et al. Incremental benefit and cost-effectiveness of high-dose statin therapy in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation 2007; 115:2398–409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Grover S, Coupal L, Lowensteyn I. Preventing cardiovascular disease among Canadians: is the treatment of hypertension or dyslipidemia cost-effective? Can J Cardiol 2008; 24: 891–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lindgren P, Graff J, Olsson AG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of high-dose atorvastatin compared with regular dose simvastatin. Eur Heart J 2007; 28: 1448–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Pletcher MJ, Lazar L, Bibbins-Domingo K, et al. Comparing impact and cost-effectiveness of primary prevention strategies for lipid-lowering. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150: 243–54

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Scuffham PA, Chaplin S. An economic evaluation of fluvastatin used for the prevention of cardiac events following successful first percutaneous coronary intervention in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22: 525–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Scuffham PA, Chaplin S. A cost-effectiveness analysis of fluvastatin in patients with diabetes after successful percutaneous coronary intervention. Clin Ther 2005; 27: 1467–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wagner M, Goetghebeur M, Merikle E, et al. Cost-effectiveness of intensive lipid lowering therapy with 80 mg of atorvastatin, versus 10 mg of atorvastatin, for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in Canada. Can J Clin Pharmacol 2009; 16: e331–45

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wagner M, Lindgren P, Merikle E, et al. Economic evaluation of high-dose (80mg/day) atorvastatin treatment compared with standard-dose (20mg/day to 40mg/day) simvastatin treatment in Canada based on the Incremental Decrease in End-Points Through Aggressive Lipid-Lowering (IDEAL) trial. Can J Cardiol 2009; 25: e362–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Chaudhuri S, Goldberg P, Jia P. Estimating the effects of global patent protection in pharmaceuticals: a case study of quinolones in India. Am Econ Rev 2006; 96(5): 1477–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Danzon PM, Furukawa MF. Prices and availability of pharmaceuticals: evidence from nine countries. Health Aff (Millwood) 2003; Suppl. Web Exclusives: W3–521–36

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bren L. Study: US generic drugs cost less than Canadian drugs. FDA Consum 2004 Jul-Aug; 38(4): 9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Conaway C. Too much of a good thing can be bad: the pros and cons of pharmaceutical patents. Regional Rev 2003: 13

    Google Scholar 

  35. The rebate Medicaid receives on brand-name prescription drugs. Congressional Budget Office. Letter sent to Senator Max Baucus, 2005 Jun 21 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/64xx/doc6493/06-21-MedicaidRebate.pdf [Accessed 2011 Mar 9]

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cox E, Mager D, Weisbart E. Geographic variation trends in prescription use: 2000 to 2006. Express Scripts 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.express-scripts.com/research/studies/healthservicesresearch/pharmacoepidemiology/docs/geoVariationTrends.pdf [Accessed 2010 Feb 1]

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by an Interdisciplinary Seed Grant from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. BCC was previously employed by the University of Utah College of Pharmacy under a grant from Utah Medicaid to perform medication reviews. At the time of the work done on this paper, he was not in this position.

The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard E. Nelson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nelson, R.E., McAdam-Marx, C., Evans, M.L. et al. Patent extension policy for paediatric indications. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 9, 171–181 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2165/11539060-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11539060-000000000-00000

Keywords

Navigation