Blog Home


The Cost Of A Cure: Medicare’s Role In Treating Hepatitis C

June 5th, 2014

Editor’s note: In addition to Tricia Neuman, Jack Hoadley and Juliette Cubanski also coauthored this post.

For a patient with hepatitis C, a potentially deadly disease, the prospect of finding a cure with minimal side effects is a really big deal. Also a big deal is the cost of Sovaldi (sofosbuvir), an oral drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration in December 2013 for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. Sovaldi has been priced by its manufacturer, Gilead, at $1,000 per pill, or an estimated $84,000 for its entire 12-week regimen. It joins the treatment arsenal with several older drugs generally thought either to be less effective or to have more side effects, and another newly approved drug to be taken in combination with other drugs. More drugs are expected to gain approval within the year.

Sovaldi’s price tag has drawn attention in part because an estimated 3 million Americans have the hepatitis C virus and could be considered candidates for new drugs. Patients will clearly benefit from a long-awaited cure, and public and private payers could potentially see a reduction in health care spending over the long term if Sovaldi successfully cures this disease and fewer patients require high-cost liver transplants. But private insurers and public programs will face significant budgetary pressures if a large number of patients receive this treatment at current prices.

To date, attention has focused on cost implications for private health plans, Medicaid, and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). For example, UnitedHealth reported that the cost of Sovaldi was “multiple times” its expectations. State Medicaid officials and Medicaid plans have warned that the cost of the new treatments will pose significant fiscal challenges to state budgets and plan payment rates, even though Medicaid receives a 23.1 percent rebate (discount) for all brand drug purchases. The VA has decided to cover the drug and secured from Gilead a discount of 44 percent, one that applies to certain other federal purchasers, but is targeting treatment to the sickest patients while waiting for less expensive drugs to become available.

Less attention has been paid to the cost implications for Medicare, where coverage of Sovaldi will fall under Part D, the program’s outpatient prescription drug benefit administered by private plans. Given the drug’s effectiveness, most if not all of Part D plans will likely cover Sovaldi. The anticipated impact on costs to Medicare will be revealed to CMS later this month, when plans submit premium bids for 2015. Plans will increase their bids to cover the expected costs of new treatments, which will raise costs for both the federal government and Part D enrollees who pay premiums. CMS will release the average Part D premium for 2015 in August.

The cost to Medicare may be substantial. Based on our analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 350,000 Medicare beneficiaries have hepatitis C, although less than half of them are aware they have the disease. Because hepatitis C is most prevalent among baby boomers, the number of patients seeking treatment under Part D could rise unless they are cured before reaching the age of Medicare eligibility. HHS is currently encouraging at-risk individuals to get hepatitis C screening, which could boost the number of people, including Medicare beneficiaries, seeking a cure. Medicare may soon begin to cover the cost of Hepatitis C screening for those at risk, which could further increase the number of beneficiaries seeking Medicare-covered treatments.

Estimating Medicare Costs For Sovaldi: Two Scenarios

To estimate the potential cost to Medicare, we looked at two scenarios for how many Medicare beneficiaries might be treated with Sovaldi. In each scenario, we assume a 12-week course of treatment of Sovaldi, by itself, at a total price of $84,000.

In the first scenario, we assume that 25,000 Medicare beneficiaries — or roughly 10 percent of Part D enrollees with the hepatitis C virus and about one-fourth of enrollees who have been diagnosed — are treated with Sovaldi. At this level of treatment, Medicare spending would increase by about $2 billion in new Part D drug costs in 2015 over 2014 — a 3 percent increase in federal Part D outlays and Part D premiums from this drug alone.

The second scenario assumes 75,000 Part D enrollees get treated, equivalent to most of those who are aware they have the virus, but far less than the 350,000 infected beneficiaries. This higher rate of treatment would mean about $6.5 billion more in Part D drug spending, an increase of about 8 percent in both federal Part D outlays and enrollee premiums — a bigger increase than in any year since 2008.

These estimates of new costs to Medicare might be conservative. Medicare costs could be considerably higher because doctors often prescribe Sovaldi in conjunction with other medications. In addition, the cost to Medicare would be higher if a larger number of beneficiaries are diagnosed and treated than we assumed. But it is also possible that costs could be lower than our estimates if fewer people get treated, if new equally effective drugs become available at a lower cost, or if Part D plans are able to negotiate lower prices.

A Lack Of Leverage For Medicare Drug Plans

Yet, it is likely to be hard for plans (and thus for Medicare) to have an impact on price in the case of Sovaldi. In Part D, price negotiations are conducted by private plan sponsors on the premise that they can leverage lower prices from pharmaceutical companies by trading volume for discounts, as well as by deciding whether to cover the drug and at what level of cost sharing. This approach works best when multiple drugs achieve similar outcomes. But what happens when a newly approved drug lacks direct competitors, based on its high cure rate and low rate of side effects? Absent competitive pressures, Part D sponsors have little negotiating power.

The high price of Sovaldi is expected to have cost implications for Medicare beneficiaries seeking treatment. Even with coverage under Medicare Part D, patients receiving the treatment are likely to incur high out-of-pocket costs, paying as much as $7,000 in cost sharing over a 12-week period for Sovaldi, taking into account the deductible, coinsurance, coverage gap, and the 5 percent coinsurance above the catastrophic limit. Total out-of-pocket costs would be even higher for Part D enrollees who take Sovaldi in combination with other drugs.

Furthermore, if the high cost of Sovaldi leads plans to impose prior authorization restrictions to manage utilization, some patients could face barriers to getting treatment at any cost. However, the publicity over a recent denial of coverage by a Part D plan — and its subsequent reversal — highlights the potential pitfalls for plans in exercising this type of utilization management.

Potential savings and who would get them. The intense focus on the costs of treatment for Medicare and patients does not take into account the potential for longer-term savings. Clinical evidence suggests that successful treatment of the disease may reduce costs associated with liver disease down the road. Milliman has estimated that Medicare beneficiaries with hepatitis C have three times the average overall medical costs as other Medicare beneficiaries. If these higher costs were eliminated or substantially reduced, the savings achieved over a longer term could offset the one-time cost of the drug for any given patient. However, because Part D is funded and provided separately from other Medicare benefits, these savings would accrue to Medicare, not to the stand-alone Part D plans. By contrast, Medicare Advantage drug plans could potentially realize savings over the longer term, provided beneficiaries stay in the same plan for many years.

Policy Responses To Sovaldi And Similar Drugs  

When high-priced, innovative drugs come to market with no real competitors, the federal government could consider strategies to reduce the cost to Medicare. As noted above, Medicare does not receive the discounts obtained by the VA or Medicaid; in fact, the program is explicitly prohibited by law from negotiating drug pries directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers. The public, however, has expressed a favorable view of giving the government greater authority to negotiate lower drug prices in Medicare, despite the reluctance of lawmakers to move in this direction. A limited way to change the existing ban on government negotiation could be a binding arbitration system designed by Richard Frank and Joseph Newhouse for a scenario where a clinically important drug lacks competition from clinical alternatives.

Medicare might also consider a means of taking into account the medical savings that might result down the road from treatment with expensive drugs like Sovaldi. Medicare could design a way to hold back from the manufacturer some portion of the payment to see if savings materialize. The idea is to create a lower price, but offer a means of sharing savings if they materialize.

At a time when the nation is focused on how to control health costs, Sovaldi raises interesting and difficult questions which are likely to recur each time a highly priced breakthrough drug comes to the market with little or no competition, leaving public and private payers, and patients themselves, to absorb the costs. For now, Medicare is slated to pay top dollar to provide an important treatment that will potentially save lives. The question for policymakers is whether that is a sustainable policy for the longer term.

Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

No Trackbacks for “The Cost Of A Cure: Medicare’s Role In Treating Hepatitis C”

5 Responses to “The Cost Of A Cure: Medicare’s Role In Treating Hepatitis C”

  1. Tom James Says:

    Missing in the discussion is the need for effective predictive modeling. The California Technology Assessment Forum report on Hepatitis C, suggests that of 100 infected individuals, 80% will be symptom-free and 3 to 5% will die as a result of the infection. This is unlike the situation with HIV in the early 1980s, where the diagnosis was a death sentence. For Hepatitis C, focus needs to be on determining which individuals with the infection are likely to show progression. If the percentage of HCV infected individuals who truly required therapy were reduced to 20% of the total infected population, then the high costs of therapy would demonstrate a true value proposition.

  2. Mike Miller Says:

    Tricia – Great post. The one other facet of the new medicines (e.g., Sovaldi and those that are expected to be approved within the next year) that is often obscured in the public debate is their ability to cure a very high percentage of people with chronic hepatitis C. This is true because they both have an inherently higher cure capability, but the toxicity is so much less than the older medicines, e.g., interferon. In addition, because the rate of new infections is relatively low – I’ve heard 45,000/year in the U.S. – with reasonably aggressive treatment and screening programs chronic hepatitis C infection can be driven down to very low levels, and then the costs of care for people with chronic hepatitis C infection will be relatively small. I’ve just written about this in the context of Medicaid, VA and other government programs, so thanks for addressing the situation with Medicare, which I didn’t discuss. See:

  3. Jeremy Norton Says:

    It’s really great to hear that Medicare is willing to pay for medications such as this. It can really help save lives of those afflicted with Hepatitis C. May they be successful with their future endeavors.

  4. Walton Francis Says:

    Steve Sheingold’s point is well taken. I would add that the plans do have significant bargaining leverage. They can offer greater or lesser volume to the manufacturer–depending on price concessions–based on (a) their total enrollment in both MA and standalone Part D plans, and (b) how stringently they structure and enforce step therapy. As I understand it, this drug’s main benefit is that it is effective in a fraction of patients not well served by existing drugs, but little or no more effective for most with this disease. So a strategy of “you must try the other drugs first” could limit a plan’s cost exposure, and a willingness to be more liberal would presumably bring more price concessions. The lower of the blog’s two cost estimates already assumes that only a relatively small fraction of enrollees will get this drug, with plans paying the retail price, which seems inconsistent with plan bargaining strengths and profit-maximizing behavior by the manufacturer. That said, even if the price to a carrier could be bargained close to the VA level by increasing the number of patients receiving this drug, overall costs to MA and Part D would still be high. But a small percentage point increase in overall Part D costs seems a small price to pay for a breakthrough drug like this. Note also that the blog posting’s higher cost estimates assumes a very high level of patient participation in one year. More likely, that cost increase would be spread over several years, as well as reduced by bargaining.

    As a separate matter, and as discussed in the blog posting, this is another example of how the fragmented Medicare payment system penalizes innovative therapies of any kind if the savings accrue to another “Part” of the program, and of the considerable advance in internalizing both costs and savings brought by Medicare Advantage plans.

    Finally, as a benefit-cost matter, and assuming only the lower estimate from the blog posting, this is a massively cost-beneficial drug. As an illustrative estimate, assume that the drug prolongs life by an average of 5 years for those 25,000 people not helped by other drugs. Then if we value a statistical life year at $300,000, benefits for that one cohort of people reach about $40 billion. As a point of comparison, the number of lives saved dwarfs those claimed in recent EPA regulatory proposals to reduce mercury and carbon emissions. We get this for a cost in the low billions of dollars, whereas those EPA rules cost in the many tens of billions of dollars.

  5. Steven Sheingold Says:

    The issues are well described in this blog. Cost estimation at this point is very uncertain for a number of reasons. The potential Part D costs presented in the blog are likely overestimated as “new” Part D costs since at least some of the patients would have been treated with the pre Sovaldi care known as triple therapy which also had a significant price tag. Therefore, the incremental costs for these patients would be smaller than presented in the blog.

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is in use. Please do not submit your comment twice -- it will appear shortly.

Authors: Click here to submit a post.