Some seniors pay more for generic drugs than brands

Seniors who use generic specialty drugs may end up spending more out-of-pocket than those who use the brand version because of how Medicare's prescription drug benefit is structured, according to a new study in Health Affairs.

The bottom line: "If you need a lot of drugs or some very expensive drugs you would save more money out-of-pocket by using brands instead of generics," tweeted one of the study's authors, Stacie Dusetzina.

Details: The problem is most acute for specialty drugs, which tend to be the most expensive on the market.

  • Branded drug companies pay discounts in Medicare's "donut hole," which count toward that senior's overall out-of-pocket spending. Generics don't, so it takes longer for seniors using those drugs to spend enough for the government to start picking up more of their costs.
  • While Congress fixed the problem for biosimilars (akin to the generic version of biologics) last year, it left traditional small-molecule drugs unaddressed.

By the numbers: Even where competition among drugs is robust, patients whose prescriptions cost between $22,000 and $80,000 per year would save money if they used brand-name drugs instead of generics, the study found.

  • Part D plans may cover either the brand or the generic version of a drug, meaning patients can't switch between them even if they could get a better deal.

What they're saying: "We need to redesign [Part D] to work for people needing high-priced drugs. All of them. And we need to make generics CONSISTENTLY less expensive for patients than brands," Dusetzina tweeted.

What's next

New York Times endorses Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for president

Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Elizabeth Warrenand Sen. Amy Klobuchar at the December 2020 debatein Los Angeles. Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The New York Times editorial board has endorsed Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for president, in a decision announced on national television Sunday night.

Why it matters: The board writes in its editorial that its decision to endorse two candidates is a major break with convention that's intended to address the "realist" and "radical" models being presented to voters by the 2020 Democratic field.

Go deeperArrow55 mins ago - Media

What's next in the impeachment witness battle

Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Senators will almost certainly get to vote on whether or not to call impeachment witnesses. The resolution laying out the rules of the trial, which will be presented Tuesday, is expected to mandate that senators can take up-or-down votes on calling for witnesses and documents.

Yes, but: Those votes won't come until the House impeachment managers and President Trump's defense team deliver their opening arguments and field Senators' questions.

Inside Trump's impeachment strategy: The national security card

White House counsel Pat Cipollone and acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Trump officials say they feel especially bullish about one key argument against calling additional impeachment witnesses: It could compromise America's national security.

The big picture: People close to the president say their most compelling argument to persuade nervous Republican senators to vote against calling new witnesses is the claim that they're protecting national security.