Comparison of botulinum toxins for treatment of movement disorders: real-world utilization and cost analysis in a national Medicare population

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is the single largest payer for health care in the United States and the largest payer by spending globally. Medicare Part B, with more than 50 million beneficiaries, currently has no broad mechanisms in place for promoting cost-effective care of injectable drugs. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a real-world utilization and cost analysis comparing botulinum toxins in movement disorders. METHODS: The 2017 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier dataset from CMS was used for this claims level analysis. Neurologists, ophthalmologists, or physiatrists who injected predominantly for movement disorders (defined as blepharospasm, cervical dystonia, sialorrhea, and/or spasticity) were included along with their patients. Botulinum toxins with FDA indications spanning these 3 specialties were included. RESULTS: A total of 891 physicians (406 ophthalmologists, 338 neurologists, and 147 physiatrists) along with their 29,954 botulinum toxin (27,441 onabotulinumtoxinA and 2,513 incobotulinumtoxinA) patients were included in the analysis. The average total drug cost per patient per year (PPPY) was significantly lower for incobotulinumtoxinA versus onabotulinumtoxinA ($2,099 vs. $3,115; P < 0.001), for an average savings of 32.6%. Annual average out-of-pocket costs were also significantly less expensive for incobotulinumtoxinA versus onabotulinumtoxinA ($486 vs. $719; P < 0.001), for an average savings of 32.4%. Across 74,346 total injection visits, there was no significant difference in dosing between the agents, with an average dosing ratio of 0.94 incobotulinumtoxinA to 1.0 onabotulinumtoxinA. Injections PPPY were 2.42 for onabotulinumtoxinA and 2.29 for incobotulinumtoxinA. Average reported wastage was 64% higher for onabotulinumtoxinA than it was for incobotulinumtoxinA. A budget impact analysis estimated that increasing incobotulinumtoxinA use in the movement disorder space to attain an overall 20% botulinum toxin market share would save Medicare $32.9 million over a 3-year period versus current use. CONCLUSIONS: IncobotulinumtoxinA was shown to be a less costly alternative than onabotulinumtoxinA with similar dosing in real-world practice in this large national Medicare population. Policies to increase use of agents that promote cost-effective evidence-based care should be further explored and implemented for this fundamental federal payer.