2f:I[703058,["/_next/static/immutable/chunks/3bhq_5eh1d760.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/1855-ogyi8eh4.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/2pfsjpn6k6zlg.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/26c7v3_3uwnwu.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/25a3ozcrvi1ff.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/2r4wx50nvjh_4.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/23fsw06hsi5b1.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/06_yt270h41rg.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/3ezsiz-7shkna.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/20x2y96ldu5wx.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/2lxntcm3pd1_h.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/00dgco8irq3jw.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/00nwe-kq0rboc.js","/_next/static/immutable/chunks/2051ffx3xzio9.js"],"PaperListPageClient"] 30:T45e,In 94 900 359 drug claims from 24 731 dermatology care professionals, inflation-adjusted Medicare Part D spending increased by 16.1% annually, from $768 million in 2013 to $2.95 billion in 2022. Specialty medications contributed 98.4% of this growth, increasing from 30.8% of all dermatology drug spending in 2013 to 80.9% in 2022, despite being only 2.9% of prescriptions. Average inflation-adjusted prices per 30-day prescription for specialty medications increased by 5.1% per year, from $3738 in 2013 to $5872 in 2022. In contrast, prices for nonspecialty medications decreased by 5.3% annually relative to inflation, from $68 in 2013 to $42 in 2022. Most of the growth in specialty medication spending was due to increased prescribing (80.5%) rather than higher prices (19.5%). New therapies approved after 2013 (Otezla, Cosentyx, Taltz, Dupixent, Tremfya, Skyrizi, and Odomzo) accounted for 69.5% of all spending growth. Prescription rates increased more slowly for older specialty drugs (Humira, Enbrel, Stelara, and Erivedge), but their prices increased more (9.2% annually) than prices for newer agents.31:Taba,The rising cost of prescription drugs is a major concern in health care. Specialty medications, particularly biologics, have transformed dermatologic care but are expensive and may be factors in disproportionate growth in spending. To assess the role of specialty medications in Medicare Part D drug spending among physician dermatologists and dermatology-focused advanced practice clinicians (nurse practitioners and physician assistants) from 2013 to 2022. This economic analysis used Medicare Part D prescriber data on drug prescriptions from 2013 to 2022 to report on prescription drug claims from physician dermatologists and dermatology-focused advanced practice clinicians, identified using validated administrative claims-based definitions. Data were analyzed from December 17, 2024, to May 31, 2025. Prescription volumes, average prices, and the introduction of new drugs. The primary outcome was growth in inflation-adjusted total dermatology drug spending, decomposed by specialty status, prescriptions, prices, and US Food and Drug Administration approval year assessed from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Part D prescriber data from 2013 to 2022. In 94 900 359 drug claims from 24 731 dermatology care professionals, inflation-adjusted Medicare Part D spending increased by 16.1% annually, from $768 million in 2013 to $2.95 billion in 2022. Specialty medications contributed 98.4% of this growth, increasing from 30.8% of all dermatology drug spending in 2013 to 80.9% in 2022, despite being only 2.9% of prescriptions. Average inflation-adjusted prices per 30-day prescription for specialty medications increased by 5.1% per year, from $3738 in 2013 to $5872 in 2022. In contrast, prices for nonspecialty medications decreased by 5.3% annually relative to inflation, from $68 in 2013 to $42 in 2022. Most of the growth in specialty medication spending was due to increased prescribing (80.5%) rather than higher prices (19.5%). New therapies approved after 2013 (Otezla, Cosentyx, Taltz, Dupixent, Tremfya, Skyrizi, and Odomzo) accounted for 69.5% of all spending growth. Prescription rates increased more slowly for older specialty drugs (Humira, Enbrel, Stelara, and Erivedge), but their prices increased more (9.2% annually) than prices for newer agents. Results of this economic evaluation suggest that specialty medications have become a substantial factor in dermatology drug spending. While the price of the average dermatologic medication has increased rapidly, this primarily reflects increased prescribing of newly introduced specialty drugs. While these therapies expand treatment options, their rising share of costs highlights the need for policies that balance innovation, access, and affordability.32:Td70,ImportanceThe rising cost of prescription drugs is a major concern in health care. Specialty medications, particularly biologics, have transformed dermatologic care but are expensive and may be factors in disproportionate growth in spending.ObjectiveTo assess the role of specialty medications in Medicare Part D drug spending among physician dermatologists and dermatology-focused advanced practice clinicians (nurse practitioners and physician assistants) from 2013 to 2022.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis economic analysis used Medicare Part D prescriber data on drug prescriptions from 2013 to 2022 to report on prescription drug claims from physician dermatologists and dermatology-focused advanced practice clinicians, identified using validated administrative claims-based definitions. Data were analyzed from December 17, 2024, to May 31, 2025.ExposurePrescription volumes, average prices, and the introduction of new drugs.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was growth in inflation-adjusted total dermatology drug spending, decomposed by specialty status, prescriptions, prices, and US Food and Drug Administration approval year assessed from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Part D prescriber data from 2013 to 2022.ResultsIn 94 900 359 drug claims from 24 731 dermatology care professionals, inflation-adjusted Medicare Part D spending increased by 16.1% annually, from $768 million in 2013 to $2.95 billion in 2022. Specialty medications contributed 98.4% of this growth, increasing from 30.8% of all dermatology drug spending in 2013 to 80.9% in 2022, despite being only 2.9% of prescriptions. Average inflation-adjusted prices per 30-day prescription for specialty medications increased by 5.1% per year, from $3738 in 2013 to $5872 in 2022. In contrast, prices for nonspecialty medications decreased by 5.3% annually relative to inflation, from $68 in 2013 to $42 in 2022. Most of the growth in specialty medication spending was due to increased prescribing (80.5%) rather than higher prices (19.5%). New therapies approved after 2013 (Otezla, Cosentyx, Taltz, Dupixent, Tremfya, Skyrizi, and Odomzo) accounted for 69.5% of all spending growth. Prescription rates increased more slowly for older specialty drugs (Humira, Enbrel, Stelara, and Erivedge), but their prices increased more (9.2% annually) than prices for newer agents.Conclusions and RelevanceResults of this economic evaluation suggest that specialty medications have become a substantial factor in dermatology drug spending. While the price of the average dermatologic medication has increased rapidly, this primarily reflects increased prescribing of newly introduced specialty drugs. While these therapies expand treatment options, their rising share of costs highlights the need for policies that balance innovation, access, and affordability.25:[[["$","script","0",{"type":"application/ld+json","dangerouslySetInnerHTML":{"__html":"{\"@context\":\"https://schema.org\",\"@type\":\"CollectionPage\",\"name\":\"Dermatologic Diseases: condition Research & Clinical Takeaways\",\"description\":\"Explore peer-reviewed papers on Dermatologic Diseases (condition). Clinician-written summaries and actionable practice insights. Updated daily.\",\"url\":\"https://www.reachrx.ai/hub/tag/condition/Dermatologic%20Diseases\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https://www.reachrx.ai\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Research Hub\",\"item\":\"https://www.reachrx.ai/hub\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Conditions\",\"item\":\"https://www.reachrx.ai/hub/tag/condition\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":4,\"name\":\"Dermatologic Diseases\",\"item\":\"https://www.reachrx.ai/hub/tag/condition/Dermatologic%20Diseases\"}]}}"}}]],["$","$L2f",null,{"title":"Dermatologic Diseases: Research & Clinical Takeaways","description":"Discover peer-reviewed research on Dermatologic Diseases with concise clinician summaries and next-step guidance.","papers":[{"doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.2142","pmid":"40668561","title":"Quantifying the Role of Specialty Medications in Medicare Part D Expenditures in Dermatology","journal_title":"JAMA Dermatology","journal_issn":"2168-6068","published_at":"2025-07-16T00:00:00.000Z","url":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.2142","source_score":18,"is_retracted":false,"is_open_access":false,"raw_metadata":{"ooir":{"day":"2025-10-19","doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.2142","days":"7","issn":"2168-6068","rank":"10","field":"Clinical Medicine","score":"18","category":"Dermatology","categories":["Dermatology"],"_categories":["Dermatology"]},"pubmed":{"doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.2142","title":"Quantifying the Role of Specialty Medications in Medicare Part D Expenditures in Dermatology.","journal":"JAMA dermatology","methods":"","results":"$30","abstract":"$31","keywords":[],"pubmed_id":"40668561","conclusions":"","publication_date":"2025-07-16T00:00:00"},"crossref":{"DOI":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.2142","URL":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.2142","ISSN":["2168-6068"],"link":[{"URL":"https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/articlepdf/2836497/jamadermatology_kong_2025_oi_250034_1760475178.41949.pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"page":"1007","type":"journal-article","issue":"10","score":1,"title":["Quantifying the Role of Specialty Medications in Medicare Part D Expenditures in Dermatology"],"author":[{"given":"Edward L.","family":"Kong","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts"}]},{"given":"Arash","family":"Mostaghimi","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts"}]}],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,1]]},"member":"10","prefix":"10.1001","source":"Crossref","volume":"161","created":{"date-time":"2025-07-16T15:00:17Z","timestamp":1752678017000,"date-parts":[[2025,7,16]]},"indexed":{"date-time":"2025-10-15T15:42:07Z","timestamp":1760542927913,"date-parts":[[2025,10,15]]},"subject":[],"abstract":"$32","language":"en","relation":{},"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/2836497"}},"subtitle":[],"deposited":{"date-time":"2025-10-15T15:02:59Z","timestamp":1760540579000,"date-parts":[[2025,10,15]]},"issn-type":[{"type":"print","value":"2168-6068"}],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,1]]},"publisher":"American Medical Association (AMA)","reference":[{"DOI":"10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.1188","key":"doi250034r1","year":"2024","issue":"5","author":"Hayford","volume":"5","first-page":null,"unstructured":null,"article-title":"Role of specialty drugs in rising drug prices for Medicare Part D.","journal-title":"JAMA Health Forum","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":"10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0511","key":"doi250034r3","year":"2014","issue":"10","author":"Lotvin","volume":"33","first-page":"1736","unstructured":null,"article-title":"Specialty medications: traditional and novel tools can address rising spending on these costly drugs.","journal-title":"Health Aff (Millwood)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":"10.1007/s40257-017-0324-7","key":"doi250034r4","year":"2018","issue":"2","author":"Snast","volume":"19","first-page":"145","unstructured":null,"article-title":"Are biologics efficacious in atopic dermatitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis.","journal-title":"Am J Clin Dermatol","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.3616","key":"doi250034r5","year":"2021","issue":"10","author":"Pourali","volume":"157","first-page":"1239","unstructured":null,"article-title":"Out-of-pocket costs of specialty medications for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis treatment in the Medicare population.","journal-title":"JAMA Dermatol","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":null,"key":"doi250034r6","year":"2009","issue":"1","author":"Aitken","volume":"28","first-page":"w151","unstructured":null,"article-title":"Prescription drug spending trends in the United States: looking beyond the turning point.","journal-title":"Health Aff (Millwood)","doi-asserted-by":null},{"DOI":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2023.1843","key":"doi250034r9","year":"2023","issue":"8","author":"Mohr","volume":"159","first-page":"859","unstructured":null,"article-title":"Trends over time in Medicare for advanced practice clinicians in dermatology, 2013-2020.","journal-title":"JAMA Dermatol","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":"10.1111/j.2517-6161.1951.tb00088.x","key":"doi250034r10","year":"1951","issue":"2","author":"Simpson","volume":"13","first-page":"238","unstructured":null,"article-title":"The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables.","journal-title":"J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.1130","key":"doi250034r11","year":"2017","issue":"8","author":"Song","volume":"153","first-page":"755","unstructured":null,"article-title":"Medicare Part D payments for topical steroids: rising costs and potential savings.","journal-title":"JAMA Dermatol","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":"10.1016/j.jaad.2022.09.057","key":"doi250034r12","year":"2023","issue":"4","author":"Faletsky","volume":"88","first-page":"928","unstructured":null,"article-title":"Variation in Medicare Part D topical steroid prescription costs.","journal-title":"J Am Acad Dermatol","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":"10.1016/j.jaad.2025.02.025","key":"doi250034r13","year":null,"issue":null,"author":"Ly","volume":null,"first-page":null,"unstructured":null,"article-title":"Trends in Medicare Part D spending on topical steroids from 2012 to 2021: increasing costs of generic topical steroids and potential savings.","journal-title":"J Am Acad Dermatol","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.3798","key":"doi250034r14","year":"2018","issue":"12","author":"Li","volume":"154","first-page":"1441","unstructured":null,"article-title":"Association between market competition and prices of generic topical dermatology drugs.","journal-title":"JAMA Dermatol","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":"10.1377/hlthaff.2024.00366","key":"doi250034r16","year":"2024","issue":"11","author":"Jhang","volume":"43","first-page":"1553","unstructured":null,"article-title":"Evidence that regulatory and market forces are driving adoption of biosimilars.","journal-title":"Health Aff (Millwood)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":"10.1016/j.mayocp.2023.08.029","key":"doi250034r18","year":"2024","issue":"1","author":"Zhao","volume":"99","first-page":"26","unstructured":null,"article-title":"Real-world clinical equivalence of generic and branded tofacitinib: a prospective longitudinal cohort study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.","journal-title":"Mayo Clin Proc","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":"10.37765/ajmc.2020.88489","key":"doi250034r19","year":"2020","issue":"9","author":"Parasrampuria","volume":"26","first-page":"388","unstructured":null,"article-title":"Comparing patient OOP spending for specialty drugs in Medicare Part D and employer-sponsored insurance.","journal-title":"Am J Manag Care","doi-asserted-by":"publisher"},{"DOI":null,"key":"doi250034r20","year":"2014","issue":"4","author":"Régnier","volume":"20","first-page":"322","unstructured":null,"article-title":"How does drug coverage vary by insurance type? analysis of drug formularies in the United States.","journal-title":"Am J Manag Care","doi-asserted-by":null},{"DOI":null,"key":"doi250034r2","year":"2022","issue":null,"author":"Murrin","volume":null,"first-page":null,"unstructured":null,"article-title":null,"journal-title":null,"doi-asserted-by":null},{"DOI":null,"key":"doi250034r7","year":null,"issue":null,"author":null,"volume":null,"first-page":null,"unstructured":"Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Part D prescribers datasets: a methodological overview. July 2022. Accessed May 16, 2025. https://data.cms.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/03d04a54-299e-4284-9de4-3143f5236540/MUP_DPR_RY22_20220715_Methodology.pdf","article-title":null,"journal-title":null,"doi-asserted-by":null},{"DOI":null,"key":"doi250034r8","year":null,"issue":null,"author":null,"volume":null,"first-page":null,"unstructured":"US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers: all items in U.S. city average [CPIAUCSL]. Published online January 15, 2025. Accessed February 9, 2025. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL","article-title":null,"journal-title":null,"doi-asserted-by":null},{"DOI":null,"key":"doi250034r15","year":null,"issue":null,"author":null,"volume":null,"first-page":null,"unstructured":"Statista. Adalimumab: Humira vs. biosimilars market share U.S. 2024. Accessed February 9, 2025. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1538532/humira-vs-biosimilars-market-share-in-the-us/","article-title":null,"journal-title":null,"doi-asserted-by":null},{"DOI":null,"key":"doi250034r17","year":null,"issue":null,"author":null,"volume":null,"first-page":null,"unstructured":"Feldman? MA. Generic tofacitinib and the future of expensive generics. Medscape. 2025. Accessed March 28, 2025. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/generic-tofacitinib-will-it-be-bellwether-future-expensive-2025a100075x","article-title":null,"journal-title":null,"doi-asserted-by":null}],"short-title":[],"journal-issue":{"issue":"10","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,1]]}},"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"original-title":[],"container-title":["JAMA Dermatology"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,1]]},"reference-count":20,"published-online":null,"references-count":20,"short-container-title":["JAMA Dermatol"],"is-referenced-by-count":0},"unpaywall":{"doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.2142","is_oa":false,"title":"Quantifying the Role of Specialty Medications in Medicare Part D Expenditures in Dermatology","updated":"2025-08-04T14:10:34+00:00","published_date":"2025-07-16","best_oa_location":null}},"created_at":"2025-10-23T07:02:20.074Z","updated_at":"2025-10-25T07:01:09.977Z","tags":[{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.2142","tag_type":"category","value":"Dermatology","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.2142","tag_type":"condition","value":"Dermatologic Diseases","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.2142","tag_type":"sample_size","value":"n=94,900,359","value_numeric":94900359},{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.2142","tag_type":"study_design","value":"Cross-Sectional Study","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.2142","tag_type":"warning","value":"Design label is approximate: this is a claims-based economic trend analysis rather than a traditional cross-sectional clinical study.","value_numeric":null},{"paper_doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.2142","tag_type":"warning","value":"The sample size reported reflects claims, not unique patients.","value_numeric":null}],"summaries":{"what_studied":"An economic analysis of Medicare Part D prescriber data (2013-2022) assessed how specialty medications influenced dermatology drug spending among physician dermatologists and dermatology-focused nurse practitioners and physician assistants, decomposing growth by specialty status, prescription volume, prices, and FDA approval year.","key_result":"Across 94,900,359 claims from 24,731 clinicians, inflation-adjusted spending rose 16.1% per year from $768 million (2013) to $2.95 billion (2022); specialty drugs drove 98.4% of this growth, rising from 30.8% to 80.9% of spend while comprising 2.9% of prescriptions. Specialty prices rose 5.1%/year ($3,738 to $5,872 per 30-day Rx) versus nonspecialty prices falling 5.3%/year ($68 to $42); 80.5% of specialty-spend growth came from increased prescribing (19.5% from price), and post-2013 agents (Otezla, Cosentyx, Taltz, Dupixent, Tremfya, Skyrizi, Odomzo) accounted for 69.5% of total growth, while older agents’ prices rose 9.2%/year.","practice_takeaway":"Specialty medications now dominate dermatology Part D spending, with rising costs driven mainly by increased use of newer agents rather than price escalation. Policies should aim to balance innovation, access, and affordability as specialty drugs’ share of spending grows."}}],"initialOffset":1,"fetchConfig":{"kind":"tags","tags":[{"tag_type":"condition","value":"Dermatologic Diseases"}]},"breadcrumbItems":[{"name":"Home","href":"/"},{"name":"Research Hub","href":"/hub"},{"name":"Conditions","href":"/hub/tag/condition"},{"name":"Dermatologic Diseases"}],"hrefConfig":{"basePath":"/hub/papers","webViewQueryParams":{"hub_ctx":"tag","hub_tag_type":"condition","hub_tag_value":"Dermatologic Diseases"}}}]]

Papers