Prescribing trends for biologic drugs among Ohio dermatologists

Julie Iacullo, Elaine Kunzler, Harib H. Ezaldein, Jeffrey F. Scott

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review


The role of biologic therapies in the field of dermatology continues to evolve as newer drugs and biosimilars are introduced to the U.S. market. Prescribing patterns and expenditures regarding biologic drugs are not well described. To address this knowledge gap, a retrospective review was conducted using the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Part D Prescriber dataset between January 1st, 2013 and December 31st, 2015. The primary outcome was claims per provider per calendar year. Secondary outcomes included drug cost, shared cost per dermatologist, and practice location. Median claims per provider remained stable between 2013 and 2014 (24 versus 23, respectively; P=0.64). The majority of 2015 claims were for adalimumab (50.1%) and etanercept (41.4%). Total spending from Medicare payment data for biologic drugs prescribed by Ohio dermatologists increased by $3 million during the study period. The Gini coefficient for provider contributions to overall costs was 0.47, indicating moderate inequality among Ohio dermatologists. Spending associated with biologic drugs used for dermatologic indications is increasing in Ohio. As the market changes, providers should be aware of these patterns to better care for patients in need of biologic therapies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number6
JournalDermatology online journal
Issue number7
StatePublished - Jul 2018
Externally publishedYes


  • Adalimumab
  • Biologic drugs
  • Claims
  • Dermatology
  • Drug costs
  • Etanercept
  • Medicare part D
  • Ohio
  • Secukinumab
  • Ustekinumab

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dermatology


Dive into the research topics of 'Prescribing trends for biologic drugs among Ohio dermatologists'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this