Antifungal Agents’ Trends of Utilization, Spending, and Prices in the US Medicaid Programs: 2009–2023

Background: Fungal infections, particularly among immunocompromised individuals, present significant challenges due to rising incidence rates, treatment costs, and increasing resistance to antifungal agents. This study evaluates trends in antifungal use among Medicaid beneficiaries, focusing on prescribing patterns, costs, and pricing to optimize therapy. Methods: Using the national Medicaid outpatient pharmacy claims data collected by the US Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services, a retrospective drug utilization analysis was conducted for antifungal medications from 2009 to 2023. Antifungal medications were categorized based on therapeutic use. The study examined annual utilization, reimbursement, and pricing trends, along with the market share. Results: Overall Medicaid utilization of superficial fungal infections’ (SFIs’) medications increased from 3.95 million prescriptions in 2009 to 6.16 million in 2023. Nystatin was the most frequently utilized SFI agent, while fluconazole emerged as the most commonly prescribed agent for invasive fungal infections (IFIs). In 2022, a notable spike occurred in the number of prescriptions for both SFIs and IFIs. Medicaid’s total expenditure on SFI medications rose from USD 121.9 million in 2009 to USD 155 million in 2023, while spending on IFI medications fluctuated substantially, peaking at USD 156.8 million in 2022 before declining to USD 80.7 million in 2023. After being introduced to the market, efinaconazole became the most expensive SFI agent over the years. Isavuconazole, the latest approved IFI medication, demonstrated sustained utilization, reimbursement, and price increases. Conclusions: The substantial rise in antifungal utilization and spending underscores the growing financial burden on Medicaid, emphasizing the need for policy interventions to manage costs and generic drug substitution while ensuring equitable access to these essential treatments. However, this study is limited by the lack of clinical outcome data and information on off-label use. Additionally, reimbursement data may not accurately reflect actual drug prices.