DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES 	 Office of Inspector General 
Washington, D,C.  20201 
TO: 	 Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
Administrator 
Centers fO'f Medicare & Medicaid Services 
FROM:  Stuart Wright 
Deputy Inspector General 
for Evaluation and Inspections 
SUBJECT: 	 Memorandum Report:  Comparison ofFourth-Quarter 2010 Average Sales Prices 
and Average Manufacturer Prices:  Impact on Medicare Reimbursementfor 
Second Quarter 2011, OEI-03-11-00360 
This review was conducted in accordance with the statutory mandate for the Office of Inspector 
General (OIG) to identify Medicare Part B prescription drugs with average sales prices (ASP) 
that exceed average manufacturer prices (AMP) by at least 5 percent.  The review estimated the 
financial impact of lowering reimbursement amounts for drugs that met the 5-percent threshold 
to 103 percent of the AMPs, and additionally examined the potential effect of a July 2011 
proposed rule that, among other things, spednes fliedicumstances under which the Centers for 
Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will make AMP-based price substitutions, 
SUMMARY 
Since the implementation ofthe ASP reimbursement methodology in 2005, OIG has issued 
21 reports comparing ASPs with AMPs.  This latest comparison examines drugs that exceeded 
the 5-percent threshold based on either complete or partial AMP data in the fourth quarter of 
2010.  Of the 338 drug codes with complete AMP data, 15 exceeded the 5-percent threshold.  If 
reimbursement amounts for allIS codes had been based on 103 percent ofthe AMPs in the 
second quarter of2011, Medicare would have saved an estimated $1.3 million.  Under eMS's 
proposed price substitution policy, reimbursement amounts for 5 ofthe 15 drugs would have 
been reduced, saving an estimated $554,000,  Of the 108 drug codes with partial AMP data, 
15 exceeded the 5-percent threshold.  CMS has expressed concern that partial AMP data may not 
adequately reflect market trends and therefore proposes that drugs with partial AMP data not be 
subject to price reduction.  However, we found that pricing comparisons for 5 ofthe 15 codes 
with partial AMP data seemed to accurately capture market trends; therefore, price reductions 
may be appropriate in these cases.  We could not perform pricing comparisons for an additional 
61 drug codes because none of the drug products used to establish Medicare reimbursement had 
corresponding AMP data.  Manufacturers for 17 percent of those drug products had Medicaid 
drug rebate agreements and were therefore generally required to submit AMPs. 
OEI-03-11-00360  Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs  Page 2  Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
 
 
BACKGROUND 
 
The Social Security Act (the Act) mandates that OIG compare ASPs to AMPs.1  If OIG finds 
that the ASP for a drug exceeds the AMP by a certain percentage (currently 5 percent), the Act 
states that the Secretary of Health & Human Services (the Secretary) may disregard the ASP for 
the drug when setting reimbursement amounts.2, 3  The Act further states that ... the Inspector 
General shall inform the Secretary (at such times as the Secretary may specify to carry out this 
subparagraph) and the Secretary shall, effective as of the next quarter, substitute for the amount 
of payment ... the lesser of (i) the widely available market price ... (if any); or (ii) 103 percent of 
the average manufacturer price....4   
 
Medicare Part B Coverage of Prescription Drugs 
Medicare Part B covers only a limited number of outpatient prescription drugs.  Covered drugs 
include injectable drugs administered by a physician; certain self-administered drugs, such as 
oral anticancer drugs and immunosuppressive drugs; drugs used in conjunction with durable 
medical equipment; and some vaccines.  
 
Medicare Part B Payments for Prescription Drugs 
CMS contracts with private companies, known as Medicare Administrative Contractors (MAC), 
to process and pay Medicare Part B claims, including those for prescription drugs.  To obtain 
reimbursement for covered outpatient prescription drugs, health care providers submit claims to 
their MACs using procedure codes.  CMS established the Healthcare Common Procedure 
Coding System (HCPCS) to provide a standardized coding system for describing the specific 
items and services provided in the delivery of health care.  In the case of prescription drugs, each 
HCPCS code defines the drug name and the amount of the drug represented by the HCPCS code 
but does not specify manufacturer or package size information.   
 
Medicare and its beneficiaries spent almost $12 billion for Part B drugs in 2010.5  Although 
Medicare paid for more than 600 outpatient prescription drug HCPCS codes that year, most of 
the spending for Part B drugs was concentrated on a relatively small subset of those codes.  In 
2010, 61 HCPCS codes accounted for 90 percent of the expenditures for Part B drugs, with only 
12 of these codes representing the majority of total Part B drug expenditures. 
 
                                                 
1 Section 1847A(d)(2)(B) of the Act. 
2 Section 1847A(d)(3)(A) of the Act. 
3 Section 1847A(d)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act provides the Secretary with authority to adjust the applicable threshold 
percentage in 2006 and subsequent years; however, the threshold percentage has been maintained at 5 percent. 
4 Section 1847A(d)(3)(C) of the Act. 
5 Medicare expenditures for Part B drugs in 2010 were calculated using CMSs Part B Analytics and Reports 
(PBAR).  The PBAR data for 2010 were 98 percent complete when the data were downloaded in April 2011. 
OEI-03-11-00360     Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs  
  Page 3  Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
 
 
Reimbursement Methodology for Part B Drugs and Biologicals  
Medicare Part B pays for most covered drugs using a reimbursement methodology based on 
ASPs.6  As defined by law, an ASP is a manufacturers sales of a drug to all purchasers in the 
United States in a calendar quarter divided by the total number of units of the drug sold by the 
manufacturer in that same quarter.7  The ASP is net of any price concessions, such as volume 
discounts, prompt pay discounts, cash discounts, free goods contingent on purchase 
requirements, chargebacks, and rebates other than those obtained through the Medicaid drug 
rebate program.8  Sales that are nominal in amount are exempted from the ASP calculation, as 
are sales excluded from the determination of best price in Medicaids drug rebate program.9, 10 
 
Manufacturers that participate in the Medicaid drug rebate program must provide CMS with the 
ASP and volume of sales for each of their national drug codes (NDC) on a quarterly basis, with 
submissions due 30 days after the close of each quarter.11  An NDC is an 11-digit identifier that 
represents a specific manufacturer, product, and package size. 
 
Because Medicare Part B reimbursement for outpatient drugs is based on HCPCS codes rather 
than NDCs and more than one NDC may meet the definition of a particular HCPCS code, CMS 
has developed a file that crosswalks manufacturers NDCs to HCPCS codes.  CMS uses 
information in this crosswalk file to calculate volume-weighted ASPs for covered HCPCS codes.   
 
Calculation of Volume-Weighted ASPs 
Second-quarter 2011 Medicare payments for most covered drug codes were based on                 
fourth-quarter 2010 ASP submissions from manufacturers, which were volume-weighted using 
an equation that involves the following variables:  the ASP for the 11-digit NDC as reported by 
the manufacturer, the volume of sales for the NDC as reported by the manufacturer, and the 
number of billing units in the NDC as determined by CMS.12  The amount of the drug contained 
in an NDC may differ from the amount of the drug specified by the HCPCS code that providers 
use to bill Medicare.  Therefore, the number of billing units in an NDC describes the number of 
HCPCS code units that are in that NDC.  For instance, an NDC may contain a total of                          
10 milliliters of Drug A, but the corresponding HCPCS code may be defined as only 5 milliliters 
of Drug A.  In this case, there are two billing units in the NDC.  CMS calculates the number of 
billing units in each NDC when developing its crosswalk files.   
                                                 
6 Several Part B drugs, including certain vaccines and blood products, are not paid for under the ASP methodology.  
7 Section 1847A(c) of the Act, as added by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 
2003, P.L. 108-173. 
8 Section 1847A(c)(3) of the Act.  
9 Section 1847A(c)(2) of the Act.  
10 Pursuant to section 1927(c)(1)(C)(i) of the Act, best price is the lowest price available from the manufacturer 
during the rebate period to any wholesaler, retailer, provider, health maintenance organization, nonprofit entity, or 
governmental entity within the United States, with certain exceptions. 
11 Section 1927(b)(3) of the Act.  
12 The equation that CMS currently uses to calculate volume-weighted ASPs is described in section 1847A(b)(6) of 
the Act.  It is also provided in Appendix A.   
 
OEI-03-11-00360     Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs  
  Page 4  Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
 
 
Under the ASP pricing methodology, the Medicare allowance for most Part B drugs is equal to 
106 percent of the volume-weighted ASP for the HCPCS code.  Medicare beneficiaries are 
generally responsible for 20 percent of this amount in the form of coinsurance.   
 
The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and AMPs 
For Federal payment to be available for covered outpatient drugs provided under Medicaid, the 
Act mandates that drug manufacturers enter into rebate agreements with the Secretary and pay 
quarterly rebates to State Medicaid agencies.13  Under these rebate agreements and pursuant to 
the Act, manufacturers must provide CMS with the AMPs for each of their NDCs.14  As further 
explained in regulation, manufacturers are required to submit AMPs within 30 days after the end 
of each quarter.15   
 
The AMP is generally calculated as a weighted average of prices for all of a manufacturers 
package sizes of a drug and is reported for the lowest identifiable quantity of the drug (e.g.,                  
1 milliliter, one tablet, one capsule).  Effective as of the fourth quarter of 2010, the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) revised the definition of AMP to be 
the average price paid to the manufacturer for the drug in the United States by (1) wholesalers 
for drugs distributed to retail community pharmacies; and (2) retail community pharmacies that 
purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer.16, 17, 18  Because the AMPs calculated under this 
new definition are expected to be based on higher-priced sales, the new AMPs are likely to be 
higher than the AMPs calculated before October 2010.19, 20   
 
Penalties for Failure To Report Timely Drug Pricing Data 
Pursuant to the Act, manufacturers that fail to provide ASP and AMP data on a timely basis may 
be subject to civil money penalties and/or termination from the drug rebate program.21, 22  
Accordingly, CMS has terminated rebate agreements with a number of manufacturers for failure 
to report AMPs and, for the purposes of evaluating potential civil money penalties, has referred 
                                                 
13 Sections 1927(a)(1) and (b)(1) of the Act. 
14 Section 1927(b)(3) of the Act. 
15 42 CFR  447.510.   
16 Section 1927(k)(1) of the Act, as amended by section 2503 of the Affordable Care Act, P.L. 111-148.    
17 Pursuant to section 1927(k)(10) of the Act, retail community pharmacy means an independent, chain, 
supermarket, or a mass merchandiser pharmacy that is licensed as a pharmacy by the State and that dispenses 
medications to the general public at retail prices.  Such term does not include a pharmacy that dispenses prescription 
medications to patients primarily through the mail; nursing home, long-term care, or hospital pharmacies; clinics; 
charitable or not-for-profit pharmacies; government pharmacies; or pharmacy benefit managers. 
18 Prior to October 2010, the AMP was generally defined by statute to be the average price paid to the manufacturer 
for the drug in the United States by wholesalers for drugs distributed to the retail pharmacy class of trade.  
19 As stated by the Department of Health & Human Services in its comments on page 12 of a 2010 Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled Medicaid Outpatient Prescription Drugs:  Estimated Changes to 
Federal Upper Limits Using the Formula under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (GAO-11-141R). 
20 This anticipated increase in AMPs may lessen the likelihood that a drugs ASP will exceed the 5-percent 
threshold, effectively making price substitution criteria more stringent. 
21 Sections 1927(b)(3)(C)(i) and (4)(B)(i) of the Act. 
22 The Secretary delegated to OIG the responsibility to impose civil money penalties for violations of section 
1927(b)(3)(C) of the Act in 59 Fed. Reg. 52967 (Oct. 20, 1994). 
OEI-03-11-00360     Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs  
  Page 5  Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
 
 
to OIG manufacturers that failed to submit timely ASPs and AMPs.  In September 2010, OIG 
announced an enforcement initiative under which it would begin imposing civil money penalties 
on manufacturers that failed to report timely ASPs and/or AMPs.23 
 
OIGs Monitoring of ASPs and AMPs 
In accordance with its statutory mandate, OIG has issued 18 quarterly pricing comparisons since 
the ASP reimbursement methodology for Part B drugs was implemented in January 2005.  In 
addition, OIG has completed three annual overviews of ASPs and AMPs, which examined data 
across all four quarters of 2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively.  A list of all 21 reports is provided 
in Appendix B.   
 
OIG has consistently recommended that CMS develop a price substitution policy and 
subsequently lower reimbursement for drugs that exceed the 5-percent threshold.  Although 
CMS has yet to make any changes to Part B drug reimbursement as a result of these studies, the 
agency published a proposed rule in July 2011 that, among other things, specifies the 
circumstances under which AMP-based price substitutions would occur.24, 25  CMS plans to 
implement its price substitution policy beginning in the first quarter of 2012.26 
 
CMSs Proposed Price Substitution Policy 
Under CMSs July 2011 proposed price substitution policy, 103 percent of the AMP would be 
substituted for the ASP-based reimbursement amount when OIG identifies a HCPCS code that 
meets the 5-percent threshold in two consecutive quarters or three of four quarters.  Because 
CMS believes that substituted prices based on partial AMP data may not adequately reflect 
market trends, the agency would lower reimbursement amounts only when ASP and AMP 
comparisons are based on the same set of NDCs (i.e., based on complete AMP data).  HCPCS 
codes that meet the 5-percent threshold based on partial AMP data would not be eligible for price 
substitution.   
 
Price substitutions would take effect in the quarter after OIG shares the results of its most recent 
pricing comparison and would remain in effect for one quarter.27  To prevent CMSs proposed 
policy from inadvertently raising the Medicare reimbursement amount, a price substitution 
                                                 
23 OIG, Special Advisory Bulletin:  Average Manufacturer Price and Average Sales Price Reporting Requirements, 
September 2010.  Available online at  http://www.oig.hhs.gov. 
24 76 Fed. Reg. 42772, 42947 (July 19, 2011). 
25 CMS previously proposed a price substitution policy to be used for calendar year 2011 but opted not to finalize 
that price substitution policy based, in part, on impending changes to the definition of AMP (75 Fed. Reg. 
73170,73471).  
26 76 Fed. Reg. 42772, 42947 (July 19, 2011). 
27  After that one quarter, the reimbursement amount would be either 106 percent of the volume-weighted ASP for 
the current quarter or, if the HCPCS code continues to meet CMSs price substitution criteria, 103 percent of the 
volume-weighted AMP for the current quarter. 
OEI-03-11-00360     Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs  
  Page 6  Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
 
 
would not occur when the substituted amount is greater than the ASP-based payment amount 
calculated for the quarter in which the price substitution would take effect.28   
 
METHODOLOGY 
 
We obtained a file from CMS containing NDC-level ASP data from the fourth quarter of 2010, 
which were used to establish Part B drug reimbursement for the second quarter of 2011.  This 
file also includes information that crosswalks NDCs to their corresponding HCPCS codes.  Both 
the ASP data and the crosswalk data were current as of March 22, 2011.  We also obtained AMP 
data from CMS for the fourth quarter of 2010, which were current as of February 3, 2011. 
 
Analyzing ASP Data From the Fourth Quarter of 2010 
As mentioned previously, Medicare does not base reimbursement for covered drugs on NDCs; 
instead, it uses HCPCS codes.  Therefore, CMS uses ASP information submitted by 
manufacturers for each NDC to calculate a volume-weighted ASP for each covered HCPCS 
code.  When calculating these volume-weighted ASPs, CMS includes only NDCs with ASP 
submissions that are deemed valid.   
 
As of April 2011, CMS had established prices for 514 HCPCS codes based on the ASP 
reimbursement methodology mandated by the Act.29  Reimbursement amounts for the                      
514 HCPCS codes were based on ASP data for 3,185 NDCs.   
 
Analyzing AMP Data From the Fourth Quarter of 2010 
To ensure that the broadest range of drug codes is subject to OIGs pricing comparisons, we 
divided HCPCS codes into the following three groups:                       
 
(1) HCPCS codes with complete AMP datai.e., HCPCS codes with AMP data for 
every NDC that CMS used in its calculation of volume-weighted ASPs; 
 
(2) HCPCS codes with partial AMP datai.e., HCPCS codes with AMP data for only 
some of the NDCs that CMS used in its calculation of volume-weighted ASPs; and   
 
(3) HCPCS codes with no AMP datai.e., HCPCS codes with no AMP data for any of 
the NDCs that CMS used in its calculation of volume-weighted ASPs.   
 
As previously noted, the AMP for each NDC is reported for the lowest identifiable quantity of 
the drug contained in that NDC (e.g., 1 milliliter, one tablet, one capsule).  In contrast, the ASP 
is reported for the entire amount of the drug contained in the NDC (e.g., 50 milliliters,                       
100 tablets).  To ensure that the AMP would be comparable to the ASP, it was necessary to 
                                                 
28 For example, if the AMP-based substitution amount were $5 and the ASP-based reimbursement amount were                 
$4 for the quarter in which the substitution would take place, CMS would not make the price substitution.  
29 Section 1847A(b)(6) of the Act. 
OEI-03-11-00360     Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs  
  Page 7  Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
 
 
convert the AMP for each NDC so that it represented the total amount of the drug contained in 
that NDC.   
 
To calculate converted AMPs for NDCs in the first and second groups, we multiplied the AMP 
by the total amount of the drug contained in each NDC, as identified by sources such as the CMS 
crosswalk file, manufacturer Web sites, Thomson Reuters Red Book, and the Food and Drug 
Administrations NDC directory.30  For certain NDCs, we were unable to identify the amount of 
the drug reflected by the ASP or AMP and therefore could not calculate a converted AMP.  
Because of these unsuccessful AMP conversions, a total of seven HCPCS codes were removed 
from our analysis.  
 
Using NDCs with successful AMP conversions, we then calculated a volume-weighted AMP for 
each of the corresponding HCPCS codes, consistent with CMSs methodology for calculating 
volume-weighted ASPs.  When calculating the volume-weighted AMP for a HCPCS code with 
partial AMP data, we excluded any NDCs without AMPs; however, we did not exclude those 
NDCs from the corresponding volume-weighted ASP.  This means that the volume-weighted 
AMP for a HCPCS code with partial AMP data is based on fewer NDCs than the                         
volume-weighted ASP for that same code.  Appendix C provides a more detailed description of 
the methods we used to both convert AMPs and calculate volume-weighted AMPs.  Table 1 
provides the final number of HCPCS codes and NDCs included in our analysis after we removed 
NDCs with either no AMP data or unsuccessful AMP conversions.   
 
Table 1:  Number of Drug Codes and NDCs Included in OIGs Pricing Comparison 
Number of   Number of 
Availability of AMP Data for HCPCS Codes 
HCPCS Codes   NDCs  
Complete AMP Data  338  1,435 
Partial AMP Data  108  909 
No AMP Data  61  244 
Source:  OIG analysis of fourth-quarter 2010 ASP and AMP data, 2011. 
 
Comparing Fourth-Quarter 2010 Volume-Weighted ASPs and AMPs for HCPCS Codes 
With Complete AMP data  
For each of the 338 HCPCS codes with complete AMP data, we compared the volume-weighted 
ASP and AMP and determined whether the ASP for the code exceeded the AMP by at least                
5 percent.  For HCPCS codes that exceeded the 5-percent threshold, we reviewed the associated 
NDCs to verify the accuracy of the billing unit information.  According to our review, none of 
the HCPCS codes that exceeded the threshold were associated with questionable billing units.   
  
                                                 
30 We did not calculate converted AMPs for NDCs in the third group because those NDCs had no AMP data. 
OEI-03-11-00360     Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs  
  Page 8  Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
 
 
For each of the HCPCS codes that exceeded the 5-percent threshold, we estimated the monetary 
impact of lowering reimbursement to 103 percent of the AMP.31  First, we calculated 103 
percent of the volume-weighted AMP and subtracted this amount from the second-quarter 2011 
reimbursement amount for the HCPCS code.  To estimate the financial effect for the second 
quarter of 2011, we then multiplied the difference by one-fourth of the number of services that 
were allowed by Medicare for each HCPCS code in 2010, as reported in the PBAR.32, 33   
 
To determine which HCPCS codes would have been subject to CMSs proposed price 
substitution policy, we identified codes with complete AMP data that met the 5-percent threshold 
in two consecutive or three of four quarters.  We then totaled the estimated second-quarter 2011 
savings for that subset of codes. 
 
Comparing Fourth-Quarter 2010 Volume-Weighted ASPs and AMPs for HCPCS Codes 
With Partial AMP data  
For each of the 108 HCPCS codes with partial AMP data, we compared the volume-weighted 
ASP and AMP and determined whether the ASP for the code exceeded the AMP by at least                 
5 percent.  For HCPCS codes that exceeded the 5-percent threshold, we reviewed the associated 
NDCs to verify the accuracy of the billing units.  According to our review, one of the HCPCS 
codes that exceeded the threshold based on partial AMP data was associated with questionable 
billing units.  Because volume-weighted ASPs and AMPs are calculated using this billing unit 
information, we could not be certain that the results for this code were correct.  Therefore, we 
excluded this HCPCS code from our findings.   
 
For each of the remaining HCPCS codes that exceeded the 5-percent threshold based on partial 
AMP data, we determined whether missing AMPs unduly influenced the results of our pricing 
comparison.  As mentioned previously, the volume-weighted AMP for a HCPCS code with 
partial AMP data is based on fewer NDCs than the volume-weighted ASP for that same code.  
Therefore, there may be a disparity between the volume-weighted ASP and AMP that would not 
exist if AMP data were available for the full set of NDCs.  In other words, the volume-weighted 
ASP for the HCPCS code could exceed the volume-weighted AMP by at least 5 percent only 
because AMPs for certain NDCs were not represented. 
 
CMS has expressed concern that partial AMP data may not adequately reflect market trends.34  
Therefore, to identify HCPCS codes with partial AMP data that exceeded the 5-percent threshold 
only because AMP data were missing, we reanalyzed pricing data after accounting for the 
                                                 
31 Section 1847A(d)(3)(C) of the Act directs the Secretary to replace payment amounts for drugs that exceed the   
5-percent threshold with the lesser of the widely available market price for the drug (if any) or 103 percent of the 
AMP.  For the purposes of this study, we used 103 percent of the AMP to estimate the impact of lowering 
reimbursement amounts.  If widely available market prices had been available for these drugs and lower than  
103 percent of the AMP, the savings estimate presented in this report would have been greater. 
32 The PBAR data for 2010 were 98 percent complete when the data were downloaded in April 2011. 
33 This estimate assumes that the number of services that were allowed by Medicare in 2010 remained consistent 
from one quarter to the next and that there were no significant changes in utilization between 2010 and 2011. 
34 76 Fed. Reg. 42772, 42830 (July 19, 2011). 
OEI-03-11-00360     Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs  
  Page 9  Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
 
 
missing values.  Specifically, we replaced each missing AMP with its corresponding ASP and 
recalculated the volume-weighted AMPs using those imputed prices.35  We then compared those 
new volume-weighted AMPs to the volume-weighted ASPs originally calculated by CMS. 
 
If a HCPCS code no longer exceeded the 5-percent threshold, we concluded that the missing 
AMPs were likely responsible for the HCPCS code initially exceeding the threshold, as opposed 
to an actual disparity between ASPs and AMPs in the marketplace.   
 
If a HCPCS code continued to exceed the 5-percent threshold, we concluded that missing AMPs 
had little impact on the results of our pricing comparison.  These HCPCS codes likely exceeded 
the threshold as a result of actual pricing differences between ASPs and AMPs.  Because price 
substitutions for these HCPCS codes may be warranted, we estimated the monetary impact of 
lowering reimbursement to 103 percent of the new volume-weighted AMPs.  We also identified 
HCPCS codes with partial AMP data that met the threshold in two consecutive or three of four 
quarters and totaled the estimated second-quarter 2011 savings for that subset of codes.   
   
Limitations 
We did not verify the accuracy of manufacturer-reported ASP and AMP data, nor did we verify 
the underlying methodology used by manufacturers to calculate ASPs and AMPs.  Furthermore, 
we did not verify the accuracy of CMSs crosswalk files or examine NDCs that CMS opted to 
exclude from its calculation of Part B drug reimbursement amounts.  
 
Manufacturers are required to submit their quarterly ASP and AMP data to CMS 30 days after 
the close of the quarter.  Our analyses were performed on ASP and AMP data compiled by CMS 
soon after that deadline.  We did not determine whether manufacturers provided additional or 
revised pricing data to CMS at a later date. 
 
Standards   
This study was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspection and 
Evaluation issued by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. 
 
RESULTS 
 
Of the 338 Drug Codes With Complete AMP Data, Volume-Weighted ASPs for                      
15 Exceeded the Volume-Weighted AMPs by at Least 5 Percent  
As mandated by the Act, OIG compared ASPs to AMPs to identify instances in which the ASP 
for a particular drug exceeded the AMP by a threshold of 5 percent.  In the fourth quarter of 
2010, 15 of the 338 HCPCS codes with complete AMP data (4 percent) exceeded this 5-percent 
threshold.  Table 2 describes the extent to which ASPs exceeded AMPs for the 15 HCPCS codes.  
For two of the codes, the volume-weighted ASP exceeded the volume-weighted AMP by more 
                                                 
35 Although an NDCs ASP is not usually the same as its AMP, it is generally within about 5 percent of the AMP on 
average.  Therefore, we believe that ASP acts as a reasonable proxy for AMP, ensuring that the NDC is represented 
in both the volume-weighted ASP and the volume-weighted AMP for the HCPCS code.   
OEI-03-11-00360     Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs  
  Page 10  Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
 
 
than 60 percent.  A list of all 15 HCPCS codes, including their descriptions and HCPCS dosage 
amounts, is presented in Appendix D.   
 
Table 2:  Extent to Which ASPs Exceeded AMPs for  
15 HCPCS Codes With Complete AMP Data 
Percentage by Which ASP  Number of HCPCS 
Exceeded AMP  Codes 
5.00%9.99%  7 
10.00%19.99%  6 
20.00%29.99%  0 
30.00%39.99%  0 
40.00%49.99%  0 
50.00%59.99%  0 
60.00%69.99%  1 
70.00%79.99%  0 
80.00%89.99%  0 
90.00%99.99%  0 
100% and above  1 
     Total  15 
Source:  OIG analysis of fourth-quarter 2010 ASP and AMP data, 2011. 
 
Pursuant to section 1847A(d)(3) of the Act, the Secretary may disregard the ASP for a drug that 
exceeds the 5-percent threshold and shall substitute the payment amount with the lesser of either 
the widely available market price or 103 percent of the AMP.  If reimbursement amounts for all 
15 codes with complete AMP data had been based on 103 percent of the AMPs during the 
second quarter of 2011, Medicare expenditures would have been reduced by an estimated                 
$1.3 million in that quarter alone.36, 37  Three of the fifteen HCPCS codes accounted for over                
80 percent of the $1.3 million.  If the reimbursement amounts for codes J9214, J9045, and J1572 
had been based on 103 percent of the AMPs during the second quarter of 2011, we estimate that 
Medicare expenditures would have been reduced by $533,000, $270,000, and $262,000, 
respectively. 
 
If CMSs proposed price substitution policy had been in effect, reimbursement amounts for 5 of 
the 15 HCPCS codes would have been reduced.  These five HCPCS codes had complete AMP 
data and met the 5-percent threshold in either two consecutive quarters or three of four quarters.  
If reimbursement amounts for the five codes had been based on 103 percent of the AMPs during 
the second quarter of 2011, Medicare expenditures would have been reduced by an estimated 
                                                 
36 All savings estimates in this report assume that the number of services that were allowed by Medicare in 2010 
remained consistent from one quarter to the next and that there were no significant changes in utilization between                
2010 and 2011.  
37 Of the 15 HCPCS codes that exceeded the 5-percent threshold using complete AMP data, one was not listed in the 
2010 PBAR file.  As a result, this code was not included in the estimated savings for this group. 
OEI-03-11-00360     Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs  
  Page 11  Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
 
 
$554,000.38  Table 3 presents a list of the five HCPCS codes that would have been eligible for 
price substitution if CMSs proposed policy had been in effect. 
 
 
Table 3:  Five HCPCS Codes With Complete AMP Data in the Fourth Quarter of 2010                              
That Would Have Met CMSs Proposed Criteria for Price Substitution   
 
  OIG Reports Comparing ASP and AMP 
Fourth  Third  Second  First  
HCPCS 
Quarter   Quarter   Quarter   Quarter  
Code 
2010  2010  2010  2010 
J9214  X  X  X  X 
J9060  X  X    X* 
J9218  X  X     
Q0175  X  X     
Q0176  X  X     
 
*This code previously exceeded the 5-percent threshold during the specified quarter based                                                     
on partial AMP data.  For all other quarters, codes exceeded the 5-percent threshold based                                                  
on complete AMP data.   
Source:  OIG analysis of ASP and AMP data from the first quarter of 2010 through                                                                   
the fourth quarter of 2010. 
 
Of the 108 Drug Codes With Partial AMP Data, Volume-Weighted ASPs for 15 Exceeded 
the Volume-Weighted AMPs by at Least 5 Percent    
In addition to examining HCPCS codes with complete AMP data, we examined 108 HCPCS 
codes for which only partial AMP data were available.  ASPs for 15 of these 108 HCPCS codes  
(14 percent) exceeded the AMPs by at least 5 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010.  A list of the           
15 HCPCS codes, including their descriptions and HCPCS dosage amounts, is presented in 
Appendix E.   
For one-third of the HCPCS codes (5 of 15), missing AMPs likely had little influence on the 
outcome of the pricing comparisons.  Five of the fifteen HCPCS codes with partial AMP data 
continued to exceed the threshold when we accounted for missing AMPs, suggesting that the 
pricing comparisons for these codes were accurately capturing underlying market trends even 
though AMP data were not available for the full set of NDCs.  Because missing AMPs likely had 
little influence on the pricing comparison results for these five HCPCS codes, price substitutions 
may be legitimately warranted in these cases.  If reimbursement amounts for the five codes had 
been based on 103 percent of the AMPs, we estimate that Medicare expenditures would have 
been reduced by $67,000 during the second quarter of 2011.  Table 4 describes the extent to 
which ASPs exceeded AMPs for the five HCPCS codes.   
 
                                                 
38 One of the five HCPCS codes was not listed in the 2010 PBAR file and therefore was not included in the savings 
estimate. 
OEI-03-11-00360     Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs  
  Page 12  Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
 
 
For the remaining 10 of 15 HCPCS codes, ASPs no longer exceeded the AMPs in the fourth 
quarter of 2010, indicating that these codes initially exceeded the threshold because of missing 
AMP data rather than a genuine pricing disparity between the ASPs and AMPs. 
 
Table 4:  Extent to Which ASPs Exceeded AMPs for  
Five HCPCS Codes With Partial AMP Data 
Percentage by Which ASP  Number of HCPCS 
Exceeded AMP  Codes 
5.00%9.99%  1 
10.00%19.99%  2 
20.00%29.99%  0 
30.00%39.99%  0 
40.00%49.99%  0 
50.00%59.99%  2 
60.00%69.99%  0 
70.00%79.99%  0 
80.00%89.99%  0 
90.00%99.99%  0 
100% and above  0 
     Total  5 
Source:  OIG analysis of fourth-quarter 2010 ASP and AMP data, 2011. 
 
Of the five HCPCS codes on which missing AMPs likely had little influence, two met the               
5-percent threshold in either two consecutive or three of four quarters.  Although CMSs 
proposed price substitution policy would not apply to HCPCS codes with partial AMP data, 
ASPs for these two codes repeatedly met or exceeded the AMPs by at least 5 percent.  If 
reimbursement amounts for the two codes had been substituted with 103 percent of the AMPs, 
Medicare expenditures would have been reduced by an estimated $59,000 during the second 
quarter of 2011.  Table 5 presents a list of the two HCPCS codes and the quarters during which 
they previously exceeded the 5-percent threshold. 
 
Table 5:  Two HCPCS Codes With Partial AMP Data in the Fourth Quarter of 2010                                 
That Met the 5-Percent Threshold in Two Consecutive or Three of Four Quarters 
  OIG Reports Comparing ASP and AMP 
Fourth  Third  Second  First  
HCPCS 
Quarter   Quarter   Quarter   Quarter  
Code 
2010  2010  2010  2010 
J1020  X  X*    X* 
Q0165  X    X  X 
*This code previously exceeded the 5-percent threshold during the specified quarters based                                                     
on complete AMP data.  For all other quarters, codes exceeded the 5-percent threshold based                                                  
on partial AMP data.   
Source:  OIG analysis of ASP and AMP data from the first quarter of 2010 through                                                         
the fourth quarter of 2010.   
 
OEI-03-11-00360     Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs  
  Page 13  Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
 
 
Pricing Comparisons Could Not Be Performed on 61 Drug Codes Because No AMP Data 
Were Available 
For 61 HCPCS codes, OIG could not compare ASPs and AMPs because there were no AMP data 
for any of the 244 NDCs that CMS used when calculating drug reimbursement amounts for these 
codes.  In 2010, Medicare allowances for these 61 codes totaled $302 million.39 
 
Manufacturers for 17 percent of the NDCs without AMP data (41 of 244) participated in the 
Medicaid drug rebate program as of the fourth quarter of 2010 and were therefore generally 
required to submit AMP data for their covered outpatient drugs.40, 41, 42   
 
Manufacturers for the remaining 203 of 244 NDCs did not participate in the Medicaid drug 
rebate program and therefore were not required to submit AMP data.   
 
CONCLUSION 
 
To monitor Medicare reimbursement amounts based on ASPs and consistent with its statutory 
mandate, OIG compared ASPs and AMPs to identify instances in which the ASP for a particular 
drug exceeded the AMP by at least 5 percent.  This is OIGs 22nd report comparing ASPs and 
AMPs, and it examines HCPCS codes with AMP data for every NDC that CMS used to establish 
reimbursement amounts, as well as HCPCS codes with only partial AMP data. 
 
We identified a total of 30 HCPCS codes that exceeded the threshold for price adjustment in the 
fourth quarter of 2010.  Of these 30 HCPCS codes, 15 had complete AMP data (i.e., AMP data 
for every drug product that CMS used to establish reimbursement amounts).  If CMSs proposed 
price substitution policy had been in effect, reimbursement amounts for 5 of the 15 HCPCS 
codes would have been lowered to 103 percent of the AMP, thereby saving Medicare and its 
beneficiaries more than a half million dollars in that quarter alone.  The remaining 15 of                    
30 HCPCS codes also exceeded the 5-percent threshold in the fourth quarter of 2010 but did not 
have AMP data for every drug product that CMS used when calculating reimbursement.  
Although CMSs proposed price substitution policy would not apply to codes with partial AMP 
data, price reductions may be legitimately warranted for 5 of the 15 codes because missing 
AMPs likely had little influence on the pricing comparison results.  We recognize that the 
estimated savings associated with these five HCPCS codes is not substantial; however, by 
excluding from its policy all codes with partial AMP data, CMS may inadvertently provide drug 
manufacturers with a disincentive to submit timely AMPs.  We could not compare ASPs and 
                                                 
39 Of the 61 HCPCS codes with no associated AMP data, 1 was not listed in the 2010 PBAR file.  As a result, this 
code was not included in the total Medicare allowances for the year.  
40 To determine whether a manufacturer participated in the Medicaid drug rebate program, we consulted CMSs 
Drug Company Contact Information, accessed at http://www.cms.gov on April 26, 2011. 
41 Although manufacturers with rebate agreements are required to submit AMP data for their covered outpatient 
drugs, there may be valid reasons why an AMP was not provided for a specific NDC in a given quarter.  For 
example, a manufacturer may not have been required to submit an AMP if the drug product had been terminated and 
there was no drug utilization during the quarter.   
42 These 41 NDCs were crosswalked to 26 HCPCS codes. 
OEI-03-11-00360     Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs  
  Page 14  Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
 
 
AMPs for 61 HCPCS codes because AMP data were not submitted for any of the NDCs that 
CMS used to calculate reimbursement.  Manufacturers for 17 percent of these NDCs had 
Medicaid drug rebate agreements and were therefore generally required to submit AMPs.  OIG 
will continue to work with CMS to evaluate and pursue appropriate actions against those 
manufacturers that fail to submit required data.   
 
Although we are not making recommendations in this report, some of OIGs previous pricing 
comparisons have contained recommendations, which we continue to support.43  In response to 
OIGs most recent report with recommendations, CMS questioned whether the payoff associated 
with price substitution justifies the resources that OIG devotes to quarterly pricing comparisons, 
suggesting that OIG limit its efforts to a single annual report.  However, until CMS complies 
with its statutory responsibility to lower reimbursement amounts for eligible drugs, OIG will 
continue to issue quarterly pricing comparisons along with annual overviews that recommend 
price substitutions as warranted.   
 
This report is being issued in final form because it contains no recommendations.  If you have 
comments or questions about this report, please provide them within 60 days.  Please refer to 
report number OEI-03-11-00360 in all correspondence. 
                                                 
43 For example, OEI-03-08-00450, December 2008; OEI-03-09-00350, February 2010; and OEI-03-10-00380,               
April 2011. 
OEI-03-11-00360     Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs  
  Page 15  Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
 
 
APPENDIX A 
 
The Equation Used by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services To Calculate            
Volume-Weighted Average Sales Prices on or After April 1, 2008 
 
A volume-weighted average sales price (ASP) is calculated for the dosage amount associated with 
the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) code.  In the following equation, the 
number of billing units represents the number of HCPCS code doses that are contained in a 
national drug code (NDC).   
 
 
 
Volume-Weighted ASP   Sum of  (ASP for NDC * Number of NDCs Sold) 
 
for Dosage Amount       =              
 of HCPCS Code  Sum of   (Number of NDCs Sold * Number of Billing Units in NDC) 
 
 
 
 
 
OEI-03-11-00360     Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs  
  Page 16  Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
 
 
APPENDIX B 
 
Previous Office of Inspector General Reports Comparing Average Sales Prices and Average 
Manufacturer Prices 
 
  Monitoring Medicare Part B Drug Prices:  A Comparison of Average Sales 
Prices to Average Manufacturer Prices, OEI-03-04-00430, April 2006 
 
  Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2005 Average Sales Prices to Average 
Manufacturer Prices:  Impact on Medicare Reimbursement for Second Quarter 
2006, OEI-03-06-00370, July 2006 
 
  Comparison of Third-Quarter 2006 Average Sales Prices to Average 
Manufacturer Prices:  Impact on Medicare Reimbursement for First Quarter 
2007, OEI-03-07-00140, July 2007 
 
  Comparison of First-Quarter 2007 Average Sales Prices to Average 
Manufacturer Prices:  Impact on Medicare Reimbursement for Third Quarter 
2007, OEI-03-07-00530, September 2007 
 
  Comparison of Second-Quarter 2007 Average Sales Prices and Average 
Manufacturer Prices:  Impact on Medicare Reimbursement for Fourth Quarter 
2007, OEI-03-08-00010, December 2007 
 
  Comparison of Third-Quarter 2007 Average Sales Prices and Average 
Manufacturer Prices:  Impact on Medicare Reimbursement for First Quarter 
2008, OEI-03-08-00130, May 2008 
 
  Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2007 Average Sales Prices and Average 
Manufacturer Prices:  Impact on Medicare Reimbursement for Second Quarter 
2008, OEI-03-08-00340, August 2008 
 
  Comparison of Average Sales Prices and Average Manufacturer Prices:  An 
Overview of 2007, OEI-03-08-00450, December 2008 
 
  Comparison of First-Quarter 2008 Average Sales Prices and Average 
Manufacturer Prices:  Impact on Medicare Reimbursement for Third Quarter 
2008, OEI-03-08-00530, December 2008 
 
OEI-03-11-00360     Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs  
  Page 17  Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
 
 
  Comparison of Second-Quarter 2008 Average Sales Prices and Average 
Manufacturer Prices:  Impact on Medicare Reimbursement for Fourth Quarter 
2008, OEI-03-09-00050, February 2009 
 
  Comparison of Third-Quarter 2008 Average Sales Prices and Average 
Manufacturer Prices:  Impact on Medicare Reimbursement for First Quarter 
2009, OEI-03-09-00150, April 2009 
 
  Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2008 Average Sales Prices and Average 
Manufacturer Prices:  Impact on Medicare Reimbursement for Second Quarter 
2009, OEI-03-09-00340, August 2009 
 
  Comparison of First-Quarter 2009 Average Sales Prices and Average 
Manufacturer Prices:  Impact on Medicare Reimbursement for Third Quarter 
2009, OEI-03-09-00490, August 2009 
 
  Comparison of Second-Quarter 2009 Average Sales Prices and Average 
Manufacturer Prices:  Impact on Medicare Reimbursement for Fourth Quarter 
2009, OEI-03-09-00640, January 2010 
 
  Comparison of Average Sales Prices and Average Manufacturer Prices:  An 
Overview of 2008, OEI-03-09-00350, February 2010 
 
  Comparison of Third-Quarter 2009 Average Sales Prices and Average 
Manufacturer Prices:  Impact on Medicare Reimbursement for First Quarter 
2010, OEI-03-10-00150, April 2010 
 
  Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2009 Average Sales Prices and Average 
Manufacturer Prices:  Impact on Medicare Reimbursement for Second Quarter 
2010, OEI-03-10-00350, July 2010 
 
  Comparison of First-Quarter 2010 Average Sales Prices and Average 
Manufacturer Prices:  Impact on Medicare Reimbursement for Third Quarter 
2010, OEI-03-10-00440, November 2010 
 
  Comparison of Second-Quarter 2010 Average Sales Prices and Average 
Manufacturer Prices:  Impact on Medicare Reimbursement for Fourth Quarter 
2010, OEI-03-11-00030, February 2011 
 
OEI-03-11-00360     Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs  
  Page 18  Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
 
 
  Comparison of Average Sales Prices and Average Manufacturer Prices:  An 
Overview of 2009, OEI-03-10-00380, April 2011 
 
  Comparison of Third-Quarter 2010 Average Sales Prices and Average 
Manufacturer Prices:  Impact on Medicare Reimbursement for First Quarter 
2011, OEI-03-11-00160, May 2011 
 
 
 
 
 
OEI-03-11-00360     Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs  
  Page 19  Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
 
 
APPENDIX C 
 
Detailed Methodology for Converting and Volume-Weighting Average Manufacturer 
Prices for the Fourth Quarter of 2010 
 
Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes with complete average manufacturer price 
data.  Of the 514 Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes with 
reimbursement amounts based on average sales prices (ASP), 344 had average manufacturer 
prices (AMP) for every national drug code (NDC) that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
Services (CMS) used to calculate volume-weighted ASPs.  These 344 HCPCS codes represented 
1,467 NDCs.  For six NDCs, we could not successfully identify the amount of the drug reflected 
by the ASP and therefore could not calculate a converted AMP.  These six NDCs were 
crosswalked to six HCPCS codes.  We did not include these six HCPCS codes (32 NDCs) in our 
final analysis.   
 
Using the converted AMPs for the remaining 1,435 NDCs, we then calculated a                             
volume-weighted AMP for each of the remaining 338 HCPCS codes consistent with CMSs 
methodology for calculating volume-weighted ASPs.   
 
HCPCS codes with partial AMP data.  There were 109 HCPCS codes with AMP data for only 
some of the NDCs that CMS used in its calculation of volume-weighted ASPs.  These                 
109 HCPCS codes represented a total of 1,474 NDCs.  AMP data were either missing or 
unavailable for 556 of these NDCs, which were then excluded from our calculation of  
volume-weighted AMPs.44   
 
We calculated converted AMPs for each of the remaining 918 NDCs.  For 9 of the 918 NDCs, 
we could not identify the amount of the drug reflected by the ASP and therefore could not 
calculate a converted AMP.  We removed these nine NDCs from our analysis.45  As a result, one 
HCPCS code no longer had any NDCs with AMP data.  Therefore, this HCPCS code was 
removed from our analysis.   
 
Using the converted AMPs for the remaining 909 NDCs, we then calculated a                  
volume-weighted AMP for each of the remaining 108 HCPCS codes consistent with CMSs 
methodology for calculating volume-weighted ASPs.   
 
                                                 
44 Although AMP data for these 556 NDCs were excluded from our calculation of volume-weighted AMPs, the 
corresponding ASPs were not excluded from the volume-weighted ASPs as determined by CMS.                     
Volume-weighted ASPs remained the same, regardless of the availability of AMP data.   
45 Although we removed NDCs with problematic AMP conversions, we did not remove the corresponding HCPCS 
codes, provided that other NDCs for those drug codes had usable AMP data.  This differs from our analysis of 
HCPCS codes with complete AMP data, in which we removed not only the NDCs with problematic AMP 
conversions, but also the corresponding HCPCS codes. 
OEI-03-11-00360     Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs  
  Page 20  Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
 
 
HCPCS codes with no AMP data.  For 61 HCPCS codes, there were no AMP data for any of the 
NDCs that CMS used in its calculation of volume-weighted ASPs.  These 61 HCPCS codes 
represented 244 NDCs.   
OEI-03-11-00360     Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs  
  Page 21  Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
 
 
APPENDIX D 
 
Fifteen Drug Codes With Complete Average Manufacturer Price Data That Exceeded the 
5-Percent Threshold in the Fourth Quarter of 2010 
 
Drug            
Code  Short Description  Drug Code Dosage 
J0287  Amphotericin b lipid complex injection  10 mg 
J1364  Erythromycin lactobionate injection  500 mg 
J1572  Flebogamma injection  500 mg 
J1650  Enoxaparin sodium injection   10 mg 
J1955  Levocarnitine injection  1 g 
J9000  Doxorubicin HCl injection  10 mg 
J9045  Carboplatin injection  50 mg 
J9060  Cisplatin injection  10 mg 
J9155  Degarelix injection  1 mg 
J9214  Interferon alfa-2b injection  1 million units 
J9218  Leuprolide acetate injection  1 mg 
J9268  Pentostatin injection  10 mg 
J9370  Vincristine sulfate injection  1 mg 
Q0175  Perphenazine, oral  4 mg 
Q0176  Perphenazine, oral  8 mg 
mg=milligram, g=gram  
Source:  Office of Inspector General analysis of fourth-quarter 2010 average sales price and average                    
manufacturer price data, 2011. 
 
OEI-03-11-00360     Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs  
  Page 22  Donald M. Berwick, M.D. 
 
 
APPENDIX E 
 
Fifteen Drug Codes With Partial Average Manufacturer Price Data That Exceeded the                     
5-Percent Threshold in the Fourth Quarter of 2010 
 
Drug              
Code  Short Description  Drug Code Dosage 
J0171  Adrenalin epinephrine injection  0.1 mg 
J0636  Calcitriol injection   0.1 mcg 
J1020  Methylprednisolone injection  20 mg 
J1040  Methylprednisolone injection  80 mg 
J1080  Testosterone cypionate injection  200 mg 
J1162  Digoxin immune fab (ovine) injection  Per vial 
J1190  Dexrazoxane HCl injection  250 mg 
J1626  Granisetron HCl injection  100 mcg 
J2700  Oxacillin sodium injection  250 mg 
J7509  Methylprednisolone, oral  4 mg 
Q0164  Prochlorperazine maleate, oral  5 mg 
Q0165  Prochlorperazine maleate, oral  10 mg 
Q0179  Ondansetron HCl, oral  8 mg 
Q9965  Low osmolar contrast material,100-199 mg/ml iodine  1 mL 
Q9966  Low osmolar contrast material, 200-299 mg/ml iodine  1 mL 
mg=milligram, mcg=microgram, and mL=milliliter 
Source:  Office of Inspector General analysis of fourth-quarter 2010 average sales price and average manufacturer 
price data, 2011. 
 
OEI-03-11-00360     Comparison of Fourth-Quarter 2010 ASPs and AMPs