Biktarvy vs Trikafta
Side-by-side drug price comparison from Medicare Part D data
Verdict
Biktarvy costs 73% less per claim than Trikafta ($3746.00 vs $13935.00). Trikafta has a generic alternative available. Total Medicare spending: Biktarvy at $3.8B vs Trikafta at $3.5B.
| Metric | Biktarvy | Trikafta |
|---|---|---|
| Avg Cost per Claim Average cost Medicare pays per prescription claim | $3,746* | $13,935 |
| Total Medicare Spending Total Medicare Part D spending on this drug | $3.8B | $3.5B |
| Total Claims | 1,020,000 | 248,000 |
| Year-over-Year Change Price change from prior year (lower is better for patients) | 12.8%* | 18.4% |
| Generic Available | No | Yes |
| Condition | HIV | Cystic Fibrosis |
| Total Beneficiaries | 85,000 | 18,000 |
Biktarvy costs 73% less per claim than Trikafta ($3746.00 vs $13935.00). Trikafta has a generic alternative available. Total Medicare spending: Biktarvy at $3.8B vs Trikafta at $3.5B.
Explore More
Comparing Biktarvy and Trikafta on U.S. Medicare prescription-drug pricing requires lining up the underlying CMS Medicare Part D Drug Spending data data side by side. The table above runs the comparison on the canonical fields; the narrative below identifies the factor or factors that drive the most meaningful difference between the two.
For households or analysts using this comparison as a decision input, the right framing is usually not "which is better" in aggregate but "which is better for the specific decision in front of you." CMS Medicare Part D Drug Spending data captures the raw data; the framing depends on whether the question is investment, residency, planning, or research.
Source: CMS Medicare Part D Spending, 2026.