Ozempic vs Trikafta
Side-by-side drug price comparison from Medicare Part D data
Verdict
Ozempic costs 95% less per claim than Trikafta ($685.00 vs $13935.00). Trikafta has a generic alternative available. Total Medicare spending: Ozempic at $5.0B vs Trikafta at $3.5B.
| Metric | Ozempic | Trikafta |
|---|---|---|
| Avg Cost per Claim Average cost Medicare pays per prescription claim | $685* | $13,935 |
| Total Medicare Spending Total Medicare Part D spending on this drug | $5.0B | $3.5B |
| Total Claims | 7,240,000 | 248,000 |
| Year-over-Year Change Price change from prior year (lower is better for patients) | 72.5% | 18.4%* |
| Generic Available | No | Yes |
| Condition | Diabetes | Cystic Fibrosis |
| Total Beneficiaries | 1,180,000 | 18,000 |
Ozempic costs 95% less per claim than Trikafta ($685.00 vs $13935.00). Trikafta has a generic alternative available. Total Medicare spending: Ozempic at $5.0B vs Trikafta at $3.5B.
Explore More
The side-by-side above pulls the CMS Medicare Part D Drug Spending data data for both entity A and entity B. What follows is the interpretation — which specific axes carry the most weight for entity A versus entity B, and which differences are large enough to influence a real decision.
Practical use of the comparison: read the data above, then drill into the individual entity A and entity B detail pages for the underlying breakdown. A pairwise comparison answers the relative question; the per-entity pages answer the absolute question.
Source: CMS Medicare Part D Spending, 2026.