Systematic reviews including this primary study

loading
29 articles (30 References) Revert Studify

Primary study

Unclassified

Journal Medical care
Year 2012
Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Cost-sharing requirements employed by health insurers to discourage the unnecessary use of medications may lead to underutilization of recommended treatment regimens and suboptimal quality of care. Value-based insurance design (VBID) programs seek to address these problems by lowering copayments to promote adherence to "high-value" medications that have been proven to be clinically beneficial. VBID evaluations to date have focused on programs implemented by self-insured employers. This study is among the first to assess the VBID program of a health plan. METHODS: We examined a VBID program for statins implemented by a large regional health plan in 2008 and assessed its effect on medication adherence. Copayments on VBID brand statins were reduced by 42.9% for employer-sponsored plans (the treatment group) and increased by 16.7% for state-sponsored plans (the control group) between the preintervention and postintervention periods. Propensity score weights were used to balance the treatment and control groups on observed characteristics. We evaluated the impact of the VBID program on adherence using an econometric model with a difference-in-difference design. RESULTS: Medication adherence increased 2.7 percentage points (P=0.033) among VBID brand statin users in the treatment group relative to the control group. With a baseline adherence rate of 77.6%, nonadherence was reduced by 11.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Copayment reductions on selected statin medications contributed to improvements in adherence. As one of the first studies to evaluate a health plan's VBID program, our findings demonstrate that insurer-based VBID programs may yield results similar to those achieved by employer-based programs.

Primary study

Unclassified

Journal Health services research
Year 2011
Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of two separate policy changes in the North Carolina Medicaid program: (1) reduced prescription lengths from 100 to 34 days' supply, and (2) increased copayments for brand name medications. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Medicaid claims data were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for January 1, 2000-December 31, 2002. STUDY DESIGN: We used a pre-post controlled partial difference-in-difference-in-differences design to examine the effect of the policy change on adults in North Carolina; adult Medicaid recipients from Georgia served as controls. Outcomes examined include medication adherence and Medicaid expenditures. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Data were aggregated to the person-quarter level. Individuals in HMOs, nursing homes, pregnant, or deceased in the quarter were excluded. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Both policies decreased medication adherence. The days' supply policy had a much larger effect on adherence than did the copayment increase. Total Medicaid spending declined from the days' supply policy, but the copayment policy resulted in a net increase in Medicaid expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: Although Medicaid costs decreased with the change in days supply policy, these savings were due to reduced adherence to these chronic medications. Additional research should examine the effect of these policy changes from the perspective of Medicaid enrollees.

Primary study

Unclassified

Journal Applied health economics and health policy
Year 2011
Loading references information
INTRODUCTION: Despite recent concerns over the effectiveness and safety of atypical antipsychotics compared with first-generation antipsychotics, prescribing of atypical antipsychotics continues to increase. The use of generic atypical antipsychotics is one way to address cost concerns, especially if there are no major differences in outcomes between generic and originator formulations. Market forces do appear to help lower prices if patients have to cover any difference between higher priced generics and originators and the current reference-priced products themselves, which they try to avoid, and if companies strive to gain market share. However, this approach may compromise individualizing atypical choice if reference classes consist of several atypicals between which there are significant co-payment differences. OBJECTIVES: First, to assess whether differences in patient co-payment levels between the various atypical antipsychotic formulations alter the atypical formulation prescribed and/or dispensed in practice in Poland. Second, to assess whether market forces in Poland help drive down generic prices in reality as successive generics are launched. Third, to assess the impact of the reduction in reference prices on the overall expenditure on atypicals by the National Health Fund in Poland. METHODS: Prescription and reimbursed expenditure data for olanzapine and risperidone were provided by the National Health Fund from 2002 to 2006, although no individual patient data were available. Reimbursement limits for the various presentations of olanzapine and risperidone were based on regulations from the Ministry of Health. RESULTS: Analysis of the data showed that the level of patient co-payment appeared to impact on the atypical antipsychotic dispensed, with utilization of olanzapine growing once its co-payment was reduced when generic olanzapine became available. The reverse was seen with risperidone, with only limited growth in utilization when co-payment levels increased.Market forces resulted in a 40% reduction in the reimbursed reference price (based on the defined daily dose) of olanzapine and a 77% reduction for risperidone from 2002 to July 2008. These price reductions helped moderate the growth in atypical expenditure in Poland despite appreciably increased utilization, especially for olanzapine. Continued moderation (or even a reduction) in the growth of expenditure on atypicals is envisaged, despite increasing utilization, as more generic formulations are launched, with further reductions in the reference price for both olanzapine and risperidone. CONCLUSIONS: Market forces appear to drive down the prices of generics and originators as more atypical formulations are launched. However, alternative approaches may be needed if significant co-payment differences compromise individualized care.

Primary study

Unclassified

Authors Stargardt T
Journal The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care
Year 2010
Loading references information
This paper analyses (1) the impact of the inclusion of statins in the German reference pricing scheme in 2005 on the statin market, and (2) the effect of switching behaviour subsequent to the policy change on healthcare utilisation and costs. Patients with prescriptions for statins in 2004 were observed for 1 year before and 1 year after the policy change, which went into effect on 1 January 2005. Data on outpatient and inpatient visits, pharmaceutical consumption, and cost to the sickness fund were collected from a sickness fund with more than 5.8 million insured members in 2005. Compared to patients who were not affected by the policy change, patients treated previously with atorvastatin experienced higher non-adherence and increased discontinuation of treatment (P < 0.0001). Compared to patients who continued treatment with atorvastatin (non-switchers), patients who switched to another statin were hospitalised more often (P = 0.0439). However, difference-in-differences in hospitalisation due to coronary heart disease (P = 0.8751) and emergency visits (P = 0.5624) did not differ significantly between the two groups. Patients who switched more than once experienced a significant increase in hospital visits (P = 0.0061) and hospital visits due to cardiovascular disease (P = 0.0096) compared to non-switchers. Difference-in-differences in outpatient healthcare utilisation did not differ between non-switchers and switchers. Total savings resulting from the policy change ranged from <euro> 94.4 million to <euro> 108.7 million. Although manufacturers usually comply with reference pricing by reducing their retail prices to the reference price, regulators have to be aware of the consequences in cases where manufacturers react as in this situation.

Primary study

Unclassified

Journal The American journal of managed care
Year 2009
Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect on adherence and medical care expenditures of a pharmacy benefit change that included free generic drugs and higher copayments for brand-name drugs. STUDY DESIGN: Quasi-experimental pre-post study of patients with ischemic heart disease (1286 control and 555 intervention) and patients with diabetes mellitus (4089 control and 1846 intervention). METHODS: Medical and pharmacy claims data were analyzed for continuously enrolled members from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2008. A generalized linear model was used to predict costs as adherence changed. RESULTS: The rate of switching from brand-name drugs to generic drugs in the intervention group was not statistically different from that in the control group. The net change in adherence was higher only for the intervention group patients taking statins who switched to generic drugs, a 6.2% increase compared with an 8.5% decrease in the control group. The estimate of medical cost savings attributable to this benefit change was significant for only the metformin class of diabetes drugs. Improved adherence independent of this benefit change was estimated to reduce all-cause medical costs for patients taking sulfonylureas, metformin, and thiazolidinediones. CONCLUSIONS: Altering copayments for pharmaceuticals may affect the rate of conversion to generic drugs but is unlikely in and of itself to result in complete conversion. However, increasing adherence can result in net savings for specific diabetic drug classes, as savings from all-cause medical costs offset the increase in pharmacy costs.

Primary study

Unclassified

Journal The journal of mental health policy and economics
Year 2008
Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Health plans in the United States are struggling to contain rapid growth in their spending on medications. They have responded by implementing multi-tiered formularies, which label certain brand medications 'non-preferred' and require higher patient copayments for those medications. This multi-tier policy relies on patients' willingness to switch medications in response to copayment differentials. The antidepressant class has certain characteristics that may pose problems for implementation of three-tier formularies, such as differences in which medication works for which patient, and high rates of medication discontinuation. AIMS OF THE STUDY: To measure the effect of a three-tier formulary on antidepressant utilization and spending, including decomposing spending allocations between patient and plan. METHODS: We use claims and eligibility files for a large, mature nonprofit managed care organization that started introducing its three-tier formulary on January 1, 2000, with a staggered implementation across employer groups. The sample includes 109,686 individuals who were continuously enrolled members during the study period. We use a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design that includes a comparison group, comprising members whose employer had not adopted three-tier as of March 1, 2000. This permits some control for potentially confounding changes that could have coincided with three-tier implementation. RESULTS: For the antidepressants that became nonpreferred, prescriptions per enrollee decreased 11% in the three-tier group and increased 5% in the comparison group. The own-copay elasticity of demand for nonpreferred drugs can be approximated as -0.11. Difference-in-differences regression finds that the three-tier formulary slowed the growth in the probability of using antidepressants in the post-period, which was 0.3 percentage points lower than it would have been without three-tier. The three-tier formulary also increased out-of-pocket payments while reducing plan payments and total spending. DISCUSSION: The results indicate that the plan enrollees were somewhat responsive to the changed incentives, shifting away from the drugs that became nonpreferred. However, the intervention also resulted in cost-shifting from plan to enrollees, indicating some price-inelasticity. The reduction in the proportion of enrollees filling any prescriptions contrasts with results of prior studies for non-psychotropic drug classes. Limitations include the possibility of confounding changes coinciding with three-tier implementation (if they affected the two groups differentially); restriction to continuous enrollees; and lack of data on rebates the plan paid to drug manufacturers. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: The results of this study suggest that the impact of the three-tier formulary approach may be somewhat different for antidepressants than for some other classes. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICY: Policymakers should monitor the effects of three-tier programs on utilization in psychotropic medication classes. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Future studies should seek to understand the reasons for patients' limited response to the change in incentives, perhaps using physician and/or patient surveys. Studies should also examine the effects of three-tier programs on patient adherence, quality of care, and clinical and economic outcomes.

Primary study

Unclassified

Authors Sedjo RL , Cox ER
Journal The American journal of managed care
Year 2008
Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a decrease in statin copayments on medication adherence and demand for statins. STUDY DESIGN: Quasi-experimental, pre/post design. METHODS: Patients in more than 700 health plans from June 2005 to May 2007 were evaluated. The intervention group (n = 13,319) and matched control group (n = 26,569) included patients who had at least 1 branded simvastatin or non-simvastatin statin purchase, respectively, before the simvastatin patent expired in June 2006. Intervention and control patients had to have purchased at least 1 generic simvastatin and non-simvastatin statin, respectively, after patent expiration. Intervention patients were matched to control patients up to 1:2 on incident statin use (yes/no) and pre-patent expiration copay (+/- $2). Adherence was calculated with the medication possession ratio (MPR). Adjusted and unadjusted changes in MPR were compared between groups. Elasticity of demand for statins was estimated. RESULTS: A small but statistically significant difference was observed between groups in the change in MPR (intervention = 0.52% adjusted mean increase, control = 2.02% adjusted mean decrease; adjusted P <.01). A marginally higher percentage of intervention patients (10.5%) compared with control patients (10.0%) increased their MPR from <80% in the preperiod to > or = 80% in the postperiod (adjusted P <.01). Elasticity of demand for statins was estimated at 0.02 and -0.02 for the copayment reduction categories of $0 to $5 and >$15, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Decreasing statin copayments was associated with adherence increases. However, the overall increase in medication adherence was modest and its clinical significance uncertain.

Primary study

Unclassified

Journal Health services research
Year 2007
Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of three-tier formulary adoption on medication continuation and spending among elderly members of retiree health plans. DATA SOURCES: Pharmacy claims and enrollment data on elderly members of four retiree plans that adopted a three-tier formulary over the period July 1999 through December 2002 and two comparison plans that maintained a two-tier formulary during this period. STUDY DESIGN: We used a quasi-experimental design to compare the experience of enrollees in intervention and comparison plans. We used propensity score methods to match intervention and comparison users of each drug class and plan. We estimated repeated measures regression models for each class/plan combination for medication continuation and monthly plan, enrollee, and total spending. We estimated logit models of the probability of nonpersistent use, medication discontinuation, and medication changes. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We used pharmacy claims to create person-level drug utilization and spending files for the year before and year after three-tier adoption. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Three-tier formulary adoption resulted in shifting of costs from plan to enrollee, with relatively small effects on medication continuation. Although implementation had little effect on continuation on average, a small minority of patients were more likely to have gaps in use and discontinue use relative to comparison patients. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate cost sharing increases from three-tier formulary adoption had little effect on medication continuation among elderly enrolled in retiree health plans with relatively generous drug coverage.

Primary study

Unclassified

Journal The American journal of managed care
Year 2007
Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of patient copayment and coinsurance policies on adherence to therapy with beta-adrenergic blocking agents (beta-blockers) and on the rate of initiation of beta-blocker therapy after acute myocardial infarction (MI) in a population-based natural experiment. STUDY DESIGN: Three sequential cohorts included British Columbia residents age 66 years and older who initiated beta-blocker therapy during time intervals with full drug coverage (2001), a $10 or $25 copayment (2002), and 25% coinsurance (2003-2004). We used linked data on all prescription drug dispensings, physician services, and hospitalizations. Follow-up of each cohort was 9 months after the policy changes. METHODS: We measured the proportion of subjects in each cohort who were adherent to beta-blocker therapy over time, with adherence defined as having >80% of days covered. We also measured the proportion of patients initiating beta-blocker therapy after acute MI. Policy effects were evaluated using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Adherence to beta-blocker therapy was marginally reduced as a consequence of the copayment policy (-1.3 percentage points, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.5 , -0.04) or the coinsurance policy (-0.8 percentage points, 95% CI = -2.0, 0.3). The proportion of patients initiating beta-blockers after hospitalization for acute MI remained steady at about 61% during the study period, similar to that observed in a control population of elderly Pennsylvania residents with full drug coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Fixed patient copayment and coinsurance policies had little negative effect on adherence to relatively inexpensive beta-blocker therapy, or initiation of beta-blockers after acute MI.

Primary study

Unclassified

Journal Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology
Year 2007
Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To describe the evolution of antidepressant use in primary care in the Valencian region (Spain) from 2000 to 2004 and to analyze the effects of reference-based price and generic drugs introduction on drug utilization and cost saving. METHODS: Retrospective observational study in primary care using sales data collected from antidepressant group (N06A), corresponding to the period 2000-2004. Defined daily dose (DDD)/1000 inhabitants per day were obtained as consumption data. Cost and cost/DDD rate evolution was related to reference price system implantation. RESULTS: Antidepressant utilization progressively increased by 44.0% from 30.3 DDDs/1000 per day in 2000 to 43.5% in 2004. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) comprised 77% of the total consumption where paroxetine, sertraline and fluoxetine were the most used drugs in 2004. The proportion of relative use and cost of fluoxetine declined after a reference price and the introduction of generic competitors were put into effect in 1999; cost/DDD was reduced by 1.8. Third-generation antidepressants showed a fast rising rate i.e. venlafaxine utilization multiplied by 2.2; this drug with the higher cost/DDD was not subjected to the reference price system. Reduction in citalopram utilization was related to a replacement by its recently marketed enantiomer escitalopram. CONCLUSIONS: In 2004, reference price policy and the implementation of generic drugs reduced the antidepressant cost by DDD. However, antidepressant expenditure increased since 2000 due to a continued growth in consumption (SSRIs and novel agents) and a displacement of prescriptions to drugs that were not included in the reference price policy.