A bitter pill: Formulary variability and the challenge to prescribing physicians

Journal of the American Board of Family Practice

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 401-407

  Shrank, William H ^a   Ettner, Susan L ^b   Glassman, Peter ^a,b   Asch, Steven M ^a,b  

^a VA GREATER LOS ANGELES HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMLODIPINE BESYLATE; ATORVASTATIN; BENAZEPRIL; CALCIUM CHANNEL BLOCKING AGENT; DIPEPTIDYL CARBOXYPEPTIDASE INHIBITOR; ESOMEPRAZOLE; FELODIPINE; FLUINDOSTATIN; FOSINOPRIL; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR; ISRADIPINE; LANSOPRAZOLE; MOEXIPRIL; NICARDIPINE; NISOLDIPINE; OMEPRAZOLE; PANTOPRAZOLE; PRAVASTATIN; PROTON PUMP INHIBITOR; QUINAPRIL; RABEPRAZOLE; RAMIPRIL; SIMVASTATIN; TRANDOLAPRIL; PROTON PUMP;

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; DRUG CLASSIFICATION; DRUG FORMULARY; DRUG LEGISLATION; DRUG SCREENING; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICARE; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRESCRIPTION; TIME SERIES ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST; DRUG ANTAGONISM; DRUG COST; DRUG USE; ECONOMICS; FEE; HEALTH INSURANCE; MULTICENTER STUDY; PHARMACY; PUBLICATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ANGIOTENSIN-CONVERTING ENZYME INHIBITORS; CALCIUM CHANNEL BLOCKERS; CALIFORNIA; COST SHARING; DRUG COSTS; DRUG UTILIZATION REVIEW; FORMULARIES; HUMANS; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL-COA REDUCTASE INHIBITORS; MANAGED CARE PROGRAMS; PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES; PRESCRIPTION FEES; PROTON PUMPS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 12144265455     PISSN: 08938652     EISSN: 15448770     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.17.6.401     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. William Mercer, Inc. Prescription drug coverage and formulary use in California: differing approaches and emerging trends [monograph on the Internet]. Oakland (CA): California Healthcare Foundation; 2001 [cited 2003 Dec 2]. Available from: http://www.chcf.org/topics/view.cfm?itemID=12658.
2. Curtiss FR. Perspectives: drugs, PPOs, tiered cost share for beneficiaries and consumer preferences. J Manag Care Pharm 2002;8:192-7.
3. Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust. Employer health benefits: 2002 summary of findings [monograph on the Internet]. Menlo Park (CA): Kaiser Family Foundation; 2002 [cited 18 Nov 2003]. Available from: http://www.kff.org/insurance/3252-index.cfm.
4. Strunk BC, Reschovsky JD. Kinder and gentler: physicians and managed care, 1997-2001. Tracking report no. 5 [monograph on the Internet]. Washington (DC): Center for Studying Health Systems Change; 2002 [cited 21 Nov 2003]. Available from: http://www.hschange.com/CONTENT/486/?topic=topic03.
5. Joyce GF, Escarce JJ, Solomon MD, Goldman DP. Employer drug benefit plans and spending on prescription drugs. JAMA 2002;288:1733-9. Erratum in: JAMA 2002;288:2409.
6. Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust. Survey of employer-sponsored health benefits: 2000, 2001, 2002 [monograph on the Internet]. Menlo Park (CA): Kaiser Family Foundation; 2002. Available from: http://www.kff.org/insurance/3251-index.cfm.
7. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Highlights. Distribution of healthcare expenses, 1996. MEPS Highlights #11. Publication no. 00-0024. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2000. Available from: http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/papers/hl11_00-0024/hl11.pdf
8. Hillman AL, Pauly MV, Escarce JJ, et al. Financial incentives and drug spending in managed care. Health Aff (Millwood) 1999;18:189-200.
9. Stuart B and Zacker C. Who bears the burden of Medicaid drug copayment policies. Health Affairs 1999;18:201-12.
10. Smith DG. The effects of copayments and generic substitution on the use and costs of prescription drugs. Inquiry 1993;30:189-98.
11. Reeder CE, Nelson AA. The differential impact of copayment on drug use in a Medicaid population. Inquiry 1985;22:396-403.
12. Harris BL, Stergachis A, Reid A. The effect of drug co-payments on utilization and cost of pharmaceuticals in a health maintenance organization. Med Care 1990;28:907-17.
13. Huskamp HA, Deverka PA, Epstein AM, Epstein RS, McGuigan KA, Frank RG. The effect of incentive-based formularies on prescription-drug utilization and spending. N Engl J Med 349:2224-32.
14. Baumgarten A. California managed care review 2002 [monograph on the Internet]. Oakland (CA): California Healthcare Foundation; 2002 [cited 3 Dec 2003]. Available at: http://www.chcf.org/topics/view.cfm?itemID=20119
15. Bymark L, Waite K. Prescription drug use and expenditures in California: key trends and drivers [monograph on the Internet]. Oakland (CA): California Healthcare Foundation; 2001 [cited 1 Dec 2003]. Available from: http://www.chcf.org/topics/view.cfm?itemID=12656
16. Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust. Prescription drug trends: a chartbook update [monograph on the Internet]. Menlo Park (CA): Kaiser Family Foundation; 2001 [cited 30 Apr 2004]. Available from: http://www.kff.org/rxdrugs/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm& PageID=13796.
17. Triple i managed care formulary guide, California, Fall 2002/Winter 2003. Teterboro (NJ): Medimedia USA, Inc.; 2002.
18. Glassman PA, Tanielian T, Harris K, et al. Provider perceptions of pharmacy management: lessons from the military health system. Med Care 2004;42:361-6.
19. Buckley M. Improving drug prescribing practices in the outpatient setting: a market analysis [monograph on the Internet]. Oakland (CA): California Healthcare Foundation; 2002 [cited 9 Nov 2003]. Available from: http://www.chcf.org/topics/view.cfm?itemID=20184.
20. Corley ST. Electronic prescribing: a review of costs and benefits. Top Health Inf Manage 2003;24:29-38.