Preferred drug lists: Potential impact on healthcare economics

Vascular Health and Risk Management

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 403-413

  Ovsag, Kimberly ^a   Hydery, Sabrina ^a   Mousa, Shaker A ^a  

^a ALBANY COLLEGE OF PHARMACY AND HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

Author keywords

Healthcare costs; Managed care; Medicaid; Preferred drug lists

Indexed keywords

AMLODIPINE BESYLATE; ANTICONVULSIVE AGENT; ANTIDEPRESSANT AGENT; ATORVASTATIN; BENZODIAZEPINE DERIVATIVE; GENERIC DRUG; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR; METOPROLOL SUCCINATE; MODAFINIL; NEUROLEPTIC AGENT; ORAL ANTIDIABETIC AGENT; OXYCODONE; SEROTONIN UPTAKE INHIBITOR; VENLAFAXINE;

ANXIETY DISORDER; ARTICLE; ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER; BEHAVIOR DISORDER; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST OF ILLNESS; DEPRESSION; DIABETES MELLITUS; DOSAGE SCHEDULE COMPARISON; DRUG CHOICE; DRUG COST; DRUG FORMULARY; DRUG FORMULATION; DRUG SUBSTITUTION; DRUG WITHDRAWAL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE AVAILABILITY; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; HYPERLIPIDEMIA; HYPERTENSION; ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE; LONG TERM CARE; MANAGED CARE; MEDICAID; MEDLINE; MENTAL DISEASE; PAIN; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT EDUCATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRESCRIPTION; SUICIDE;

COST SAVINGS; DRUG COSTS; DRUG UTILIZATION; FORMULARIES; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HEALTH PERSONNEL; HEALTH SERVICES; HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; MEDICAID; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PRESCRIPTIONS, DRUG; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; TIME FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 44049101594     PISSN: 11766344     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Avorn J. 2002. Balancing the cost and value of medications. Pharmacoeconomics, 20:67-72.
2. [AHA] American Heart Association. 2000. Heart and stroke statistical update. Dallas, TX: American Heart Association.
3. Bernasek C, Mendelson D, Padrez R, et al. 2004. Oregon's Medicaid PDL: Will an evidence-based formulary with voluntary compliance set a precedent for Medicaid?
4. Bussing-Burks M. 2006. Benefits of newer prescription drugs exceed their costs [online]. Accessed 10 January 2006. URL: http://www.nber.org/ digest/oct01/w8147.html
5. Carroll NV. 2002. How effectively do managed care organizations influence prescribing and dispensing decisions? Am J Manag Care, 8:1041-54.
6. Cauchi R, Folkemer D. 2006. Recent Medicaid prescription drug laws and strategies, 2001-2005 [online]. Accessed 1 September 2006. URL: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/medicaidrx.htm
7. Center for Governmental Research, Inc. 2004. On the road to Medicaid reform: a beginning [online]. Accessed 28 August 2006. URL: http://www.cgr.org/ICSG/Articles/?id=155
8. Curtiss FR. 2002. Managing care via prior authorization (PA) programs? Manag Care Pharm, 8:296.
9. Curtiss FR. 2003. Prior authorization to manage drug utilization and costs. Manag Care Pharm, 9:95.
10. Finnerty PW. 2003. Status report on Virginia's Medicaid Preferred Drug List (PDL) Program. Joint Commission on Health Care Behavioral Health Subcommittee; October 7 [online]. Accessed 29 August 2006. URL: http://www.dmas.virginia.gov/downloads/pdfs/ pharm-pdl_statusport-07-03.pdf
11. Florida Medicaid Preferred Drug List Updated 20 July 2006 [online]. Accessed 1 September 2006. URL: http://www.fdhc.state.fl.us/Medicaid/ Prescribedug/pharmera/fmpdl.pdf
12. Gencarelli DM. 2003. Medicaid prescription drug coverage: state efforts to control costs. National Health Policy Forum Issue Brief, May 10: No. 790.
13. Georgia Medicaid/PeachCare Preferred Drug List revised 25 January 2006 [online]. Accessed 1 September 2006. URL: http://dch.georgia.gov/vgn/ images/portal/cit10/5/31/48919362GMELpha-06.pdf
14. Gleason PP, Gunderson BW, Gericke KR. 2005. Are incentive-based formularies inversely associated with drug utilization in managed care? Ann Pharmacother, 39:339-45.
15. Hamel MB, Epstein AM. 2004. Prior-authorization programs for controlling drug spending. N Engl J Med, 351:2156-8.
16. Health Care Financing Administration. 2004. Office of the Actuary National Health Statistics Group.
17. Hensley PL, Nurnberg HG. 2001. Formulary restriction of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for depression. Pharmacoeconomics, 19:973-82.
18. Huskamp HA, Deverka PA, Epstein AM, et al. 2003. The effect of incentive-based formularies on prescription-drug utilization and spending. N Engl J Med, 349:2224-32.
19. Jones P, Kafonek S, Laurora I, et al. 1998. Comparative dose efficacy study of atorvastatin versus simvastatin, pravastatin, lovastatin, and fluvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia (the CURVES study). Am J Cardiol, 81:582-7.
20. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured [online]. Accessed 29 August 2006. URL: http://www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/ Oregon-s-Medicaid-PDL-Will-an-Evidence-Based-Formulary- with-Voluntary-Compliance-Set-a-Precedent-for-Medicaid.pdf
21. Kardas P. 2005. The DIACOM study (effect of DosIng frequency of oral antidiabetic agents on the COMpliance and biochemical control of type 2 diabetes). Diabetes Obes Metab, 7:722-8.
22. Lichtenberg FR. 2005. The effect of access restrictions on the vintage of drugs used by Medicaid enrollees. Am J Manag Care, 11:SP7-13.
23. Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. 2005. Medicaid Pharmaceutical and Therapeutics Committee Meeting Minutes, March 9, 2005 [online]. Accessed 1 September 2006. URL: http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/
24. MaineCare Advisory Committee. 2005. The MaineCare Advisory Committee's prior authorization subcommittee report and recommendations on prior authorization for prescription drugs in the Maine Care and Drugs for the Elderly Programs. January 19.
25. Martinez G. 2003. Assemblyman Peter M. Rivera questions Senate Medicaid report, calls recommendations a blue print for treating New York's poor like guinea pigs [online]. Accessed 28 August 2006. URL: http://www.somoselfuturo.com/news_mid2.htm
26. Mattera MD. 2004. A way to curb healthcare costs? Med Economics, 3:8.
27. Murawski MM, Abdelgawad T. 2005. Exploration of the impact of preferred drug lists on hospital and physician visits and the costs to Medicaid. Am J Manag Care, 11:SP35-42.
28. Preferred Drug List Program. 2006. Juneau (AK). Health and Social Services, State of Alaska [online]. Updated 8 August 2006. Accessed 1 September 2006. URL: http://www.hss.state.ak.us/dhcs/PDL/default.htm
29. Rudolph NV, Lubitz J. 1999. Capitated payment approaches for Medicaid-financed long-term care services. Health Care Financ Rev, 21:51-64.
30. Seay JD. 2004. NAMI-NYS Action Agenda for 2004 [online]. Accessed 28 August 2006. URL: http://www.naminys.org/action.htm
31. Silow-Carroll S, Altera T. 2004. Stretching state health care dollars: pooled and evidence-based pharmaceutical purchasing. The Commonwealth Fund, October, p 2.
32. Smith GM, Harper IM, Stowers AD. 2002. A cost analysis of switching calcium channel blockers: a one-year post-formulary decision review. Pharmacy Therapeutics, 27:333-44.
33. Soumerai SB. 2004. Benefits and risks of increasing restrictions on access to costly drugs in Medicaid. Health Affairs, 23:135-46.
34. State of Iowa Department of Human Services. Medical Assistance Advisory Council Summary of Meeting, February 1, 2006 [online]. Accessed 30 August 2006. URL: http://www.dhs.state.ia.us/dhs2005/ime/docs/ 2006FebMinutesNew.doc
35. Strunk BC, Ginsburg PB, Gabel JR. 2002. Tracking health care costs: growth accelerates again in 2001. Health Affairs, Jul-Dec; Suppl Web Exclusives:W299-310.
36. Stuart B, Simoni-Wastila L, Chauncey D. 2005. Assessing the impact of coverage gaps in the Medicare Part D drug benefit. Health affairs [exclusively on the internet]. Accessed 28 August 2006. URL: http://www.allhealth.org/BriefingMaterials/ HealthAffairs-AssessingTheImpact-46.pdf
37. Texas Health and Human Services Commission. 2005. Preferred Drug List annual report: January 2005 [online]. Accessed 25 August 2006. URL: http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/HCF/vdp/reports/010105LAR.pdf
38. Virabhak S, Shinogle JA. 2005. Physicians' prescribing responses to a restricted formulary: the impact of Medicaid preferred drug lists in Illinois and Louisiana. Am J Manag Care, 11:SP14-20.
39. Wang RY, Pauly MV. 2005. Spillover effects of restrictive drug formularies: a case study of PacifiCare in California. Am J Manag Care, 11:24-6.
40. World Health Organization. 2003. Adherence to long-term therapies: evlidence for action [online]. Accessed 27 August 2006. URL: http://www.who.int/chronicnditions/adherencereport/en/