Copayment reductions generate greater medication adherence in targeted patients

Health Affairs

Volumn 29, Issue 11, 2010, Pages 2002-2008

  Maciejewski, Matthew L ^a   Farley, Joel F ^b   Parker, John ^c   Wansink, Daryl ^c  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^c Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD; COST; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; UNITED STATES;

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD INSURANCE PLANS; COST SHARING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICATION ADHERENCE; NORTH CAROLINA; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 79952276257     PISSN: 02782715     EISSN: 15445208     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0571     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Kaiser Family Foundation, Health Research and Educational Trust. Employer health benefits: 2009 annual survey [Internet]. Menlo Park (CA): KFF; 2009 Sep [cited 2010 Oct 4]. Available from: http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2009/7936.pdf
2. Leibowitz A, Manning WG, Newhouse JP. The demand for prescription drugs as a function of costsharing. Soc Sci Med. 1985;21(10): 1063-9.
3. Goldman DP, Joyce GF, Zheng Y. Prescription drug cost sharing: associations with medication and medical utilization and spending and health. JAMA. 2007;298(1): 61-9.
4. Lexchin J, Grootendorst P. Effects of prescription drug user fees on drug and health services use and on health status in vulnerable populations: a systematic review of the evidence. Int J Health Serv. 2004; 34(1):101-22.
5. Fendrick AM, Smith DG, Chernew ME, Shah SN. A benefit-based copay for prescription drugs: patient contribution based on total benefits, not drug acquisition cost. Am J Manag Care. 2001;7(9):861-7.
6. Chernew ME, Shah MR, Wegh A, Rosenberg SN, Juster IA, Rosen AB, et al. Impact of decreasing copayments on medication adherence within a disease management environment. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(1):103-12.
7. Rosen AB, Hamel MB, Weinstein MC, Cutler DM, Fendrick AM, Vijan S. Cost-effectiveness of full Medicare coverage of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for beneficiaries with diabetes. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(2):89-99.
8. Choudry NK, Patrick AR, Antman EM, Avorn J, Shrank WH. Costeffectiveness of providing full drug coverage to increase medication adherence in post-myocardial infarction Medicare beneficiaries. Circulation. 2008;117(10):1261-8.
9. Sedjo RL, Cox ER. Lowering copayments: impact of simvastatin patent expiration on patient adherence. Am J Manag Care. 2008;14(12):813-8.
10. Mahoney JJ. Value-based benefit design: using a predictive modeling approach to improve compliance. J Manag Care Pharm. 2008; 14(6 Suppl B):3-8.
11. Rodin HA, Heaton AH, Wilson AR, Garrett NA, Plocher DW. Plan de-signs that encourage the use of generic drugs over brand-name drugs: an analysis of a free generic benefit. Am J Manag Care. 2009; 15(12):881-8.
12. Kelly EJ, Turner CD, Frech-Tamas FH, Doyle JJ, Mauceri EJ. Valuebased benefit design and healthcare utilization in asthma, hypertension, and diabetes. Am J Pharm Benefits. 2009;1(4):217-21.
13. Chang A, Liberman JN, Coulen C, Berger JE, Brennan TA. Value based insurance design and antidiabetic medication adherence. Am J Pharm Benefits. 2010;2(1):39-44.
14. Lu CY, Ross-Degnan D, Soumerai SB, Pearson SA. Interventions designed to improve the quality and efficiency of medication use in managed care: a critical review of the literature-2001-2007. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;7(8):75.
15. Fairman KA, Curtiss FR. Making the world safe for evidence-based policy: let's slay the biases in research on value-based insurance design. J Manag Care Pharm. 2008;14(2): 198-204.
16. Fairman KA, Curtiss FR. Still looking for health outcomes in all the wrong places? Misinterpreted observational evidence, medication adherence promotion, and value-based insurance design. J Manag Care Pharm. 2009;15(6):501-7.
17. The types of industries represented by the underwritten and self-insured employers included in the study differed. The most common categories for the underwritten group were professional, scientific, and technical services; special trade contractors; ambulatory health care services; educational services; and executive, legislative, and public finance. The most common categories for the self-insured groups were utilities; credit intermediation and related activities; food and beverage stores; hospitals; and executive, legislative, and public finance.
18. To access the Appendix, click on the Appendix link in the box to the right of the article online.
19. We included drugs considered to be combination products in analyses of the categories for each of the therapeutic active ingredients. For example, an enrollee who switched from a statin and calcium-channel blocker to a combination therapy containing those active ingredients would have the days' supply for the combination therapy counted toward his or her medication possession ratios for both statins and calcium-channel blockers.
20. The inclusion of a nonequivalent dependent variable strengthened the internal validity of the adherence differences that we observed. We expected trends in angiotensinreceptor blocker adherence to be similar in the two groups because, as noted in the text, these drugs were available only as brand-name medications, and copays for such medications were reduced for both groups. Thus, we did not expect to see any impact of program implementation on adherence for these drugs. If there was a difference between the two groups, it would raise the question of whether the diverging trends that we saw in adherence with other medications were due to a factor like the one driving the difference with angiotensin-receptor blockers. As expected, we did not see any difference with these drugs; thus, we have greater confidence that the differences we saw with other drugs were due to the valuebased insurance design program, rather than to other factors.
21. Shedish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston (MA): Houghton Mifflin; 2002. p. 152-3, 184-8.
22. Forthman MT, Dove HG, Wooster LD. Episode Treatment Groups (ETGs): a patient classification system for measuring outcomes performance by episode of illness. Top Health Inf Manage. 2000;21(2): 51-61.
23. Winkelman R, Mehmud S. A comparative analysis of claims-based tools for health risk assessment [Internet]. Schaumburg (IL): Society of Actuaries; 2007 Apr 20 [cited 2010 Apr 2]. Available from: http://www.soa.org/files/pdf/riskassessmentc.pdf
24. Chapman RH, Benner JS, Petrilla AA, Tierce JC, Collins SR, Battleman DS, et al. Predictors of adherence with antihypertensive and lipidlowering therapy. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(10):1147-52.
25. Doshi JA, Zhu J, Lee BY, Kimmel SE, Volpp KG. Impact of a prescription copayment increase on lipid-lowering medication adherence in veterans. Circulation. 2009;119(3):390-7.
26. Cox E, Mager D. Is compliance really better in home delivery? Evidence across three chronic therapy classes [Internet]. St. Louis (MO): Express Scripts; 2008 Sep [cited 2010 Mar 20]. Available from: http://www.express-scripts.com/research/studies/pharmacybenefitresearch/benefitdesign/docs/homeDeliveryCompliance.pdf
27. Manning WG, Mullahy J. Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform?. J Health Econ. 2001; 20(4):461-94.
28. Rubin DB, Thomas N. Combining propensity score matching with additional adjustments for prognostic covariates. J Am Stat Assoc. 2000; 95:573-85.
29. Caliendo M, Kopeinig S. Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. J Econ Surv. 2006; 22(1):31-72.
30. Bryson CL, Au DH, Young B, McDonell MB, Fihn SD. A refill adherence algorithm for multiple short intervals to estimate refill compliance (ReComp). Med Care. 2007; 45(6):497-504.
31. The medication possession ratio for the earlier months of the program was predominantly based on data from the pre period. For this reason, the statistical analysis was based only on two ratio measures, reflecting the pre period (January 1, 2007- December 31, 2007) and the post period (January 1, 2008-December 31, 2008).
32. Kastelein JJ, Akdim F, Stroes ES, Zwinderman AH, Bots ML, Stalenhoef AF, Stroes ES, et al. Simvastatin with or without ezetimibe in familial hypercholesterolemia. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(14):1431-43.
33. Drazen JM, Jarcho JA, Morrissey S, Curfman GD. Cholesterol lowering and ezetimibe. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(14):1507-8.
34. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser health tracking poll [Internet]. Menlo Park (CA): KFF; 2009 Feb [cited 2010 Oct 4]. Available from: http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/7866.pdf
35. Chernew ME, Juster IA, Shah M, Wegh A, Rosenberg S, Rosen AB, et al. Evidence that value-based insurance can be effective. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(3):530-6.
36. Appleby J. Carrot-and-stick health plans aim to cut costs. Kaiser Health News [serial on the Internet]. 2010 Mar 11 [cited 2010 Aug 10]. Available from: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/March/11/valuebased-health-insurance.aspx
37. Volpp KG, Loewenstein G, Troxel AB, Doshi J, Price M, Laskin M, et al. A test of financial incentives to improve warfarin adherence. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008:8:272.
38. Sindelar J, Elbel B, Petry NM. What do we get for our money? Costeffectiveness of adding contingency management. Addiction. 2007; 102(2):309-16.
39. Gneezy U, Rustichini A. Pay enough or don't pay at all. Q J Econ. 2000;115(3):791-810.
40. Ariely D, Gneezy U, Loewenstein G, Mazar N. Large stakes and big mistakes. Rev Econ Stud. 2009;76: 451-69.