Utilization and drug cost outcomes of a step-therapy edit for generic antidepressants in an HMO in an integrated health system

Do interventions that address patient cost-sharing improve adherence to prescription drugs? A systematic review of recently published studies

INTRODUCTION

Poor prescription drug adherence is common, jeopardizing the benefits of treatment and increasing the costs of health care in the United States. A frequently reported barrier to adherence is patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. Areas Covered: This systematic review examines interventions that address patient cost-sharing to improve adherence to prescription drugs and reduce costs of care. Twenty-eight published studies were identified with 22 distinct interventions. Most papers were published in or after 2010, and nearly a third were published after 2014. Expert Opinion: Many of the interventions were associated with improved adherence compared to controls, but effects were modest and varied across drug classes. In some studies, adherence remained stable in the intervention group, but declined in the control group. Patient OOP costs generally declined following the intervention, usually as a direct result of the financial structure of the intervention, such as elimination of copayments, and costs to health plans for prescription drugs increased accordingly. For those studies that reported drug and nondrug costs, lower health plan nondrug medical spending generally compensated for increased spending on prescription drugs. With increasing health-care spending, especially for prescription drugs, efforts to improve prescription drug adherence in the United States are important. Federal policies regarding prescription drug prices may have an impact on cost-related nonadherence, but the content and timing of any policies are hard to predict. As such, employers and health plans will face greater pressure to explore innovative approaches to lowering costs and increasing access for beneficiaries. Value-based financial incentive models have the potential to be a part of this effort; research should continue to evaluate their effectiveness.

The Effect of Formulary Restrictions on Patient and Payer Outcomes: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Formulary restrictions are implemented to reduce pharmacy costs and ensure appropriate use of pharmaceutical products. As adoption of formulary restrictions increases with rising pharmacy costs, there is a need to better understand the potential effect of formulary restrictions on patient and payer outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic literature review that assesses the effect of formulary restrictions on the following outcomes: medication adherence, clinical outcomes, treatment satisfaction, drug utilization, health care resource utilization, and economic outcomes.

METHODS

Studies published in 2005 or later were identified from the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, using 2 sets of search terms. A total of 17 formulary restriction terms (e.g., step therapy [ST] and prior authorization [PA]) and 55 outcome terms were included, resulting in 935 unique search term combinations. Two reviewers independently conducted analyses of the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. The search was limited to English-language articles that evaluated the effect of ST and/or PA placed by U.S. third-party payers on the following outcomes: patient outcomes (medication adherence, clinical outcomes, and treatment satisfaction) and payer outcomes (drug utilization, health care resource utilization, and economic outcomes).

RESULTS

Of 2,321 reviewed articles, 59 articles met the study inclusion criteria. The included studies assessed the effect of ST (n = 18), PA (n = 35), or both (n = 6) on medication adherence (n = 14), clinical outcomes (n = 12), treatment satisfaction (n = 2), drug utilization (n = 39), health care resource utilization (n = 18), and economic outcomes (n = 42). The 59 articles measured 164 outcomes across the patient, health care resource utilization, and economic outcome categories of interest. Of the total number of outcomes, 50.6% (n = 83) were negative in direction or were unfavorable, whereas 40.2% (n = 66) were positive in direction or were favorable, when the perspectives of patients and payers were considered. Of the total number of drug utilization outcomes reported (n = 46), the majority showed lower drug utilization (> 90%). However, in some of the articles, pharmacy cost savings resulting from lower drug utilization appeared to be offset by increased medical costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Formulary coverage decisions may have unintended consequences on patient and payer outcomes despite lower drug utilization and pharmacy cost savings; therefore, careful evaluation of restrictions before policy implementation and continued reevaluation after implementation is warranted.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Park and Ko are employed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals in East Hanover, New Jersey, and Ko holds stock in Novartis. Raza, George, and Agrawal are employed by Novartis Healthcare in Hyderabad, India. Study concept and design were contributed primarily by Park and Ko, along with the other authors. Raza, George, and Agrawal collected the data, along with Park and Ko. Data interpretation was performed by Agrawal, Raza, George, Park, and Ko. The manuscript was written and revised by Raza, George, and Park, along with Ko and Agrawal. Results from this systematic literature review were presented at the AMCP Annual Meeting 2016; San Francisco, California; April 19-22, 2016.

Constraints on Formulary Design Under the Affordable Care Act

I study the effect of prescription drug essential health benefits (EHB) requirements from the Affordable Care Act on prescription drug formularies of health insurance marketplace plans. The EHB regulates the number of drugs covered but leaves other dimensions (cost sharing and utilization management) of the formulary unregulated. Using data on almost all formularies in the country, I demonstrate that requiring insurers to cover one additional drug adds 0.22 drugs (3.3%) to the average formulary, mostly owing to firms increasing the number of drugs covered to comply with the EHB requirement. The EHB requirement also increases the probability that a drug is subject to utilization management and is assigned to a higher (more costly) formulary tier. My results suggest that newly covered drugs are 22.3 percentage points more likely to be subject to utilization management, compared to 36.7% for the average covered drug. Using formularies for Medicare Advantage plans, which are subject to uniform, nationwide benefit design standards, and the formulary status of newly approved drugs that do not satisfy the EHB requirement, I reject the hypotheses that consumer demand or effects on plan entry can explain my results. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Effectiveness of step therapy policies for specialty pharmaceuticals in immune disorders

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of managed care plans that limited access to infusion biologics via a step therapy policy.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study using Symphony Health Solutions claims databases that included payer, prescription (Rx), diagnosis (Dx) and procedure (Px) information with unique anonymized patient identifiers.

METHODS

The percentage of patients with claims for infusion and subcutaneous (SQ) biologics were evaluated across three increasingly restrictive cohorts: (1) patients in step therapy plans versus all others in the database (population), (2) patients in step therapy plans versus patients that were members of plans that were roughly matched (matched) and (3) a subsample of patients that were members of step therapy plans that had sufficient data for a pre/post analysis (pre/post).

RESULTS

The population analysis comparison showed 5.1% fewer patients (p < 0.0001) with claims for infusion biologics among step therapy plans than among the overall plans. The more controlled matched and pre/post analyses showed a greater percentage of patients with claims for intravenous products in the plans with step therapy policies versus plans without step therapy policies, differences of +7.0% (p < 0.0001) and +2.8% (p = 0.0522), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Policies designed to limit utilization of infusion biologics showed equivocal results. In the near term, the intended effects of implementing step therapy policies may be limited by relatively small numbers of patients that are affected relative to the total number of users.

Economic utility of a blood-based genomic test for the assessment of patients with symptoms suggestive of obstructive coronary artery disease

Approximately 3 million patients with symptoms suggestive of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) present to primary care offices in the United States annually, resulting in approximately $6.7 billion in cardiac workup costs. Despite wide application of existing diagnostic technologies, yield of obstructive CAD at invasive coronary angiography (ICA) is low. This study used a decision analysis model to assess the economic utility of a novel gene expression score (GES) for the diagnosis of obstructive CAD. Within a representative commercial health plan's adult membership, current practice for obstructive CAD diagnosis (usual care) was compared to a strategy that incorporates the GES test (GES-directed care). The model projected the number of diagnostic tests and procedures performed, the number of patients receiving medical therapy, type I and type II errors for each strategy of obstructive CAD diagnosis, and the associated costs over a 1-year time horizon. Results demonstrate that GES-directed care to exclude the diagnosis of obstructive CAD prior to myocardial perfusion imaging may yield savings to health plans relative to usual care by reducing utilization of noninvasive and invasive cardiac imaging procedures and increasing diagnostic yield at ICA. At a 50% capture rate of eligible patients in GES-directed care, it is projected that a commercial health plan will realize savings of $0.77 per member per month; savings increase proportionally to the GES capture rate. These findings illustrate the potential value of this new blood-based, molecular diagnostic test for health plans and patients in an age of greater emphasis on personalized medicine.

STEPS for cost-effective prescribing of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) in major depressive disorder: Focus on venlafaxine (Effexor®) versus duloxetine (Cymbalta®)

Selection of an antidepressant medication is based on various factors, such as safety, tolerability, and cost. This article reviews the cost-effectiveness of the different serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs).

Impact of a step-therapy protocol for pregabalin on healthcare utilization and expenditures in a commercial population

OBJECTIVE

To compare changes in healthcare resource utilization and costs among members with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), or fibromyalgia (FM) in a commercial health plan implementing pregabalin step-therapy with members in unrestricted plans.

METHODS

Retrospective study of outcomes associated with implementation of a pregabalin step-therapy protocol using claims data from Humana ('restricted' cohort) and Thomson Reuters MarketScan ('unrestricted' cohort). Members aged 18-65 years receiving treatment for pDPN, PHN, or FM during 2008 or 2009 were identified; cohorts were matched on diagnosis and geographic region. Baseline to follow-up changes in healthcare resource utilization and costs were determined using difference-in-differences (DID) analysis. Statistical models adjusting for covariates explored relationships between restricted access and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 3876 restricted cohort members were identified and matched to 3876 unrestricted cohort members. FM was the predominant diagnosis (84.7%). The unrestricted cohort was older (mean = 49.0 (SD = 10.4) years vs 47.6 (SD = 10.5) years; p < 0.001), and had greater comorbidity (RxRisk-V score = 5.4 (SD = 3.2) vs 4.4 (SD = 2.9), p < 0.001) than the restricted cohort. Compared with the unrestricted cohort, the restricted cohort demonstrated a greater year-over-year decrease in pregabalin utilization (-2.6%, p = 0.008), and greater increases in physical therapy and disease-related outpatient utilization (3.7%, p = 0.010 and 3.6%, p = 0.022, respectively). There were no statistically significant net differences in all-cause or disease-related total healthcare, medical, or pharmacy costs between cohorts. After adjusting for baseline compositional differences between cohorts, restricted plan membership was associated with a net increase in all-cause medical ($1222; p = 0.016) and disease-related healthcare costs ($859; p = 0.002). Limitations include use of a combined analysis for pDPN, PHN, and FM, especially since the observed results were likely driven by FM; an inability to link the prescribing of a medication with the condition of interest, which is common to claims analyses; and lack of pain severity information.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a pregabalin step-therapy protocol resulted in lower pregabalin utilization, but this restriction was not associated with reductions in total healthcare costs, medical costs, or pharmacy costs.

Impact of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

1st generation 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists (5-HT3 RAs), and palonosetron, a 2nd generation 5-HT3 RA, are indicated for the prevention of chemotherapy (CT)-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with moderately (MEC) and highly emetogenic CT agents (HEC). This study explores the impact of step therapy policies requiring use of an older 5-HT3 RA before palonosetron on risk of CINV associated with hospital or emergency department (ED) admissions.

METHODS

Patients who received cyclophosphamide post breast cancer (BC) surgery or who were diagnosed with lung cancer on carboplatin (LC-carboplatin) or cisplatin (LC-cisplatin) were selected from PharMetrics' (IMS LifeLink) claims dataset (2005-2008). Patients were followed for 6 months from initial CT administration for CINV events identified through ICD-9-CM codes. Patients were grouped into those initiated with older, generic 5-HT3 RAs (ondansetron, granisetron, and dolasetron) and those initiated and maintained on palonosetron throughout study follow-up. CINV events and CINV days were analyzed using multivariate regressions controlling for demographic and clinical variables.

RESULTS

Eligible patients numbered 3,606 in BC, 4,497 in LC-carboplatin and 1,154 in LC-cisplatin cohorts, with 52%, 40%, and 34% in the palonosetron group, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two 5-HT3 RA groups in age or Charlson Comorbidity Index among the two MEC cohorts (BC and LC-carboplatin). Among the LC-cisplatin cohort, palonosetron users were older with more males than the older 5-HT3 RA group (age: 60.1 vs. 61.3; males, 66.9% vs. 56.9%). Compared to the older 5-HT3 RAs, the palonosetron groups incurred 22%-51% fewer 5-HT3 RA pharmacy claims, had fewer patients with CINV events (3.5% vs. 5.5% in BC, 9.5% vs. 12.8% in LC-carboplatin, 16.4% vs. 21.7% in LC-cisplatin), and had lower risk for CINV events (odds ratios 0.62, 0.71, or 0.71, respectively; p<0.05). The BC and LC-carboplatin palonosetron groups experienced 50% and 30% fewer CINV days than the generic 5-HT3 RA group (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with breast or lung cancer initiated and maintained on palonosetron were at significantly lower risk for potentially costly CINV versus those on older 5-HT3 RAs. Further studies on impact of step therapy policy are warranted in order to minimize the clinical and economic burden of CINV.

Generic psychotropic medications: issues of cost-effectiveness and patient benefit

Since the implementation of managed care, clinicians have struggled with ways to provide optimal treatment in a cost-effective manner. With the rising cost of medications, generic substitutes appear to be an answer. Some medications have proven to be less effective in generic form. Consumers may be wary of generics. However, when financially motivated, many people choose generic over brand-name products. With the hope of finding effective medications with fewer side effects, drug companies continue to spend money to find the best solutions. Research in medication efficacy is costly, which is handed over to the consumer. Benefits and efficacy of generics will be discussed.

Economic Impact of Therapeutic Substitution of a Brand Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor with an Alternative Generic Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder

Background

To reduce pharmacy costs, managed care organizations encourage therapeutic substitution from brand to a generic product. However, little is known about whether these cost-containment strategies can also potentially lower total expenditures for payers in treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD).

Objective:

To compare economic outcomes of patients with MDD who were switched from a brand selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) to an alternative generic SSRI for nonmedical reasons versus patients who continued on the brand SSRI.

Methods:

Adult MDD patients in the Ingenix Impact Database (2003–2007) were considered “switchers” if they received treatment with a brand SSRI and were later switched to an alternative generic SSRI for nonmedical reasons. Patients who remained on the brand SSRI (nonswitchers) were matched 1:1 with switchers. All-cause, mental health-related, and MDD-related rates of hospitalizations/emergency department (ED) visits and costs over 6 months were compared both descriptively and by using adjusted regression models. A subgroup analysis on patients who were switched from escitalopram (Lexapro) to an alternative generic SSRI was also performed.

Results:

The study included 4449 matched pairs. Compared with nonswitchers, switchers had higher risk of all-cause, mental health–related, and MDD-related use of hospitalizations/ED visits (OR 1.15, 1.34, and 1.54, respectively; all p < 0.01) and higher risk-adjusted mental health–related and MDD-related medical costs ($219 and $222, respectively; both p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis on escitalopram showed similar results; switchers experienced higher risk of any-cause, mental health–related, and MDD-related use of hospitalizations/ED visits (OR 1.21, 1.41, and 1.53, respectively; all p<0.01) and higher risk-adjusted MDD-related medical costs ($151; p<0.05).

Conclusions:

Compared with patients who continued on their patented SSRIs, patients who switched to a generic SSRI incurred more resource use of hospitalizations/ED visits and higher MDD-related health-care costs. The effects of therapeutic substitution should be carefully examined, because use of generic alternatives may not be a cost-saving strategy when total health-care costs are considered.

Treatment patterns associated with Duloxetine and Venlafaxine use for Major Depressive Disorder

BACKGROUND

Duloxetine and venlafaxine extended release (venlafaxine XR) are SNRIs indicated for the treatment of MDD. This study addresses whether duloxetine and venlafaxine XR are interchangeable in their patterns of use with patients who are depressed or are used more selectively based on treatment history, background characteristics, and presenting symptoms.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of an administrative insurance claims database. We studied patients in managed care with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with duloxetine or venlafaxine XR. Predictors of treatment and cost were assessed using Chi-square and logistic regression analyses of demographics and past-year medication use and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Patients with MDD treated with duloxetine (n = 9,641) versus venlafaxine XR (n = 8,514) tended to be older, slightly more likely to be female, and treated by a psychiatrist (P < 0.0001). In the prior year, more duloxetine patients (vs. venlafaxine XR) received ≥ 3 unique antidepressants (20.8% vs. 16.6%), ≥ 3 unique pain medications (25.5% vs. 15.6%), and had ≥ 8 unique diagnosed comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions (38.6% vs. 29.1%). The prior 6-month total health care costs were $1,731 higher for duloxetine than for venlafaxine XR and declined for both medications in the 6 months after treatment began. Logistic regression analysis revealed that 61% of duloxetine patients and 61% of venlafaxine XR patients were predictable from prior patient and treatment factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with MDD treated with duloxetine tended to have a more complex and costly antecedent clinical presentation compared with venlafaxine XR patients, suggesting that physicians do not use the medications interchangeably.

Prescription drug cost sharing: associations with medication and medical utilization and spending and health

CONTEXT

Prescription drugs are instrumental to managing and preventing chronic disease. Recent changes in US prescription drug cost sharing could affect access to them.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize published evidence on the associations among cost-sharing features of prescription drug benefits and use of prescription drugs, use of nonpharmaceutical services, and health outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed for studies published in English between 1985 and 2006.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Among 923 articles found in the search, we identified 132 articles examining the associations between prescription drug plan cost-containment measures, including co-payments, tiering, or coinsurance (n = 65), pharmacy benefit caps or monthly prescription limits (n = 11), formulary restrictions (n = 41), and reference pricing (n = 16), and salient outcomes, including pharmacy utilization and spending, medical care utilization and spending, and health outcomes.

RESULTS

Increased cost sharing is associated with lower rates of drug treatment, worse adherence among existing users, and more frequent discontinuation of therapy. For each 10% increase in cost sharing, prescription drug spending decreases by 2% to 6%, depending on class of drug and condition of the patient. The reduction in use associated with a benefit cap, which limits either the coverage amount or the number of covered prescriptions, is consistent with other cost-sharing features. For some chronic conditions, higher cost sharing is associated with increased use of medical services, at least for patients with congestive heart failure, lipid disorders, diabetes, and schizophrenia. While low-income groups may be more sensitive to increased cost sharing, there is little evidence to support this contention.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacy benefit design represents an important public health tool for improving patient treatment and adherence. While increased cost sharing is highly correlated with reductions in pharmacy use, the long-term consequences of benefit changes on health are still uncertain.