This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: Dr Joyce and colleagues¹ found that insurance plans with either increased co-payments or mandatory generic substitutions had lower drug costs. They also found that such policies led to increased out-of-pocket costs for patients. However, their outcome measure (payments made by employer) may not be correct. Although other components of transaction data are typically well-defined in plan summary documents (eg, pharmacy dispensing fee, contracted discount off average wholesale price [AWP], and cost-sharing with patients), line-item drug ingredient price data from the health plan are often subject to interpretation.

Although employers pay a discounted amount for drug ingredient costs on each prescription (described as subtracted from the drug's AWP), there can be significant differences in the ways that AWPs are determined. Typically, health care benefits are purchased for employees in a bundled, "one-stop-shopping" fashion combining hospitalization, physician care, and prescription drugs.

Notwithstanding the effects of direct-to-consumer drug advertising, to . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

Employer Drug Benefit Plans and Spending on Prescription Drugs
, , , and
JAMA. ;288():1733-1739.
FULL TEXT  

Financial Consequences of Drug Benefit Plans
and
JAMA. ;289():423-423.
FULL TEXT  

Financial Consequences of Drug Benefit Plans
and
JAMA. ;289():423-424.
FULL TEXT  

Financial Consequences of Drug Benefit Plans
and
JAMA. ;289():424-424.
FULL TEXT