 |
|
Adverse Events Associated With Prescription Drug Cost-Sharing Among Poor and Elderly Persons
Robyn Tamblyn, PhD;
Rejean Laprise, PhD;
James A. Hanley, PhD;
Michael Abrahamowicz, PhD;
Susan Scott, MSc;
Nancy Mayo, PhD;
Jerry Hurley, PhD;
Roland Grad, MD,MSc;
Eric Latimer, PhD;
Robert Perreault, MD;
Peter McLeod, MD;
Allen Huang, MD;
Pierre Larochelle, MD;
Louise Mallet, BPharm,PhD
JAMA. 2001;285:421-429.
ABSTRACT
| |
Context Rising costs of medications and inequities in access have sparked calls for drug policy reform in the United States and Canada. Control of drug expenditures by prescription cost-sharing for elderly persons and poor persons is a contentious issue because little is known about the health impact in these subgroups.
Objectives To determine (1) the impact of introducing prescription drug cost-sharing on use of essential and less essential drugs among elderly persons and welfare recipients and (2) rates of emergency department (ED) visits and serious adverse events associated with reductions in drug use before and after policy implementation.
Design and Setting Interrupted time-series analysis of data from 32 months before and 17 months after introduction of a prescription coinsurance and deductible cost-sharing policy in Quebec in 1996. Separate 10-month prepolicy control and postpolicy cohort studies were conducted to estimate the impact of the drug reform on adverse events.
Participants A random sample of 93 950 elderly persons and 55 333 adult welfare medication recipients.
Main Outcome Measures Mean daily number of essential and less essential drugs used per month, ED visits, and serious adverse events (hospitalization, nursing home admission, and mortality) before and after policy introduction.
Results After cost-sharing was introduced, use of essential drugs decreased by 9.12% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.7%-9.6%) in elderly persons and by 14.42% (95% CI, 13.3%-15.6%) in welfare recipients; use of less essential drugs decreased by 15.14% (95% CI, 14.4%-15.9%) and 22.39% (95% CI, 20.9%-23.9%), respectively. The rate (per 10 000 person-months) of serious adverse events associated with reductions in use of essential drugs increased from 5.8 in the prepolicy control cohort to 12.6 in the postpolicy cohort in elderly persons (a net increase of 6.8 [95% CI, 5.6-8.0]) and from 14.7 to 27.6 in welfare recipients (a net increase of 12.9 [95% CI, 10.2-15.5]). Emergency department visit rates related to reductions in the use of essential drugs also increased by 14.2 (95% CI, 8.5-19.9) per 10 000 person-months in elderly persons (prepolicy control cohort, 32.9; postpolicy cohort, 47.1) and by 54.2 (95% CI, 33.5-74.8) among welfare recipients (prepolicy control cohort, 69.6; postpolicy cohort, 123.8). These increases were primarily due to an increase in the proportion of recipients who reduced their use of essential drugs. Reductions in the use of less essential drugs were not associated with an increase in risk of adverse events or ED visits.
Conclusions In our study, increased cost-sharing for prescription drugs in elderly persons and welfare recipients was followed by reductions in use of essential drugs and a higher rate of serious adverse events and ED visits associated with these reductions.
INTRODUCTION
Rising costs of medications and inequities in access to medication have sparked calls for drug policy reform in the United States and Canada.1-2 One of the most contentious issues is the introduction of cost-sharing to control drug expenditures. Cost-sharing is intended to deter the use of drug therapies that do little to improve health.3-6 But cost-effectiveness rests on the assumption that individuals will have the capacity to pay for essential drugs and that they will make rational choices about which drugs to use and abandon. Otherwise, the use of essential drugs will be curtailed to control drug expenditures and short-term savings in the drug budget may be offset by downstream costs in the treatment of potentially preventable illnesses.7-22
Cost-sharing policies that require the consumer to pay a percentage of the cost of the prescribed medication may be less likely to produce unintended health effects. But the impact of this type of cost-sharing on the use of health services has not been evaluated in poor persons, and only one inconclusive evaluation has been conducted for elderly persons.10
In 1996, the Canadian province of Quebec attempted to enhance equity of access to prescription drugs by legislating mandatory drug insurance for all residents.23 To help finance this coverage, a deductible and a 25% coinsurance charge was instituted for previously insured beneficiaries who received free medication: elderly persons and welfare recipients. The existence of comprehensive, linkable databases on drug and health care use in Quebec provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the impact of cost-sharing on the use of essential and less essential drugs and determine the rate of emergency department (ED) visits and serious adverse events (hospitalization, nursing home admission, and mortality) associated with reductions in drug use before and after the implementation of the cost-sharing policy.
METHODS
Quebec Drug Policy Reform
Prior to the drug policy reform, welfare recipients and low-income elderly persons (5.7% of the total elderly population in Quebec) received free medication, and all other elderly persons paid $2 per prescription up to a maximum of $100 per year (all values are in Canadian dollars). On August 1, 1996, both groups became subject to a 25% coinsurance fee up to an annual maximum of $200 for welfare recipients and income-indexed ceilings of $200, $500, and $750 for elderly persons. On January 1, 1997, an annual deductible of $100 was added to the 25% coinsurance fee, with the annual deductible and ceiling prorated on a quarterly basis. On July 1, 1997, the annual ceiling and deductible were prorated on a monthly basis to reduce the amount a recipient would have to pay per month to a maximum of $16.67 ($200 plan) to $62.50 ($750 plan). Children and selected subgroups were exempted from cost-sharing and continued to receive free medication. A computerized, real-time link between the provincial health plan administration (Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec [RAMQ]) and pharmacies was put in place to administer the policy.
Design and Study Populations
To study the intended impact of cost-sharing and to evaluate the health effects of reducing drug use, we identified a subset of essential and less essential drugs for evaluation using published classifications (Table 1).18, 24-25 Essential drugs were defined as medications that prevent deterioration in health or prolong life and would not likely be prescribed in the absence of a definitive diagnosis. Because there was no information on indication for treatment, the second criterion was added to limit the analysis to only those people who were using drugs for which reductions in use would be expected to have an impact on health status. The most commonly used drugs excluded using this criterion were antibiotics and gastro-protective medications, drugs targeted by many intervention programs to reduce overuse.26 Less essential drugs were defined as medications that may provide relief of symptoms but will likely have no effect on the underlying disease process.25 Drugs included in the essential and less essential categories were independently identified and then rated by the 7 clinical coinvestigators. A medication was included if 6 of the 7 clinical coinvestigators agreed with the classification of the respective drug and it was insured through the RAMQ provincial health care plan. The subset of drugs included in the evaluation of essential and less essential drug use represented 21% of all insured drugs and 55% of all prescriptions dispensed.
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Drugs Included in the Essential and Less Essential Categories
|
|
|
An interrupted time-series design was used to estimate changes in prescription drug use after the introduction of the drug policy. Monthly measures of overall drug use as well as the use of essential and less essential drugs in the 3 years preceding the policy and in the first 17 postpolicy months were calculated for individual persons. A random sample of 120 000 welfare recipients and 120 000 elderly persons was selected. Persons were eligible for inclusion in the analysis if they were alive on the date of policy implementation, filled at least 1 prescription for a drug in the year before the policy, and were not exempted from the cost-sharing policy. The evaluation of essential and less essential drugs was limited to persons who had filled at least 1 prescription for drugs within these categories in the prepolicy year. Individuals contributed to the analysis only during the months in which they were enrolled.
Separate prepolicy control and postpolicy cohort studies were conducted to determine the impact of the policy on the rates of adverse events and ED visits associated with reductions in use of essential and less essential drugs. Each study produced an estimate of the risk associated with reduction in drug use, the proportion of the population making reductions, the population attributable fraction, and the rate of adverse events and ED visits associated with reductions in drug use. The 2 studies were conducted in comparable 10-month periods before (August 1995 to 1996) and after (August 1996-1997) policy implementation (Figure 1). The prepolicy control study provided an estimate of the expected rate of adverse events due to reductions in drug use prior to policy implementation. The estimation of an expected rate was important because even when drugs are free, individuals will experience adverse drug events due to injudicious reductions in needed therapy, because of forgetfulness, adverse effects, or misperceptions about the importance of drug treatment.27 The difference in the rate in the prepolicy control study vs the postpolicy study was used to estimate the impact of the drug reform on adverse events. This approach had several advantages. First, it voided biases related to ecological fallacy28 because changes in drug use were linked at the level of the individual with the occurrence of adverse events and ED visits. Second, it provided a means of isolating the effect of the drug policy from other health care policies that were implemented in the same 4-year period that may have reduced the rate of ED visits and hospitalizations, unrelated to prescription drug use (hospital closures and reallocation of service locations). Finally, the prepolicy and postpolicy cohort study approach verified the assumption that the primary impact of cost-sharing would be to increase the prevalence of reductions of drug use rather than changing the "biological risk" associated with rationing or stopping therapy. Thus, the studies were designed to estimate both the risk and the population attributable fraction or the share of adverse events and ED visits due to reductions in drug use, in the prepolicy and postpolicy periods.
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Time Series and Prepolicy Control and Postpolicy Cohort Design
The first 3 months of the time series and of an individual's enrollment in the public plan were excluded because prescriptions filled prior to these dates were unknown and created artificially low values for monthly drug use. The month immediately prior to policy implementation also was excluded because of possible prescription stockpiling.
|
|
|
For this analysis, study populations were limited to regular recipients of essential or less essential drugs, defined as persons who had a supply of the respective medication in each of the 12 months prior to the follow-up period or new users with a minimum of 6 months of continuous use.
Data Sources
Four provincial health databases, validated in previous research,29-31 were linked by unique encrypted health numbers. The beneficiary demographic database provided data on drug plan eligibility, death, and beneficiary characteristics. The prescription claims database, which includes the drug, quantity, date, and duration for each prescription dispensed from community-based pharmacies, was used to measure medication use. The physician claims database, which includes the date, type, and location of service delivery (eg, inpatient, emergency, clinic), was used to measure ED visits and hospitalization-institutionalization. The hospitalization database was used to validate claims-based measures of hospitalization-institutionalization.
Prescription Drug Use
The number of drugs available each day was calculated from prescription claims records using methods developed to convert the date, drug, and duration of prescriptions dispensed into a drug-by-day matrix.32 In each of the 53 months of the time series, a matrix of monthly mean daily drug use was then constructed for each beneficiary (for all drugs and separately for essential and less essential drugs). The first 3 months of the time series and of coverage for newly eligible recipients were excluded to avoid artificially lower values for drug use in the first few months of available prescription information. The month immediately prior to policy implementation also was excluded because of possible prescription stockpiling, leaving 49 months for analysis.
For the prepolicy and postpolicy cohort studies, reductions in drug use were measured first by estimating an expected daily drug use for each person. The resulting expected values were then compared with observed use in the 10-month follow-up period. The expected use value was estimated as the level predicted for the last baseline month by a linear trend fit to each person's mean monthly daily drug use in the baseline year. This method conservatively assumed that expected drug use would remain constant rather than increase during follow-up. In addition, it was assumed that the impact of reductions in drug use would cumulate over time. Therefore, time-dependent measures were used to summarize differences between expected and observed use during the follow-up period. Time-dependent measures of drug use also provided a means of adjusting for unusual drug consumption patterns triggered by the features of the drug policy. For instance, the deductible and maximum ceilings instituted a pattern whereby reductions in one month may be compensated for by increases in the next when drugs were free for those persons reaching the spending ceiling. Cumulative mean monthly increases (observed > expected) and reductions (observed < expected) in drug use were calculated as the sum (from the first follow-up month) of the monthly difference in observed and expected drug use divided by the number of follow-up months. For example, an individual who had an expected value of 5 drugs per month and who filled prescriptions for 3 drugs in the first 2 months of follow-up and 8 in the third month would have a mean cumulative reduction value in month 3 of 1.33 ([2 + 2 + 0]/3) and a mean cumulative increase of 1 ([0 + 0 + 3]/3). To respect the temporal sequence between reductions in drug use and adverse events, we linked the occurrence of adverse events in any 1 month to the patient's mean drug use pattern in the preceding months.
ED Visits and Adverse Events
For each person in each month, the number of distinct days with a claim for an ED visit was counted. Adverse events, defined as the first occurrence of acute care hospitalization, long-term care admission, or death, were established using the date and location of health service in the physician claims database (for hospitalizations and institutionalizations) and the beneficiary demographic database (for death). Follow-up was terminated after the occurrence of the first adverse event because prescription drugs dispensed during hospital stays are not recorded in claims files, and there are no available methods to establish long-term predictions of expected drug use at the level of the individual.
Covariates
The impact of the drug policy on monthly drug use was adjusted for linear trend across time, season (11 monthly indicator variables), and individual characteristics (age, sex, type of insurance plan, baseline medication use, education, and income). Education and income were approximated by the mean census value33 for residents within the same postal code area (mean, 366 households). Analysis of adverse events and ED visits was adjusted for age, sex, number of months hospitalized, Charlson comorbidity values34-35 in the baseline year, expected level of medication use, and mean cumulative increases in drug use. For ED visits, we also adjusted for the individual's frequency of ED visits in the baseline year.
Analysis
To estimate the impact of the policy on the level of drug use over time, random-effects, pooled-time series regression36 was used based on 49 prepolicy and postpolicy months. The individual was the unit of analysis, and an autoregressive first-order correlation structure (AR[1]) was assumed to represent the dependence among subsequent observations. Alternate correlation structures also were assessed (AR [2] and AR [12]), but as there was no material impact of the choice of correlation structure on the estimated regression coefficients or SEs, AR (1) results were presented. To assess postpolicy reductions in drug use, we first used the 32 prepolicy months to estimate the effect of time, seasonal variation, and beneficiary characteristics and then to predict, for each person, expected use for the 17 months postpolicy as well as the absolute and relative differences between observed and expected use.
The occurrence of adverse events associated with reduction in use of essential and less essential drugs was estimated by hazard ratios derived from a Cox model using time-dependent covariates, modeled as continuous variables, to represent monthly changes in drug use. Proportional hazards and linearity assumptions were verified. The frequency of ED visits was modeled by Poisson regression, assuming a first-order autoregressive correlation structure in a generalized estimating equation approach37-38 and empirical SEs to account for overdispersion. Outcomes in a particular month were examined in relation to cumulative mean monthly measures of drug use in the previous month. For the prepolicy control and postpolicy cohort studies, the overall fraction of adverse events and ED visits associated with reductions in drug use was estimated separately using the approach of Greenland and Drescher39 and multiplied by the overall adverse event and ED visit rates to estimate the monthly rate of adverse events and ED visits associated with reductions in drug use. As no estimate of the intercept is available in the Cox model, logistic regression was used to estimate the proportion of adverse events associated with reductions (population-attributable fraction) for adverse events. The regression coefficients produced by the Cox and logistic models were almost identical. Standard errors and confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference in these adverse event rates in the prepolicy and postpolicy studies were estimated by bootstrapping,40-41 using 200 bootstrap samples.
RESULTS
Among the 120 000 elderly persons sampled, 117 408 were eligible for cost-sharing. Of the 117 408, 93 950 (80.0%) used prescription medication in the prepolicy year, and 70 801 of the 93 950 (75.3%) used essential drugs (Table 2). Among the 120 000 welfare recipients sampled, 84 272 were adults of whom 55 333 (65.7%) used medication in the prepolicy year and 25 820 (46.7%) used medications classified as essential drugs. Elderly persons used more drugs per day and had higher costs for therapy than welfare recipients. However, the proportions hospitalized in the prepolicy year were similar. Elderly persons and welfare recipients used at least twice as many essential as less essential drugs. The most commonly used essential drugs in the elderly group were aspirin (13.2%), levothyroxine sodium (7.5%), and furosemide (6.0%). Among welfare recipients, the most commonly used essential drugs were salbutamol (5.9%) and levothyroxine sodium (5.0%). Benzodiazepines were the most commonly used less essential medication in the elderly and welfare recipient groups.
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Characteristics of the Recipients of Essential and Less Essential Drugs in the Prepolicy Year (August 1995-July 1996)
|
|
|
The introduction of the drug policy was followed by substantial and statistically significant reductions in the overall number of drugs used per day by both elderly persons (9.14%; 95% CI, 8.8%-9.5%) and adult welfare recipients (15.94%; 95% CI, 15.0%-16.9%). Similar reductions also were seen for the use of essential drugs as well as a slower rate of increase in drug use over time (policy/time interaction: elderly persons:  = -0.02; P<.001; welfare recipients: = -0.009; P<.001) (Figure 2). In the postpolicy period, elderly persons showed a 9.12% (95% CI, 8.7%-9.6%) reduction in the number of essential drugs used per day (0.17 drugs; 95% CI, 0.16-0.18). Absolute and relative reductions were higher among welfare recipients (14.4%; 95% CI, 13.3%-15.6% and absolute reduction: 0.21; 95% CI, 0.19-0.23 essential drugs per day).
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. Observed and Predicted Use of Essential Medication in the Prepolicy and Postpolicy Periods
The first 3 months of the time series and of an individual's enrollment in the public plan were excluded because prescriptions filled prior to these dates were unknown and created artificially low values for monthly drug use. The month immediately prior to policy implementation also was excluded because of possible prescription stockpiling.
|
|
|
Relative reductions were greater in the use of less essential drugs by elderly persons and welfare recipients (15.14%; 95% CI, 14.4%-15.9% and 22.39%; 95% CI, 20.9%-23.9%, respectively) than for essential drugs (Figure 3). However, because fewer less essential drugs were used per day, the absolute size of the reduction was smaller for less essential drugs (elderly persons, 0.10 and welfare recipients, 0.15) than for essential drugs (elderly persons, 0.17 and welfare recipients, 0.21). Also, there was a significant decrease in the slope of less essential drug use over time in the postpolicy period (policy/time interaction) for the elderly persons ( = -0.009; P<.001) and for the welfare recipients ( = -0.008; P<.001).
|
|
|
|
Figure 3. Observed and Predicted Use of Less Essential Medication in the Prepolicy and Postpolicy Periods
The first 3 months of the time series and of an individual's enrollment in the public plan were excluded because prescriptions filled prior to these dates were unknown and created artificially low values for monthly drug use. The month immediately prior to policy implementation also was excluded because of possible prescription stockpiling.
|
|
|
As expected, in both the prepolicy and postpolicy studies, there was a significantly higher rate of adverse events and ED visits in those individuals who reduced their use of essential drugs vs those who did not (Table 3). Dose-response relationships were evident between the magnitude of the reduction and the rates of both outcomes. For example, in the prepolicy control study, the rates of adverse events in those with no reduction ( 0.1 drugs/d), minor reduction (>0.1 to 0.5 drugs/d), and major reductions ( 1 drugs/d) were 256, 272, and 385 per 10 000 person-months, respectively. Reduction of 1 medication would be equivalent to stopping 1 drug or rationing 2 drugs to half the expected use. Risks associated with reductions in drug use leveled off at higher reductions, reaching a plateau at approximately 1.5 medications per day. The estimated risk ratio for a 1-drug reduction, adjusted for cumulative increases, was similar for the prepolicy (1.57) and postpolicy (1.56) studies. Adjustment for beneficiary characteristics lowered the estimated risk ratios, primarily because individuals who had a greater number of comorbidities and used more medication were more likely to reduce their use of drugs and to experience adverse events and ED visits.
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Risk of Adverse Events With Reductions in Essential Drugs and Rates Associated With Reductions in the Prepolicy (n = 50 398) and Postpolicy (n = 56 548) Elderly Population*
|
|
|
A greater proportion of elderly persons (7.4% more) in the postpolicy study compared with the prepolicy control study reduced their use of essential drugs (Table 3). As a result, the estimated proportion of adverse events associated with drug reductions increased from 2.0% in the prepolicy to 3.9% in the postpolicy period. This change was accompanied by an estimated increase in the monthly rate of adverse events related to reductions in essential drug use from 5.8 to 12.6 per 10 000 in the prepolicy and postpolicy periods; a net increase of 6.8 adverse events per 10 000 per month. Reduction in the use of essential drugs also was associated with a significant increase in the rate of ED visits (risk ratio, 1.17-1.19). The higher frequency of reductions in essential drug use in the postpolicy period resulted in a net increased rate in monthly ED visits related to reductions in drug use of 14.2 per 10 000.
Welfare recipients, as compared with elderly persons, experienced similar risks of adverse events and ED visits in relationship to reductions in essential drug use (Table 4); however, the frequency of postpolicy reductions in essential drug use was considerably greater (13.6% and 7.4%, respectively). As a result, the drug policy was associated with a substantially greater net increase in the rates of adverse events and ED visits in relation to reductions in the use of essential drugs. In the postpolicy study, relative to the prepolicy study, the monthly rate of adverse events increased by 12.9 per 10 000 and ED visit rates by 54.2 per 10 000 person-months.
|
|
|
|
Table 4. Risk of Adverse Events With Reductions in Essential Drugs and Rates Associated With Reductions in the Prepolicy (n = 11 491) and Postpolicy (n = 13 311) Welfare Recipients*
|
|
|
Reductions in less essential drug use had no significant impact on adverse events or ED visits among elderly persons and welfare recipients in either the prepolicy control or postpolicy studies (Table 5).
|
|
|
|
Table 5. Prepolicy and Postpolicy Study Estimates of the Risk of Serious Adverse Events and Emergency Department Visits Associated With Reductions in Less Essential Drug Use in Elderly Persons and Welfare Recipients*
|
|
|
COMMENT
Increased cost-sharing for prescription drugs had the desired effect of reducing the use of less essential drugs but also the unintended effect of reducing the use of drugs that are essential for disease management and prevention. As a result, in the postpolicy period, there was an increase in the rate of adverse events and ED visits related to reductions in essential drug use. These effects are consistent with those reported by Soumerai et al18, 20 in the evaluation of prescription reimbursement caps in US Medicaid programs.
This study had several limitations. In the absence of an out-of-province control group, we cannot confirm that reductions in drug use were solely related to cost-sharing policies. However, no other plausible explanation has emerged and the suddenness of reductions in drug use that occurred immediately after the introduction of the cost-sharing policy strengthens the conclusion that changes in drug use were likely to be related to the cost-sharing policy. Prescription claims files do not indicate what drugs were taken, only medication purchased. Although prescription refill rates provide a reasonably accurate measure of medication compliance,42-44 reductions in drug use could have been overestimated if individuals received free samples or purchased equivalent over-the-counter preparations (eg, aspirin) after policy implementation. However, these individuals would be falsely classified as having reduced medication use, and as a result, the risk associated with reductions in drug use in the postpolicy studies would be underestimated.
Indications for therapy were unknown. Drugs classified as less essential may have been required therapy for some individuals (eg, benzodiazepines for panic disorder), whereas some essential therapeutic drugs may have been prescribed without adequate clinical indication (eg, diuretics for transitory elevation in blood pressure). This misclassification would likely lead to an underestimation of both the potential benefits of reducing the use of less essential drugs and the risks of reducing essential drug therapy.
Our study suggests that the primary mechanism by which cost-sharing affected the rate of adverse events was by increasing the proportion of people who made reductions in the use of essential drugs. We cannot confirm that reductions in essential drug use led to a deterioration in health status, but we believe that this is a plausible explanation for several reasons. First, there was a dose-response relationship between the magnitude of the reduction in the use of essential drugs and the risk of adverse events and ED visits. Second, reductions were associated with an increase in the risk of adverse events in the prepolicy and postpolicy period, a phenomenon that would be expected if reductions represented medication noncompliance. Finally, the risk associated with reduction was specific to essential drugs, for which there is clinical trial evidence of efficacy.
The challenge for insurers has been to craft health care policies that provide adequate access to drug therapy while simultaneously exercising fiscally responsible control over the drug budget. Consumer cost-sharing has been the principal method of fiscal control because it assumes that people will value what they pay for and as a result, they will reduce their use of unnecessary medication when they are required to contribute a portion of the payment.4, 6 While this reasoning may apply to many consumer goods, cost-sharing has been shown to have unintended effects in health care, such as increasing hospital admissions.16-17,19-20,45-48 Consumers may not have the information needed to make wise decisions about necessary treatment. We estimate that for elderly persons alone, the drug policy reform in Quebec may result in 7000 additional adverse events per million annually. In light of the substantial impact that drug policy can have on the population's health, there is a need to redress the relative scarcity of scientific data on the outcomes of policy interventions. Our results suggest that more stringent cost-sharing pharmaceutical cost containment policies in other parts of Canada49 and the United States1, 4 may contribute to avoidable illnesses.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Author Contributions: Dr Tamblyn participated in study concept and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript, critical revision of manuscript for important intellectual content, and provided statistical expertise, obtained funding, provided administrative, technical, or material support, and supervision.
Dr Laprise participated in study concept and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision of manuscript for important intellectual content, and provided statistical expertise, obtained funding, provided administrative, technical, or material support, and supervision.
Dr Hanley participated in study concept and design, analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision of manuscript for important intellectual content, provided statistical expertise, technical support, and supervised study conduct.
Dr Abrahamowitz participated in analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript, and critical revision of manuscript for important intellectual content, and provided statistical expertise.
Ms Scott participated in analysis and interpretation of data and critical revision of manuscript for important intellectual content, and provided statistical expertise.
Dr Mayo participated in study concept and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript, critical revision of manuscript for important intellectual content, and provided statistical expertise and obtained funding.
Dr Hurley participated in acquisition of data and critical revision of manuscript for important intellectual content, and provided statistical expertise.
Drs Grad, Mallet, and McLeod participated in study concept and design, drafting of the manuscript, and study supervision.
Dr Latimer participated in analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, and provided statistical expertise.
Dr Perreault participated in study concept and design, analysis and interpretation of data, and obtained funding.
Dr Huang participated in analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, and administrative, technical, or material support.
Dr Larochelle participated in analysis and interpretation of data and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.
Funding/Support: This study was supported by the Ministry of Health in Quebec and the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec and funding was provided by the Ministère de la santé et des Services Sociaux, the Medical Research Council, and the National Health Research and Development Program. Dr Tamblyn is supported as a health scholar by the National Research Development program, Dr Abrahamowicz as a scientist by the Medical Research Council, and Dr Mayo as a scientist by the Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec.
Acknowledgment: We thank Deputy Minister Mireille Fillion, Mme Marie Demers, M. Pierre Joubert, and Mme Hélène Beaulieu for initiating and supporting this evaluation; M. Jacques Barry for providing the data needed to conduct these studies, and Jimmy Fragos and Lyne Nadeau for their expert data analysis; M. Robert Jacob for his critical review and insights into methodological problems; Maurice McGregor for his comments on the research program and future directions; and Jennifer Auchinleck and Benita Goldin for their insights about grass-roots issues faced by elderly and welfare recipients.
Corresponding Author and Reprints: Robyn Tamblyn, PhD, McGill University Health Center, Royal Victoria Hospital Site, Ross Pavilion, Room 4-12, 687 Pine Ave W, Montréal, Quebec, Canada H3A 1A1.
Author Affiliations: McGill University, Department of Medicine and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Montréal, Quebec.
REFERENCES
| |
1. Soumerai SB, Ross-Degnan D. Inadequate prescription-drug coverage for medicare enrollees: a call to action. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:722-728.
FREE FULL TEXT
2. Minister of Public Works and Government Services. Canadian Health Action: Building on the Legacy: Synthesis Reports and Issues Papers. Ottawa, Ontario: National Forum on Health; 1997. Cat No. H21-126/5-2-1997E.
3. Soumerai SB, Ross-Degnan D, Fortess EE, Abelson J. A critical analysis of studies of state drug reimbursement policies: research in need of discipline. Milbank Q. 1993;71:217-252.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
4. Levy R. Prescription cost sharing economic and health impacts, and implications for health policy. Pharmacoeconomics. 1992;2:219-237.
PUBMED
5. Huttin C. The use of prescription charges. Health Policy. 1994;27:53-73.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
6. Reeder CE, Lingle EW, Schulz RM, et al. Economic impact of cost-containment strategies in third party programmes in the US (part 1). Pharmacoeconomics. 1993;4:92-103.
PUBMED
7. Hurley J, Arbuthnot Johnson N. The effects of co-payments within drug reimbursement programs. Can Public Policy. 1991;17:473-489.
8. Ryan M, Birch S. Charging for health care: evidence on the utilisation of NHS prescribed drugs. Soc Sci Med. 1991;33:681-687.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
9. Martin BC, McMillan JA. The impact of implementing a more restrictive prescription limit on Medicaid recipients. Med Care. 1996;34:686-701.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
10. Johnson RE, Goodman RM, Hornbrook MC, Eldredge MB. The effect of increased prescription drug cost-sharing on medical care utilization and expenses of elderly health maintenance organization members. Med Care. 1997;35:1119-1131.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
11. Leibowitz A, Manning WG, Newhouse JP. The demand for prescription drugs as a function of cost-sharing. Soc Sci Med. 1985;21:1063-1069.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
12. Harris BL, Stergachis A, Ried LD. The effect of drug co-payments on utilization and cost of pharmaceuticals in a health maintenance organization. Med Care. 1990;28:907-917.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
13. O'Brien B. The effect of patient charges on the utilization of prescription medicines. J Health Econ. 1989;8:109-132.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
14. Smith DG. The effects of copayments and generic substitution on the use and costs of prescription drugs. Inquiry. 1993;30:189-198.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
15. Nelson AA, Reeder CE, Dickson M. The effect of a Medicaid drug copayment program on the utilization and cost of prescription services. Med Care. 1984;22:724-736.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
16. Lohr KN, Brook RH, Kamberg C, et al. Use of medical care in the RAND health insurance experiment: diagnosis and service-specific analyses in a randomized controlled trial. Santa Monica, Calif: RAND; 1986.
17. Reeder CE, Nelson AA. The differential impact of copayment on drug use in a Medicaid population. Inquiry. 1985;22:396-403.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
18. Soumerai SB, Avorn J, Ross-Degnan D, Gortmaker S. Payment restrictions for prescription drugs under Medicaid: effects on therapy, cost, and equity. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:550-556.
ABSTRACT
19. Soumerai SB, McLaughlin TJ, Ross-Degnan D, Casteris CS, Bollini P. Effects of limiting Medicaid drug-reimbursement benefits on the use of psychotropic agents and acute mental health services by patients with schizophrenia. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:650-655.
FREE FULL TEXT
20. Soumerai SB, Ross-Degnan D, Avorn J, McLaughlin TJ, Choodnovskkiy I. Effects of Medicaid drug-payment limits on admission to hospitals and nursing homes. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:1072-1077.
ABSTRACT
21. Brook RH, Ware JE, Rogers WH, et al. Does free care improve adults' health? results from a randomized controlled trial. N Engl J Med. 1983;309:1426-1434.
ABSTRACT
22. Newhouse JP The Insurance Experiment Group. Free for All? Lessons From the RAND Health Insurance Experiment. London, England: Harvard University Press; 1993.
23. Martin M. Quebec considering universal drug insurance. CMAJ. 1996;154:1264.
PUBMED
24. World Health Organization. Essential drugs. WHO Drug Information. 1999;13:249-262.
25. McGavock H, Wilson-Davis K, Niblock RWF. Unsuspected patterns of drug utilization revealed by interrogation of a regional general practitioner prescribing database. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 1992;1:73-80.
26. Soumerai SB, McLaughlin TJ, Avorn J. Improving drug prescribing in primary care: a critical analysis of the experimental literature. Milbank Q. 1989;67:268-317.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
27. Goetghebeur E, Molenberghs G, Katz J. Estimating the causal effect of compliance on binary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. Stat Med. 1998;17:341-355.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
28. Morgenstern H. Ecological studies. In: Rothman K, Greenland S, eds. Modern Epidemiology. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott-Raven; 1998:459-480.
29. Tamblyn RM, Lavoie G, Petrella L, Monette J. The use of prescription claims databases in pharmacoepidemiological research: the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the prescription claims database in Quebec. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:999-1009.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
30. Tamblyn RM, Reid T, Mayo N, McLeod PJ, Churchill-Smith M. Using medical services claims to assess injuries in the elderly: the sensitivity of diagnostic and procedure codes for injury ascertainment. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:183-194.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
31. Demers M. Cout des services médicaux durant la dernière année de vie au Québec en 1991. Québec, Direction générale de l'évaluation et du contrôle, Régie de l'assurance-maladie du Québec; 1994:ix-39.
32. Tamblyn R, Abrahamowicz M. Drug utilization patterns. In: Armitage P, Coulton T, eds. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 1998:1235-1247.
33. Wilkins K. Use of postal codes and addresses in the analysis of health data. Health Rep. 1993;5:157-177.
PUBMED
34. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373-383.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
35. Deyo RA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: a response. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:1075-1079.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
36. Ward MM, Leigh JP. Pooled time series regression analysis in longitudinal studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:645-659.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
37. Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrics. 1986;73:13-22.
FULL TEXT
38. Zeger SL, Liang KY. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics. 1986;42:121-130.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
39. Greenland S, Drescher K. Maximum likelihood estimation of the attributable fraction from logistic models. Biometrics. 1993;49:865-872.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
40. Rockhill B, Weinberg CR, Newman B. Population attributable fraction estimation for established breast cancer risk factors: considering the issues of high prevalence and unmodifiability. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;147:826-833.
FREE FULL TEXT
41. Efron B, Tibshirani R. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall; 1993.
42. Grymonpre RE, Didur CD, Montgomery PR, Sitar DS. Pill count, self-report, and pharmacy claims data to measure medication adherence in the elderly. Ann Pharmacother. 1998;32:749-754.
ABSTRACT
43. Inui TS, Carter WB, Pecoraro RE, Pearlman RA, Dohan JJ. Variations in patient compliance with common long-term drugs. Med Care. 1980;18:986-993.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
44. Lau HS, de Boer A, Beuning KS, Porsius A. Validation of pharmacy records in drug exposure assessment. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:619-625.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
45. Lurie N, Ward NB, Shapiro MF, Gallego C, Vaghaiwalla R, Brook RH. Termination of medical benefits: a follow-up study one year later. N Engl J Med. 1986;314:1266-1268.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
46. Simon GE, Grothaus L, Durham ML, VonKorff M, Pabiniak C. Inpact of visit copayments on outpatient mental health utilization by members of a health maintenance organization. Am J Psychiatry. 1996;153:331-338.
FREE FULL TEXT
47. Bloom BS, Jacobs J. Cost effects of restricting cost-effective therapy. Med Care. 1985;23:872-879.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
48. Simon GE, VonKorff M, Durham ML. Predictors of outpatient mental health utilization by primary care patients in a health maintenance organization. Am J Psychiatry. 1994;151:908-913.
FREE FULL TEXT
49. Bacovsky RA. Federal, Provincial and Territorial Government-Sponsored Drug Plans and Drug Databases. Health Canada 1997; Background information Prepared for the Conference on National Approaches to Pharmacare on January 18-20, 1998 (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan).
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED LETTER
Cost-Sharing for Prescription Drugs
Teresa B. Gibson, Catherine G. McLaughlin, Dean G. Smith, Robyn Tamblyn, Michal Abrahamowicz, Jim Hanley, Nancy Mayo, and Jerry Hurley
JAMA. 2001;285(18):2328-2329.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLE
January 24/31, 2001
JAMA. 2001;285(4):475-476.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults
Wilper et al.
AJPH 2009;99:2289-2295.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Cost-Related Nonadherence to Medications Among Patients With Diabetes and Chronic Pain: Factors beyond finances
Kurlander et al.
Diabetes Care 2009;32:2143-2148.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Unhealthy State Of Health Policy Research
Majumdar and Soumerai
Health Aff (Millwood) 2009;28:w900-w908.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Effect of Medicare Part D on Drug and Medical Spending
Zhang et al.
NEJM 2009;361:52-61.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Sources of variation in the costs of health care for asthma patients in Australia
Kenny et al.
J Health Serv Res Policy 2009;14:133-140.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Using Patent Data to Assess the Value of Pharmaceutical Innovation
Kesselheim and Avorn
J Law Med Ethics 2009;37:176-183.
Medicaid Prescription Drug Policies and Medication Access and Continuity: Findings From Ten States
West et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2009;60:601-610.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Drug Company-Sponsored Patient Assistance Programs: A Viable Safety Net?
Choudhry et al.
Health Aff (Millwood) 2009;28:827-834.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Cost Sharing and the Initiation of Drug Therapy for the Chronically Ill--Invited Commentary
Majumdar
Arch Intern Med 2009;169:748-749.
FULL TEXT
Treatment Patterns for Schizoaffective Disorder and Schizophrenia Among Medicaid Patients
Olfson et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2009;60:210-216.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Health Insurance, Medical Care, and Health Outcomes: A Model of Elderly Health Dynamics
Yang et al.
J. Human Resources 2009;44:47-114.
ABSTRACT
P4P4P: An Agenda For Research On Pay-For-Performance For Patients
Volpp et al.
Health Aff (Millwood) 2009;28:206-214.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Cost Sharing and HEDIS Performance
Chernew and Gibson
Med Care Res Rev 2008;65:713-728.
ABSTRACT
Cardiovascular Outcomes after a Change in Prescription Policy for Clopidogrel
Jackevicius et al.
NEJM 2008;359:1802-1810.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Randomized Trial of the Effectiveness of On-demand versus Computer-triggered Drug Decision Support in Primary Care
Tamblyn et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2008;15:430-438.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Impact Of Consumer-Directed Health Plans On Prescription Drug Use
Greene et al.
Health Aff (Millwood) 2008;27:1111-1119.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Public And Private Health Insurance: Stacking Up The Costs
Ku and Broaddus
Health Aff (Millwood) 2008;27:w318-w327.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Medication strategies used by Medicare beneficiaries who reach the Part D standard drug-benefit threshold
Cronk et al.
Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008;65:1062-1070.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Five-year follow-up of an evidence-based prescribing intervention
Meagher et al.
Psychiatr. Bull. 2008;32:183-186.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Medicare Beneficiaries' Knowledge of Part D Prescription Drug Program Benefits and Responses to Drug Costs
Hsu et al.
JAMA 2008;299:1929-1936.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The International Pharmaceutical Market as a Source of Low-Cost Prescription Drugs for U.S. Patients
Kesselheim and Choudhry
ANN INTERN MED 2008;148:614-619.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Impact of Cost Sharing on Antidepressant Use Among Older Adults in British Columbia
Wang et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2008;59:377-383.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Cost-Effectiveness of Providing Full Drug Coverage to Increase Medication Adherence in Post-Myocardial Infarction Medicare Beneficiaries
Choudhry et al.
Circulation 2008;117:1261-1268.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Scientific and Legal Viability of Follow-on Protein Drugs
Dudzinski and Kesselheim
NEJM 2008;358:843-849.
FULL TEXT
Comparison of provincial prescription drug plans and the impact on patients' annual drug expenditures
Demers et al.
CMAJ 2008;178:405-409.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Trend and variation of prescription drug cost in the veterans health-care system
Gao and Campbell
Health Serv Manage Res 2008;21:14-22.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effect of Cost-Sharing on Use of Asthma Medication in Children
Ungar et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2008;162:104-110.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Prescription Cost-Sharing and Child Asthma
Shone and Szilagyi
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2008;162:184-186.
FULL TEXT
Drug Licenses: A New Model For Pharmaceutical Pricing
Goldman et al.
Health Aff (Millwood) 2008;27:122-129.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Our Health Care System at the Crossroads: Single Payer or Market Reform?
Himmelstein et al.
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2007;84:1435-1446.
FULL TEXT
Burden of Common Multiple-Morbidity Constellations on Out-of-Pocket Medical Expenditures Among Older Adults
Schoenberg et al.
Gerontologist 2007;47:423-437.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Prescription Drug Cost Sharing: Associations With Medication and Medical Utilization and Spending and Health
Goldman et al.
JAMA 2007;298:61-69.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Identifying Widely Covered Drugs and Drug Coverage Variation Among Medicare Part D Formularies
Tseng et al.
JAMA 2007;297:2596-2602.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Reduced Medication Access: A Marker for Vulnerability in US Stroke Survivors
Levine et al.
Stroke 2007;38:1557-1564.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Adherence to Statin Therapy Under Drug Cost Sharing in Patients With and Without Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Population-Based Natural Experiment
Schneeweiss et al.
Circulation 2007;115:2128-2135.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Linking Cost Sharing to Value: An Unrivaled Yet Unrealized Public Health Opportunity
Braithwaite and Rosen
ANN INTERN MED 2007;146:602-605.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Financial Barriers to Health Care and Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction
Rahimi et al.
JAMA 2007;297:1063-1072.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Emergency Department Use and Subsequent Hospitalizations Among Members of a High-Deductible Health Plan
Wharam et al.
JAMA 2007;297:1093-1102.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Differences in Prescription Drug Use in HMO and Self-insured Health Plans
Wallack et al.
Med Care Res Rev 2007;64:98-116.
ABSTRACT
Extensions Of Intellectual Property Rights And Delayed Adoption Of Generic Drugs: Effects On Medicaid Spending
Kesselheim et al.
Health Aff (Millwood) 2006;25:1637-1647.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Falling into the Doughnut Hole: Drug Spending among Beneficiaries with End-Stage Renal Disease under Medicare Part D Plans
Patel and Davis
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2006;17:2546-2553.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Practical Physicians' Guide to the Medicare Drug Benefit Plan
Federman et al.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2006;81:1217-1221.
FULL TEXT
Physicians' Perceived Knowledge of and Responsibility for Managing Patients' Out-of-Pocket Costs for Prescription Drugs
Shrank et al.
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2006;40:1534-1540.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Patient-Reported Underuse of Prescription Medications: A Comparison of Nine Surveys
Kirking et al.
Med Care Res Rev 2006;63:427-446.
ABSTRACT
Unintended consequences of caps on medicare drug benefits.
Hsu et al.
NEJM 2006;354:2349-2359.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Frequent Outpatient Contact and Decreasing Medication Affordability in Patients With Diabetes From 1997 to 2004.
Grant et al.
Diabetes Care 2006;29:1386-1388.
FULL TEXT
Financing mental health services in low- and middle-income countries
Dixon et al.
Health Policy Plan 2006;21:171-182.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Development and Evaluation of an Integrated Electronic Prescribing and Drug Management System for Primary Care
Tamblyn et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2006;13:148-159.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Implications of part d for mentally ill dual eligibles: a challenge for medicare.
Morden and Garrison
Health Aff (Millwood) 2006;25:491-500.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effect on health outcomes of a community-based medication therapy management program for seniors with limited incomes
Smith et al.
Am J Health Syst Pharm 2006;63:372-379.
FULL TEXT
A Call for Fairness in Formulary Decisions
Levinson and Laupacis
Arch Intern Med 2006;166:16-18.
FULL TEXT
Consumer-driven health plans: early evidence and potential impact on hospitals.
Wilensky
Health Aff (Millwood) 2006;25:174-185.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
How The New Medicare Drug Benefit Could Affect Vulnerable Populations
Gellad et al.
Health Aff (Millwood) 2006;25:248-255.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
When patients have to pay a share of drug costs: effects on frequency of physician visits, hospital admissions and filling of prescriptions
Anis et al.
CMAJ 2005;173:1335-1340.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Prescription to over-the-counter deregulation in Canada: Are we ready for it, or do we need to be?
Lynd et al.
CMAJ 2005;173:775-777.
FULL TEXT
Medicaid programme changes and the chronically ill: early results from a prospective cohort study of the Oregon Health Plan
Solotaroff et al.
Chronic Illness 2005;1:191-205.
ABSTRACT
Managing the Unmanageable: The Nature and Impact of Drug Risk in Physician Groups
Lipton et al.
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 2005;30:719-750.
ABSTRACT
Cost-Effectiveness of Full Medicare Coverage of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors for Beneficiaries with Diabetes
Rosen et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2005;143:89-99.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Physician Strategies to Reduce Patients' Out-of-pocket Prescription Costs
Alexander et al.
Arch Intern Med 2005;165:633-636.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use Among Elderly Home Care Patients in Europe
Fialova et al.
JAMA 2005;293:1348-1358.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Cost-Effectiveness of Adherence-Enhancing Interventions: A Quality Assessment of the Evidence
Elliott et al.
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2005;39:508-515.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Are Incentive-Based Formularies Inversely Associated with Drug Utilization in Managed Care?
Gleason et al.
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2005;39:339-345.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Physicians' attitudes to the pharmacological treatment of patients with stable angina pectoris
Beaulieu et al.
QJM 2005;98:41-51.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Book Review: The Impact of Cost-Sharing on Appropriate Utilization and Health Status: A Review of the Literature on Seniors
Rice and Matsuoka
Med Care Res Rev 2004;61:415-452.
ABSTRACT
Best Practices: Using Best Practices to Manage Psychiatric Medications Under Medicaid
Parks and Surles
Psychiatr. Serv. 2004;55:1227-1229.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Polypharmacy: A New Paradigm for Quality Drug Therapy in the Elderly?
Gurwitz
Arch Intern Med 2004;164:1957-1959.
FULL TEXT
Cost-Related Medication Underuse Among Chronically III Adults: the Treatments People Forgo, How Often, and Who Is at Risk
Piette et al.
AJPH 2004;94:1782-1787.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Cost-Related Medication Underuse: Do Patients With Chronic Illnesses Tell Their Doctors?
Piette et al.
Arch Intern Med 2004;164:1749-1755.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Prescription Drug Spending Trends For The Privately Insured In Maryland, 2000-2001
Shaya et al.
Health Aff (Millwood) 2004;23:226-232.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Glycemic self-monitoring and insurance coverage
Heisler
CMAJ 2004;171:48-49.
FULL TEXT
Do Drug Benefits Help Medicare Beneficiaries Afford Prescribed Drugs?
Rector and Venus
Health Aff (Millwood) 2004;23:213-222.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
How Does Private Finance Affect Public Health Care Systems? Marshaling the Evidence from OECD Nations
Tuohy et al.
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 2004;29:359-396.
ABSTRACT
Pharmacy Benefits and the Use of Drugs by the Chronically Ill
Goldman et al.
JAMA 2004;291:2344-2350.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Clinical and economic consequences of a reimbursement restriction of nebulised respiratory therapy in adults: direct comparison of randomised and observational evaluations
Schneeweiss et al.
BMJ 2004;328:560.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Dramatic Improvement or Death Spiral -- Two Members of Congress Assess the Medicare Bill
Kennedy and Thomas
NEJM 2004;350:747-751.
FULL TEXT
Problems Paying Out-of-Pocket Medication Costs Among Older Adults With Diabetes
Piette et al.
Diabetes Care 2004;27:384-391.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Benefits And Risks Of Increasing Restrictions On Access To Costly Drugs In Medicaid
Soumerai
Health Aff (Millwood) 2004;23:135-146.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Gaps in the evaluation and monitoring of new pharmaceuticals: proposal for a different approach
Laupacis et al.
CMAJ 2003;169:1167-1170.
FULL TEXT
The medical office of the 21st century (MOXXI): effectiveness of computerized decision-making support in reducing inappropriate prescribing in primary care
Tamblyn et al.
CMAJ 2003;169:549-556.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Improving Medication Use for Older Adults: An Integrated Research Agenda
Murray and Callahan
ANN INTERN MED 2003;139:425-429.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Out-of-Pocket Costs and Diabetes Preventive Services: The Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD) study
Karter et al.
Diabetes Care 2003;26:2294-2299.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Impact of an Annual Dollar Limit or "Cap" on Prescription Drug Benefits for Medicare Patients
Tseng et al.
JAMA 2003;290:222-227.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Whither Seniors' Pharmacare: Lessons From (And For) Canada
Morgan et al.
Health Aff (Millwood) 2003;22:49-59.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Composition and Cost of Drugs Stored at Home by Elderly Patients
Wasserfallen et al.
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2003;37:731-737.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Awareness, Knowledge, and Attitudes of Older Americans About High Blood Pressure: Implications for Health Care Policy, Education, and Research
Egan et al.
Arch Intern Med 2003;163:681-687.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Flexibility Factor: Finding The Right Balance
Mann
Health Aff (Millwood) 2003;22:62-76.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Pharmaceutical cost containment with reference-based pricing: time for refinements
Schneeweiss et al.
CMAJ 2002;167:1250-1251.
FULL TEXT
Employer Drug Benefit Plans and Spending on Prescription Drugs
Joyce et al.
JAMA 2002;288:1733-1739.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Pharmacy Benefit Plans and Prescription Drug Spending
Steinwachs
JAMA 2002;288:1773-1774.
FULL TEXT
Improving the Quality of Medication Use in Elderly Patients: A Not-So-Simple Prescription
Gurwitz and Rochon
Arch Intern Med 2002;162:1670-1672.
FULL TEXT
The effects of cost-sharing on essential drug prescriptions, utilization of medical care and outcomes after acute myocardial infarction in elderly patients
Pilote et al.
CMAJ 2002;167:246-252.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Outcomes of Reference Pricing for Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme Inhibitors
Schneeweiss et al.
NEJM 2002;346:822-829.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Impact of reference-based pricing for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on drug utilization
Schneeweiss et al.
CMAJ 2002;166:737-745.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Supplemental Insurance and Use of Effective Cardiovascular Drugs Among Elderly Medicare Beneficiaries With Coronary Heart Disease
Federman et al.
JAMA 2001;286:1732-1739.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Affordable Prescriptions for the Elderly
Bodenheimer
JAMA 2001;286:1762-1763.
FULL TEXT
Income-based drug benefit policy: impact on receipt of inhaled corticosteroid prescriptions by Manitoba children with asthma
Kozyrskyj et al.
CMAJ 2001;165:897-902.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Cost-Sharing for Prescription Drugs
Gibson et al.
JAMA 2001;285:2328-2329.
FULL TEXT
Does Prescription Drug Cost Sharing Lead to Adverse Events?
JWatch General 2001;2001:7-7.
FULL TEXT
|
