Pharmaceutical policies: effects of cap and co-payment on rational use of medicines.

BACKGROUND: Growing expenditures on prescription medicines represent a major challenge to many health systems. Cap and co-payment policies are intended as an incentive to deter unnecessary or marginal utilisation, and to reduce third-party payer expenditures by shifting parts of the financial burden from insurers to patients, thus increasing their financial responsibility for prescription medicines. Direct patient payment policies include caps (maximum numbers of prescriptions or medicines that are reimbursed), fixed co-payments (patients pay a fixed amount per prescription or medicine), co-insurance (patients pay a percentage of the price), ceilings (patients pay the full price or part of the cost up to a ceiling, after which medicines are free or are available at reduced cost) and tier co-payments (differential co-payments usually assigned to generic and brand medicines). This is the first update of the original review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of cap and co-payment (cost-sharing) policies on use of medicines, healthcare utilisation, health outcomes and costs (expenditures). SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the following databases and websites: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Library; MEDLINE, Ovid; EMBASE, Ovid; IPSA, EBSCO; EconLit, ProQuest; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, ProQuest; PAIS International, ProQuest; INRUD Bibliography; WHOLIS, WHO; LILACS), VHL; Global Health Library WHO; PubMed, NHL; SCOPUS; SciELO, BIREME; OpenGrey; JOLIS Library Network; OECD Library; World Bank e-Library; World Health Organization, WHO; World Bank Documents & Reports; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), WHO; ClinicalTrials.gov, NIH. We searched all databases during January and February 2013, apart from SciELO, which we searched in January 2012, and ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov, which we searched in March 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We defined policies in this review as laws, rules or financial or administrative orders made by governments, non-government organisations or private insurers. We included randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series studies, repeated measures studies and controlled before-after studies of cap or co-payment policies for a large jurisdiction or system of care. To be included, a study had to include an objective measure of at least one of the following outcomes: medicine use, healthcare utilisation, health outcomes or costs (expenditures). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study limitations. We reanalysed time series data for studies with sufficient data, if appropriate analyses were not reported. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 full-text articles (17 new) reporting evaluations of 39 different interventions (one study - Newhouse 1993 - comprises five papers). We excluded from this update eight controlled before-after studies included in the previous version of this review, because they included only one site in their intervention or control groups. Five papers evaluated caps, and six evaluated a cap with co-insurance and a ceiling. Six evaluated fixed co-payment, two evaluated tiered fixed co-payment, 10 evaluated a ceiling with fixed co-payment and 10 evaluated a ceiling with co-insurance. Only one evaluation was a randomised trial. The certainty of the evidence was found to be generally low to very low.Increasing the amount of money that people pay for medicines may reduce insurers' medicine expenditures and may reduce patients' medicine use. This may include reductions in the use of life-sustaining medicines as well as medicines that are important in treating chronic conditions and medicines for asymptomatic conditions. These types of interventions may lead to small decreases in or uncertain effects on healthcare utilisation. We found no studies that reliably reported the effects of these types of interventions on health outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The diversity of interventions and outcomes addressed across studies and differences in settings, populations and comparisons made it difficult to summarise results across studies. Cap and co-payment polices may reduce the use of medicines and reduce medicine expenditures for health insurers. However, they may also reduce the use of life-sustaining medicines or medicines that are important in treating chronic, including symptomatic, conditions and, consequently, could increase the use of healthcare services. Fixed co-payment with a ceiling and tiered fixed co-payment may be less likely to reduce the use of essential medicines or to increase the use of healthcare services.

Uptake of new antidiabetic medications in three emerging markets: a comparison between Brazil, China and Thailand.

OBJECTIVES: New antidiabetic medications such as insulin analogues and thiazolidinediones have been introduced over the last decade. This study compares the uptake of new agents in three emerging pharmaceutical markets: Brazil, China, and Thailand. METHODS: Using longitudinal IMS Health sales data, we calculated the quarterly percentage market share for types of insulins and oral hypoglycemic agents from 2002 through 2012 in each country. New oral hypoglycemic agents included: alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and non-sulfonylurea secretagogues. RESULTS: While China had the highest use of insulin cartridges and pens (85.6% in 2010), Brazil was the earliest adopter of insulin analogues and had the greatest use of these products overall (44.6% of the insulin market) in 2010, which then decreased by almost half by 2012. Together, sulfonylureas and metformin dominated the markets in Brazil and Thailand (~89% and ~96% respectively) over the 10-year period. Between 2002 and 2012, there was a shift in use from sulfonylureas to metformin; the market share of newer agents remained 10% or less in both countries. In China, however, market share of new oral agents grew rapidly from 13.1% to 44.4%. While metformin use was relatively stable in China (one-third of the market), sulfonylureas declined substantially over the 10-year period (41.5% to 20.8%). CONCLUSION: Given large cost differentials between newer and older insulins and among oral hypoglycemic agents, it is important to evaluate uptake of newer products over time. Uptake patterns differed in the study countries, likely due to different medicines policy approaches. Future research should evaluate how trends in use of antidiabetic products align with national clinical practice guidelines and pharmaceutical policies, as well as the impacts of different patterns of use on cost and clinical outcomes.