Provider perceptions of barriers to biosimilar utilization in community oncology practices.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilars reduce the burden of cost on patients and payers, and so doing, increase access to life-saving care. However, biosimilar uptake in the US has been inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: This study assessed provider perceptions of barriers to biosimilar use and their relationships to utilization rates in a large, national oncology network and examined if perceptions differed by demographic and practice characteristics. METHODS: A 28-item survey was administered to 400 network physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and administrators, spanning 25 provider groups, and measured 1) barriers to use categorized into 4 subscales-payer-related, provider-related, operational, and patient-related, using a Likert scale ranging from Never (1) to Always (5); and 2) demographic and practice characteristics. Utilization rates were assessed using aggregated patient-level drug administration data found in the electronic health record system. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to describe responses and assess relationships between variables. RESULTS: A total of 46 responses were analyzed, with a response rate of 11.5%. Most respondents were female (55.6%), physicians (52.2%), with over 6 years of experience (67%). A majority worked in practices participating in the Oncology Care Model (86.7%) and received continuing education on biosimilars (84.8%). Overall scale score was moderately low (mean=2.31), indicating low levels of perceived barriers. The lowest subscale score was operational barriers (mean=2.21), while payer-related barriers was the highest (mean=2.78). Perceptions of barriers did not differ based on demographic and practice characteristics. The average biosimilar utilization rate was 66.2%, with practices in the West administering biosimilars most frequently (71.8%). Utilization was not impacted by perceptions of barriers. CONCLUSION: Perceived barriers to biosimilar utilization were not common and not associated with utilization. Infrequent impediments to utilization may be associated with network-wide emphasis on continuing education and a value-based care environment. Future research should consider other practice- and patient-level factors that may impact biosimilar utilization.

One-Year Medication Treatment Patterns, Healthcare Resource Utilization, and Expenditures for Medicaid Patients with Schizophrenia Starting Oral Atypical Antipsychotic Medication.

Oral atypical antipsychotic (OAAP) medications are the most commonly prescribed treatment for the management of schizophrenia symptoms. This retrospective study, using Medicaid claims data (2016-2020), followed patients for 12 months after initiating OAAP therapy. Study outcomes included OAAP adherence, switching, augmentation, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and expenditures. All-cause and schizophrenia-related HRU and expenditures were compared between adherent and nonadherent cohorts. Among 13,007 included patients (39.1 ± 12.8 years of age, 57.0% male, 36.1% Black, 31.8% White, 9.7% Hispanic), 25.7% were adherent to OAAPs (proportion of days covered [PDC] ≥ 0.8). During the 1-year follow-up period, Black individuals were in possession of an OAAP for an average of 166 days compared to 198 and 202 days for White and Hispanic patients, respectively. Approximately 16% of patients switched OAAP medications and 3.2% augmented therapy with an OAAP added to their index medication. Nearly 40% of patients were hospitalized during follow-up and 68.4% had emergency department (ED) visits. A greater proportion of nonadherent patients had all-cause inpatient (41.7% vs. 34.1%, p < 0.001) and ED visits (71.7% vs. 58.8%, p < 0.001) compared to adherent patients. Annual total healthcare expenditures were $21,020 per patient; $3481 higher for adherent versus nonadherent patients. Inpatient expenditures comprised 44.6% and 30.6% of total expenditures for nonadherent and adherent patients, respectively. Hospitalized patients' total expenditures were $23,261 higher compared to those without a hospitalization. Adherence to OAAP medication is suboptimal and associated with increased utilization of costly hospital and ED resources. Efforts to improve therapies and increase medication adherence could improve clinical and economic outcomes among individuals with schizophrenia.

Infectious diseases specialty intervention is associated with decreased mortality and lower healthcare costs.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies, largely based on chart reviews with small sample sizes, have demonstrated that infectious diseases (ID) specialists positively impact patient outcomes. We investigated how ID specialists impact mortality, utilization, and costs using a large claims dataset. METHODS: We used administrative fee-for-service Medicare claims to identify beneficiaries hospitalized from 2008 to 2009 with at least 1 of 11 infections. There were 101 991 stays with and 170 336 stays without ID interventions. Cohorts were propensity score matched for patient demographics, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics. Regression models compared ID versus non-ID intervention and early versus late ID intervention. Risk-adjusted outcomes included hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), mortality, readmissions, hospital charges, and Medicare payments. RESULTS: The ID intervention cohort demonstrated significantly lower mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], .83 to .91) and readmissions (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, .93 to .99) than the non-ID intervention cohort. Medicare charges and payments were not significantly different; the ID intervention cohort ICU LOS was 3.7% shorter (95% CI, -5.5% to -1.9%). Patients receiving ID intervention within 2 days of admission had significantly lower 30-day mortality and readmission, hospital and ICU length of stay, and Medicare charges and payments compared with patients receiving later ID interventions. CONCLUSIONS: ID interventions are associated with improved patient outcomes. Early ID interventions are also associated with reduced costs for Medicare beneficiaries with select infections.

Association Between Persistence with Oral Atypical Antipsychotic Medications and Hospital and Emergency Department Utilization in Medicaid Patients with Schizophrenia.

Purpose: To examine 1-year persistence with oral atypical antipsychotics (OAAPs) for Medicaid patients with schizophrenia and assess the association between OAAP persistence and hospital and emergency department (ED) resource utilization. Patients and Methods: Using 2016-2020 multi-state Medicaid claims data, this retrospective study followed patients diagnosed with schizophrenia for 12 months after initiating OAAP therapy. Patients started on an OAAP with no evidence of antipsychotic use in the previous 6 months were included if they had a diagnosis of schizophrenia, were not dually enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare, did not switch to a long-acting injectable antipsychotic, and were continuously eligible 6 months before and 12 months after the initial OAAP prescription (index date). OAAP persistence was measured allowing for a <60-day gap. All-cause and schizophrenia-related inpatient and emergency department (ED) resource utilization during the follow-up period were compared between OAAP persistent and non-persistent groups. Results: The study sample of 13,007 had an average age of 39.1 years and 57.0% were male. Patients were persistent with their index OAAP for 135 days on average and 73.1% had a ≥60-day gap in antipsychotic therapy post-index. While 32.8% and 28.6% of patients who did not persist with their index OAAP restarted the index OAAP or switched to a different OAAP medication later in the year, respectively, a larger proportion (38.6%) had no further OAAP prescriptions. After adjustment for demographic and clinical variables, compared to non-persistent patients, persisting with OAAPs was significantly associated with fewer all-cause and schizophrenia-related hospitalizations (Incidence Rate Ratio [IRR]=0.742, p<0.001; IRR=0.823, p<0.001; respectively) and ED visits (IRR=0.759, p<0.001; IRR=0.773, p<0.001; respectively). Conclusion: Non-persistence with OAAP medication is common among patients with schizophrenia and associated with negative outcomes including increased utilization of hospital and ED resources. Patient-centered interventions that improve antipsychotic persistence should be implemented to facilitate optimal outcomes in this population.

Procurement and use of social determinants of health data among key health care stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence supports the need for health systems to shift towards addressing social determinants of health (SDoH) as part of routine care. However, little is known about the state of the industry in terms of procurement and use of SDoH data. OBJECTIVES: To assess stakeholders' perceptions and experiences in collecting and utilizing SDoH data. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted using a 24-item electronic survey. The pilot-tested survey was distributed to a diverse convenience sample of 94 health care stakeholder organizations that are members of the Pharmacy Quality Alliance organization. Survey responses were collected from November to December 2020. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze responses. RESULTS: A total of 25 respondents completed the survey (response rate = 26.6%). More than half (n = 14, 56.0%) collected and tracked SDoH data, and of those, most (n = 6, 42.85%) reported using organization-specific tools instead of standardized SDoH tools. Economic stability and health and health care indicators were the most frequently identified types of SDoH data collected. Participants reported that both identifying (mean = 3.88 ± SD = 0.88; 1 = not important to 5 = extremely important) and addressing (3.88 ± 0.93) patients' SDoH were moderately important to their organization. Lack of standard data format (72.0%), lack of time (52.0%), and lack of technological capabilities (44.0%) were the most commonly reported barriers to collecting SDoH data. However, value-based payment programs that reward addressing SDoH needs (76.0%) and a coding structure or reimbursement mechanism for identification and management of SDoH (60.0%) were most commonly reported as mechanisms to overcome SDoH data collection barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Health care stakeholders consider patient SDoH indicators important but report significant challenges in collecting these data. Solutions that address data standardization, time burden, technological barriers, and the offering of incentives could facilitate its collection and effective use. DISCLOSURES: Pharmacy Quality Alliance received an unrestricted grant from Pfizer, Inc, to support this work.

"It's Time to Represent": shifting the paradigm to improve the quality of inputs into value assessment frameworks.

"It's Time to Represent" integrates 2 strategies that challenge the status quo to increase the diversity of populations that participate in research and address drivers of health disparities to better inform value assessment. The first, a community-engaged campaign, proposes to develop authentic, long-term partnerships with community members, their health care providers, and researchers to tailor recruitment and retention methods for underrepresented groups and hold researchers accountable for equitable selection of study participants. The second proposes to create an expectation for researchers to routinely collect patient-reported, actionable social determinants of health data to generate enhanced real-world evidence and thereby improve the quality of inputs utilized in value assessment frameworks. DISCLOSURE: No specific funding was received for this manuscript. The authors report no potential conflicts of interest.

"It's Time to Represent": shifting the paradigm to improve the quality of inputs into value assessment frameworks.

"It's Time to Represent" integrates 2 strategies that challenge the status quo to increase the diversity of populations that participate in research and address drivers of health disparities to better inform value assessment. The first, a community-engaged campaign, proposes to develop authentic, long-term partnerships with community members, their health care providers, and researchers to tailor recruitment and retention methods for underrepresented groups and hold researchers accountable for equitable selection of study participants. The second proposes to create an expectation for researchers to routinely collect patient-reported, actionable social determinants of health data to generate enhanced real-world evidence and thereby improve the quality of inputs utilized in value assessment frameworks. DISCLOSURE: No specific funding was received for this manuscript. The authors report no potential conflicts of interest.

An assessment of Parkinson's disease medication treatment patterns in the Medicaid population.

INTRODUCTION: Most Parkinson's disease (PD) medication adherence studies have focused on patients with commercial or Medicare health insurance coverage. However, less is known regarding medication treatment patterns within the Medicaid population. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized 2011-2019 administrative healthcare claims from 7 state Medicaid programs. We compared newly diagnosed patients with PD started on either levodopa or a dopamine agonist (DA). Baseline comorbidities were compared. Outcomes were assessed during a 12-month post-index observation period, and included total medication days, proportion of days covered (PDC), adherence status, persistence to initiating PD medication, and time to non-persistence of initiating PD medication. RESULTS: Our study sample of 805 Medicaid patients had an average age of 54.1 years, with 52.0% being female. Levodopa was the predominant PD medication at initiation (75.4%). Roughly half of patients had a baseline depressive disorder and nearly 40% had an anxiety disorder. Levodopa patients had a significantly higher PDC compared to DA patients (0.621 vs. 0.546, p = 0.007). An adjusted logistic regression model showed no significant difference in the number of adherent patients between the two groups (p = 0.058). An adjusted Cox proportional hazards model controlling for demographic and baseline variables showed a 26% lower risk of non-persistence for levodopa patients versus DA patients (HR 0.740, CI 0.597-0.917, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence and persistence rates were suboptimal following initiation of either levodopa or DA medication for patients with PD in Medicaid programs, though rates were better for those initiated on levodopa.

A ready-to-use liquid glucagon for treatment of severe hypoglycemia demonstrates reduced healthcare payer costs in a budget impact model.

Research aim: To model the annual value of a novel ready-to-use, room-temperature stable liquid glucagon rescue pen and prefilled syringe (GRP, G-PFS; Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) for treatment of severe hypoglycemia events (SHE) versus current lyophilized powder glucagon emergency kits (GEK). GRP is a prefilled auto-injector designed to promptly administer concentrated liquid glucagon in a simple two-step process. G-PFS is a stable liquid formulation of glucagon in a prefilled syringe. In simulated emergencies, GRP and G-PFS demonstrated high functional efficacy, where 99% of users successfully administered a full-dose of drug. Studies with currently available injectable GEK suggest very low success rates (6-31%). The high functional efficacy of GRP and G-PFS significantly reduces user errors and may reduce utilization across emergency medical services (EMS), emergency departments (ED), and inpatient and outpatient costs for SHE.Methods: To estimate the economic impact of GRP and G-PFS, we developed a one-year budget impact model from a US commercial health plan perspective. Cost offsets from successful glucagon administration incorporated EMS, ED, inpatient, and outpatient utilization. Diabetes prevalence and event probabilities were estimated from publicly-available sources and clinical expert opinion. Costs (US$) were obtained from the 2018 Medicare Fee Schedules and adjusted to represent commercial payer costs.Results: GRP and G-PFS led to fewer EMS, ED, inpatient, and outpatient costs compared to GEK and no kit, resulting in total per-patient SHE costs of $2,564, $3,606, and $3,849, respectively. Costs for 1 million covered lives were 8.2 million following the introduction of GRP and G-PFS compared to almost 9 million before GRP and G-PFS.Limitations: The model is limited by reliance on assumptions based on expert opinion for key variables, primarily the probability of: (1) ambulance calls, (2) ambulance transport to the ED, and (3) non-ambulance transport to the ED.Conclusions: A budget impact model suggests GRP and G-PFS can lead to significant annual cost savings for US commercial payers.

Patient adherence and reimbursement amount for antidiabetic fixed-dose combination products compared with dual therapy among Texas Medicaid recipients.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the potential for improved adherence with and cost savings of fixed-dose combination therapy (FDCT) products compared with analogous dual therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were as follows: (1) to describe patient adherence to various oral antidiabetic regimens (ie, dual therapy and FDCT); (2) to determine whether there is a difference in medication adherence between FDCT users and analogous dual-therapy users; and (3) to assess whether there is a difference in reimbursement amounts between an FDCT product and its individual components. METHODS: This study was a retrospective cohort analysis using the Texas Medicaid prescription claims database. The study subjects included those who used antidiabetic FDCT or dual therapy from August 1, 2000, to July 31, 2004. The identification period of study subjects was between August 1, 2000, and July 31, 2004, including 12 months before and after the index date, so that the overall time frame was from August 1, 1999, through July 31, 2005. Prescription claims were analyzed over a 12-month preindex and 12-month postindex period. Adherence was measured using medication possession ratio (MPR), and regimen costs per tablet were assessed utilizing the index prescription. RESULTS: Overall, 7570 FDCT users and 14,762 dual-therapy users were identified. Regarding the postindex period, FDCT users had 1.8% higher MPR compared with dual-therapy users (78.6% vs 77.2%). Patients who switched from monotherapy to FDCT had a 1.5% decrease in adherence (from 79.7% to 78.5%), whereas those who switched from monotherapy to dual therapy had a 10.0% decrease in adherence (from 83.0% to 74.7%). Those who switched from dual therapy to FDCT had a 12.4% increase in adherence (from 72.7% to 81.7%). Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that among preindex monotherapy users, FDCT users were significantly more likely to have higher adherence than dual-therapy users (odds ratio [OR] = 1.867; 95% CI, 1.716-2.032) after controlling for covariates, and the results were similar among preindex dual-therapy users (OR = 1.551; 95% CI, 1.204-1.999). From the perspective of the third-party payer, all FDCT products were significantly less expensive than their equivalent individual components (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among these Texas Medicaid beneficiaries, antidiabetic FDCT users were more adherent to their regimen than dual-therapy users, and FDCT was less expensive than the analogous dual therapy. Because multiple agents are often required to achieve adequate glycemic control, it may be clinically and economically beneficial to treat eligible patients with FDCT products.

Extended-release, once-daily morphine (Avinza) for the treatment of chronic nonmalignant pain: effect on pain, depressive symptoms, and cognition.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of an extended-release, once-daily morphine sulfate formulation on depressive symptoms and neurocognition in patients with chronic nonmalignant pain. DESIGN: Prospective, open-label, one-group trial with a pretest-posttest design. SETTING: Outpatient pain management clinic. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION: Chronic nonmalignant pain patients inadequately controlled with short-acting opioid analgesics and eligible for treatment with once-daily morphine sulfate were initiated on a dose at or near the morphine-equivalent dose of the short-acting regimen. OUTCOMES: The following assessments were made at baseline and 4 weeks after initiating intervention: pain intensity, pain unpleasantness, pain suffering, pain behaviors, Beck Depression Inventory, and cognitive function. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients provided usable data. Pain intensity, unpleasantness, and suffering scores were significantly reduced at follow-up (P = 0.001). The mean Beck Depression Inventory scores were significantly lower at follow-up (P = 0.001). Significant improvements were seen in scores at follow-up on the three validated neurocognitive tests: the digit span test, the digit symbol substitution test, and the paced auditory serial addition test (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Achieving adequate pain control with once-daily morphine was associated with a reduction in pain and improvements in depressive symptoms and cognitive functioning in the short term.

Comparison of hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and costs in a historical cohort of Texas Medicaid patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, by initial medication regimen.

BACKGROUND: Limited information is available on the relative outcomes and treatment costs of various pharmacotherapies for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in a Medicaid population. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the effects of initial medication regimens for COPD on COPD-related and all-cause events (hospitalizations and/or emergency department [ED] visits) and COPD-related and all-cause costs. METHODS: The study population was a historical cohort of Texas Medicaid beneficiaries aged 40 to 64 years with COPD-related medical costs (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes 491.xx, 492.xx, 496.xx), 24 months of continuous Medicaid enrollment (12 months before and after the index prescription), and at least 1 prescription claim (index) for a combination product containing fluticasone propionate + salmeterol, an inhaled corticosteroid, salmeterol, or ipratropium between April 1, 2001, and March 31, 2003. The analyses of events employed Cox proportional hazards regression, controlling for baseline factors and preindex events. The analyses of costs used a 2-part model with logistic regression and generalized linear model to adjust for baseline characteristics and preindex utilization and costs. RESULTS: The study population included 6793 patients (1211 combination therapy, 968 inhaled corticosteroid, 401 salmeterol, and 4213 ipratropium). Only combination therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk for any COPD-related event (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.733; 95% CI, 0.650-0.826) and any all-cause event (HR = 0.906; 95% CI, 0.844-0.972) compared with ipratropium. COPD-related prescription costs were higher in all cohorts compared with the ipratropium cohort, but COPD-related medical costs were lower, offsetting the increase in prescription costs. For all-cause costs, prescription costs were higher in the combination-therapy cohort (+$415; P < 0.05) and the salmeterol cohort (+$247; P < 0.05) compared with the ipratropium cohort, but significant reductions in all-cause medical costs in the combination-therapy cohort (-$1735; P < 0.05) and salmeterol cohort (-$1547; P < 0.05) more than offset the increase in prescription costs. CONCLUSIONS: In this historical population of Texas Medicaid beneficiaries, the combination-therapy cohort was 27% less likely to have a COPD-related event than the ipratropium cohort, 10% less likely to have any all-cause event, had similar COPD-related costs, and had reduced all-cause costs. Thus, compared with the ipratropium cohort, the combination-therapy cohort had an improvement in outcomes (based on the decreased time to a hospitalization or ED visit), with similar or decreased direct medical costs. Future research is needed in other patient groups.

Topiramate prescribing patterns among medicaid patients: diagnosis, comorbidities, and dosing.

BACKGROUND: Routine clinical practice data are useful for payers and formulary decision makers to make sound decisions regarding coverage policy. Based on a literature search, there has been scant research into topiramate prescribing patterns among Medicaid patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe diagnoses, demographic characteristics, additional co-existing diagnoses, and dosing among Medicaid patients prescribed topiramate. METHODS: This descriptive, retrospective database analysis used data from South Carolina (SC) and Texas (TX) ambulatory Medicaid claims dated October 1, 2003, to December 31, 2004. Patients whose data were eligible for inclusion in the study were enrolled in Medicaid during the study period, had >or=2 topiramate prescriptions, were aged <65 years, and had evidence of a topiramate treatment-related diagnosis (possible diagnoses were identified through literature search and drug compendiums). Four cohorts were defined: (1) epilepsy only; (2) migraine only; (3) epilepsy and migraine; and (4) nonepilepsy/nonmigraine. Demographic characteristics, diagnoses, comorbidities, and daily dose of topiramate were summarized using descriptive statistics. The initial study analysis (period 1) was a 180-day window comprising the 90 days before and after the first available topiramate prescription claim was filed. A second, 360-day analysis (period 2) was completed comprising the 180 days before and after the index topiramate prescription date. RESULTS: In the 180-day analysis, 2216 SC and 4766 TX Medicaid patients met the selection criteria. Cohort classification percentages were 32.3% and 39.6% (epilepsy only), 29.7% and 16.4% (migraine only), 10.7% and 9.2% (epilepsy and migraine), and 27.3% and 34.9% (nonepilepsy/nonmigraine) for SC and TX, respectively. Mean (SD) ages were 29.9 (15.9) (SC) and 27.1 (16.1) (TX) years. In the nonepilepsy/nonmigraine cohort, the most common diagnoses were bipolar disorder and depression. The median daily doses in the epilepsy-only cohort were 175 mg/d in the SC group and 200 mg/d in the TX group. In the migraine-only cohort, the median daily dose was 100 mg/d in SC and TX. Results for the 360-day analysis were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In this descriptive study using data from 2 Medicaid populations, the majority of patients using topiramate had a diagnosis of epilepsy and/or migraine. Median dosages ranged from 175 to 200 mg/d in patients with epilepsy and 100 mg/d in those with migraine. Depression was a common comorbidity in the migraine cohort and the nonepilepsy/nonmigraine cohort.

Comparison of mail-order with community pharmacy in plan sponsor cost and member cost in two large pharmacy benefit plans.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) play a major role in administering prescription drug benefit programs for health plans and employers. PBMs have often encouraged the use of self-owned mail-order pharmacy services with the promise to plan sponsors of lower prescription drug costs compared with those of the community pharmacy network. Some plan sponsors have requested a higher degree of disclosure of contract relationships and transparency in pricing. Unfortunately, little research exists based on empirical data to determine the net plan cost and member cost for mail-order drugs, as opposed to having these drugs dispensed by community pharmacies. OBJECTIVES: To determine the difference between mail-order and community pharmacy in the (1) payment (cost) per day of drug therapy for the plan sponsor and for the member for the highest expenditure therapeutic classes, (2) generic dispensing ratios for all drugs and for a comparative market basket of drugs, and (3) cost per unit for the top 20 generic drugs dispensed through the mail-order channel. METHODS: Pharmacy claim records were obtained from 2 publicly financed pharmacy benefit plans in Texas for fiscal year 2004 (September 1, 2003, through August 31, 2004). There were approximately 460,000 members in Plan A and 177,000 members in Plan B. Pharmacy cost per day (product costs plus dispensing fees, divided by days supply) was calculated for each drug in the 30 highest expenditure therapeutic categories and aggregated for mail-order and community pharmacy channels for each plan. Differences in the mail-order and community pharmacy cost per day were calculated for each drug (adjusted for dosage) in the therapeutic category and weighted by the product's share of mail-order therapy days within the therapeutic category. A weighted cost per day for each therapeutic category was calculated with a comparison of what the cost would have been for plan cost and member cost if all mail claims had been paid based on the community pharmacy cost per day. Comparison of the cost per day helped control for differences in quantity dispensed per day per product and for product mix within each therapeutic category. Descriptive analyses were conducted to compare generic dispensing ratios between (1) all mail-order and community pharmacy claims, and (2) a market basket of therapeutic categories most commonly found within the mail-order channel. Finally, the difference in price per unit was calculated between mail-order and community pharmacy channels for the top 20 generic drug products. RESULTS: Mail-order drugs accounted for 34.4% of overall pharmacy benefit spending, including plan cost and member cost, in Plan A and 43.4% for the market basket of drugs compared with 56.0% of overall spending and 63.1% for the market basket in Plan B. When comparing the cost per day for the top therapeutic categories, the authors found the plan sponsor cost was higher for mail-order than for the community pharmacy channel for approximately half of the top therapeutic categories. This result contributed to a 0.5% higher plan cost per day for mail-order ($1.24) than for community pharmacy ($1.23) for Plan A but a 0.4% lower plan cost per day for Plan B ($1.43 for mail-order vs. $1.44 for community pharmacy). The member cost was lower for mail-order than for community pharmacy for almost every therapeutic category, and overall was 29% lower in Plan A ($0.73 per day for mail-order vs. $1.03 for community pharmacy) and 37% lower in Plan B ($0.52 for mail-order vs. $0.82 for community pharmacy). For all claims, the generic dispensing ratios were lower in the mail-order channel than in the community pharmacy channel (37.7% vs. 49.0% for Plan A and 34.7% vs. 45.0% for Plan B). The cost per unit (tablet, capsule, etc.) for the top 20 generic drug products dispensed by mail order was 16.5% lower than community pharmacy for the plan sponsor in Plan A but 18.0% higher in Plan B; member cost was 29.9% lower in Plan A for mail order and 34.0% lower in Plan B. Comparing plan and member costs combined, 9 of 20 (45%) of the generic prices were higher through mail order in Plan A, and 10 of 20 (50%) were higher through mail order in Plan B. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, savings from lower unit pricing through the mail-order channel benefited the member and did not translate into significant cost reductions for the plan sponsor. In both pharmacy benefit plans, the plan sponsor either realized small savings or incurred slightly higher costs when paying for drugs in the top therapeutic categories through the mail-order channel. Some generic drug prices are higher through mail-order pharmacy than through community pharmacy, and 1 of the 2 plans in this study paid higher net costs after member cost share for generic drugs through mail order.

Impact of Pharmacist Immunization Authority on Seasonal Influenza Immunization Rates Across States.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to investigate the impact on immunization rates of policy changes that allowed pharmacists to administer influenza immunizations across the United States. METHODS: Influenza immunization rates across states were compared before and after policy changes permitting pharmacists to administer influenza immunizations. The study used Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey data on influenza immunization rates between 2003 and 2013. Logistic regression models were constructed and incorporated adjustments for the complex sample design of the BRFSS to predict the likelihood of a person receiving an influenza immunization based on various patient health, demographic, and access to care factors. FINDINGS: Overall, as states moved to allow pharmacists to administer influenza immunizations, the odds that an adult resident received an influenza immunization rose, with the effect increasing over time. The average percentage of people receiving influenza immunizations in states was 35.1%, rising from 32.2% in 2003 to 40.3% in 2013. The policy changes were associated with a long-term increase of 2.2% to 7.6% in the number of adults aged 25 to 59 years receiving an influenza immunization (largest for those aged 35-39 years) and no significant change for those younger or older. IMPLICATIONS: These findings suggest that pharmacies and other nontraditional settings may offer accessible venues for patients when implementing other public health initiatives.

Trends in the use of typical and atypical antipsychotics in children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate prevalence rates of antipsychotic use in children and adolescents from 1996 to 2001 in three state Medicaid programs (midwestern [MM], southern [SM], and western [WM]) and one private managed care organization (MCO). METHOD: Prescription claims were used to evaluate antipsychotic prevalence, defined as the number of children and adolescents up to the age of 19 years with at least one prescription claim for an antipsychotic per 1,000 enrolled youths. RESULTS: From 1996 to 2001, the prevalence of total antipsychotic use increased in each program (MM: 4.7 to 14.3 per 1,000; SM: 6.3 to 15.5; WM: 4.5 to 6.9; and MCO: 1.5 to 3.4). Typical antipsychotic use decreased (MM: 3.7 to 2.0 per 1,000; SM: 4.6 to 1.5; WM: 4.4 to 1.3; and MCO: 1.2 to 0.9), while atypical antipsychotic use dramatically increased (MM: 1.4 to 13.1 per 1,000; SM: 2.5 to 14.9; WM: 0.3 to 6.2; and MCO: 0.4 to 2.7). CONCLUSIONS: The increased prevalence of antipsychotic use in children and adolescents from 1996 to 2001 was attributed to increased use of atypical antipsychotics. Given the limited data with atypical antipsychotics in youths, this emphasizes the need for additional studies of these agents and other treatment modalities in this population.

Drug adherence: effects of decreased visit frequency on adherence to clozapine therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of visit frequency on drug-adherence parameters subsequent to the change in the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-mandated monitoring of white blood cell counts from weekly to every 2 weeks (biweekly) after 6 months of clozapine therapy. METHODS: Paid prescription claims records for clozapine from September 1, 1995-August 31, 2001, were extracted from the Texas Medicaid Vendor Drug Program database. Two groups of subjects were identified: subjects treated before and those treated after the FDA labeling change in monitoring frequency, which occurred on April 1, 1998. Prescription claims records for each subject were assessed for 365 days after the initial 6 months of therapy. Adherence measures included persistence, medication possession ratio (MPR), and time taking clozapine. RESULTS: Subjects receiving weekly hematologic monitoring had significantly higher rates of persistence (0.79 +/- 0.35 vs 0.70 +/- 0.38, p < 0.001) and MPRs (0.75 +/- 0.36 vs 0.66 +/- 0.38, p < 0.001) and continued to take clozapine longer (p < 0.002) compared with subjects receiving biweekly monitoring. Fewer subjects in the weekly monitoring group discontinued clozapine therapy during the 1-year study period (49.4% vs 57.9%, p = 0.008). Similar results were observed when cohorts were matched according to age, sex, and index clozapine dosage. CONCLUSION: Significant effects of visit frequency on adherence to clozapine therapy were noted. For patients inadequately adherent to therapy, an increase in visit frequency may improve adherence, and based on these results, the extra visits do not need to be with a physician or have any specific purpose other than contact with a provider.

Ethnic differences in use of antipsychotic medication among Texas medicaid clients with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Culture and ethnicity have been suggested to influence the presentation of patients with schizophrenia. These factors are thought to affect the diagnoses, courses of treatment, and medical utilization patterns of patients with schizophrenia. Specifically, the differences between whites, African Americans, and Mexican Americans are of particular importance, as these groups comprise the majority of the population in the United States today. The traditional course of treatment for many patients with schizophrenia is the drug haloperidol. However, research has shown that some ethnic groups (African Americans and Mexican Americans) may respond better to atypical drugs, such as olanzapine, but may be less likely to receive these drugs. A better response to the course of treatment results in improved medical utilization patterns. The purpose of this study was to examine if ethnicity helped predict whether Texas Medicaid patients were prescribed haloperidol versus olanzapine when other factors were controlled for. METHOD: The study population consisted of 726 patients whose index drug was haloperidol and 1875 patients whose index drug was olanzapine. Patients had an ICD-9-CM diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Texas medical and prescription claims data were used in a logistic regression analysis to determine significant predictors of the type of antipsychotic (haloperidol vs. olanzapine) patients were prescribed. Variables included in the analysis were ethnicity, gender, age, region, other mental illness comorbidities, and previous utilization of medications and resources. Data were collected from Jan. 1, 1996, to Aug. 31, 1998. RESULTS: The results show that when other demographic and utilization factors were controlled for, African Americans were less likely than whites to receive olanzapine rather than haloperidol. CONCLUSION: Ethnicity is a significant predictor of the type of antipsychotic that is prescribed.

Impact of atypical coverage for patients with community-acquired pneumonia managed on the medical ward: results from the United States Community-Acquired Pneumonia Project.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: As current guidelines for treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) recommend empiric antimicrobial coverage for atypical pathogens, we evaluated the need for atypical coverage by examining length of hospital stay (LOS) and mortality in patients with CAP who were managed on the medical ward. METHODS: Medical records of patients with CAP admitted from January 1, 1997-December 31, 2001, from 176 United States nonteaching community hospitals were reviewed. Patients were divided into one of three mutually exclusive groups on the basis of intravenous antimicrobials received on days 1 or 2 of hospital stay: ceftriaxone monotherapy, ceftriaxone plus a macrolide, or levofloxacin. Variables evaluated for their ability to predict outcome were patient age, year of hospital admission, geographic region, preadmission setting, preadmission antimicrobial treatment, timing of antimicrobial administration, comorbid disease, and duration of intravenous antimicrobial treatment. The impact of initial antimicrobial regimen on LOS and mortality was evaluated in regression models while controlling for significant predictors of outcome. RESULTS: Of 8975 patients evaluated, 2453 met the inclusion criteria. Significant differences were noted among patients who received ceftriaxone (932 patients), ceftriaxone plus a macrolide (872), and levofloxacin (649) with respect to mean +/- SD age (72 +/- 16, 67 +/- 18, and 70 +/- 17 yrs, respectively; p<0.0001), admission from a nursing home (21%, 11%, and 15%, respectively; p<0.0001), and duration of intravenous antimicrobial treatment (4.4 +/- 2.7, 4.0 +/- 2.6, and 3.6 +/- 2.5 days, respectively; p<0.0001). The LOS predictors were age, geographic region, coexisting heart failure, and duration of intravenous antimicrobial therapy. Mortality predictors were age, admission from a nursing home, coexisting heart failure, and coexisting cancer. After controlling for these predictors of outcome, no significant differences were noted among the three groups for LOS (5.5 +/- 3.5, 4.8 +/- 2.9, and 4.8 +/- 2.9 days, respectively; p=0.2791) or mortality (3.1%, 2.0%, and 2.6%, respectively; p=0.8461). CONCLUSION: Initial coverage for atypical pathogens does not affect LOS or mortality among patients with CAP managed on the medical ward.

Olanzapine versus risperidone in the treatment of schizophrenia : a comparison of costs among Texas Medicaid recipients.

OBJECTIVE: To examine both schizophrenia-related costs and total (schizophrenia plus non-schizophrenia) healthcare costs among Texas Medicaid recipients who had been diagnosed with a schizophrenic disorder and had been initiated on olanzapine or risperidone. METHODS: Cost data for services and prescription use were retrieved for 2,885 patients with schizophrenia who were initiated on olanzapine or risperidone between 1 January 1997 and 31 August 1998. Each patient was followed for 1 year before and 1 year after initiation of therapy. Multivariate analysis was used to control for a wide range of factors (drug choice, patient demographics, pre-utilisation costs, region, health conditions, and treatment patterns) that may influence schizophrenia-related costs and total healthcare costs. Estimation was conducted via a two-stage instrumental variables model. RESULTS: The mean unadjusted total schizophrenia-related cost per patient per year during the observation period was 4,892 US dollars, and the total unadjusted healthcare cost per patient was 7,101 US dollars. Results revealed significant regional variation in schizophrenia-related and total healthcare costs. Significantly higher total healthcare costs were found for patients with other (nonpsychiatric) diagnoses, such as HIV and diabetes mellitus. Although, on average, patients taking olanzapine stayed on therapy longer than those taking risperidone (248.2 days vs 211.1 days; p < 0.0001), multivariate analysis revealed no significant difference in schizophrenia-related costs between patients who received olanzapine and risperidone (123 US dollars lower with olanzapine; p = 0.6439). However, patients who received olanzapine compared with risperidone had significantly lower total medical costs (693 US dollars lower with olanzapine; p = 0.0311). CONCLUSION: This naturalistic study used data from a Texas Medicaid population to examine the schizophrenia-related costs and total healthcare costs for patients who received olanzapine versus risperidone. Multivariate analysis revealed no significant differences in schizophrenia-related costs for patients receiving olanzapine compared with risperidone, although total medical costs were significantly lower for patients initiated on olanzapine.