Hospital Prices for Physician-Administered Drugs for Patients with Private Insurance.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals can leverage their position between the ultimate buyers and sellers of drugs to retain a substantial share of insurer pharmaceutical expenditures. METHODS: In this study, we used 2020-2021 national Blue Cross Blue Shield claims data regarding patients in the United States who had drug-infusion visits for oncologic conditions, inflammatory conditions, or blood-cell deficiency disorders. Markups of the reimbursement prices were measured in terms of amounts paid by Blue Cross Blue Shield plans to hospitals and physician practices relative to the amounts paid by these providers to drug manufacturers. Acquisition-price reductions in hospital payments to drug manufacturers were measured in terms of discounts under the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program. We estimated the percentage of Blue Cross Blue Shield drug spending that was received by drug manufacturers and the percentage retained by provider organizations. RESULTS: The study included 404,443 patients in the United States who had 4,727,189 drug-infusion visits. The median price markup (defined as the ratio of the reimbursement price to the acquisition price) for hospitals eligible for 340B discounts was 3.08 (interquartile range, 1.87 to 6.38). After adjustment for drug, patient, and geographic factors, price markups at hospitals eligible for 340B discounts were 6.59 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.02 to 7.16) as high as those in independent physician practices, and price markups at noneligible hospitals were 4.34 times (95% CI, 3.77 to 4.90) as high as those in physician practices. Hospitals eligible for 340B discounts retained 64.3% of insurer drug expenditures, whereas hospitals not eligible for 340B discounts retained 44.8% and independent physician practices retained 19.1%. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that hospitals imposed large price markups and retained a substantial share of total insurer spending on physician-administered drugs for patients with private insurance. The effects were especially large for hospitals eligible for discounts under the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program on acquisition costs paid to manufacturers. (Funded by Arnold Ventures and the National Institute for Health Care Management.).

Impact of financial medication assistance on medication adherence: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of financial medication assistance (FMA), including patient assistance programs, coupons/copayment cards, vouchers, discount cards, and programs/pharmacy services that help patients apply for such programs, has increased. The impact of FMA on medication adherence and persistence has not been synthesized. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to review published studies evaluating the impact of FMA on the three phases of medication adherence (initiation [or primary adherence], implementation [or secondary adherence], and discontinuation) and persistence. Among these studies, the secondary objective was to report the impact of FMA on patient out-of-pocket costs and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using MEDLINE and Web of Science. RESULTS: Of 656 articles identified, eight studies met all inclusion criteria. Seven studies examined FMA for medications treating cardiovascular diseases, while one study assessed FMA for cancer medications. Among included studies, FMA had a positive impact on medication adherence or persistence, and most measured this impact over one year or less. Of the three phases of medication adherence, implementation (5 of 8) was most commonly reported, followed by discontinuation (3 of 8), and then initiation (1 of 8). Regarding implementation, users of FMA had a higher mean medication possession ratio (MPR) than nonusers, ranging from 7 to 18 percentage points higher. The percentage of patients who discontinued medication was 7 percentage points lower in users of FMA versus nonusers for cardiovascular disease states. In one cancer study, FMA had a larger impact on initiation than discontinuation, ie, compared to nonusers, users of FMA were less likely to abandon an initial prescription (risk ratio= 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.08-0.18), and this effect was larger than the decreased likelihood of discontinuing the medication (hazard ratio = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66-0.88). In 3 of 8 studies reporting on medication persistence, FMA increased the odds of medication persistence for one year ranged from 11% to 47%, depending on the study. In addition to adherence, half of the studies reported on FMA impacts on patient out-of-pocket costs and 3 of 8 studies reported on clinical outcomes. Impacts on patient out-of-pocket costs were mixed; two studies reported that out-of-pocket costs were higher for users of a coupon or a voucher versus nonusers, one study reported the opposite, and one study reported null effects. Impacts on clinical outcomes were either positive or null. CONCLUSIONS: We found that FMA has positive impacts on all phases of medication adherence as well as medication persistence over one year. Future studies should assess whether FMA has differential impacts based on phase of medication adherence and report on its longer-term (ie, beyond one year) impacts on medication adherence. DISCLOSURES: This work was sponsored by a grant from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). PhRMA had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Hung reports past employment by Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and CVS Health and a grant from PhRMA outside of the submitted work. Zullig reports research funding from Proteus Digital Health and the PhRMA Foundation. consulting fees from Novartis. Reed reports receiving research support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Janssen Research & Development, Monteris, PhRMA Foundation, and TESARO and consulting fees from Sanofi/Regeneron, NovoNordisk, SVC Systems, and Minomic International, Inc. Bosworth reports research grants from the PhRMA Foundation, Proteus Digital Health, Otsuka, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Improved Patient Outcomes, Boehinger Ingelheim, NIH, and VA, as well as consulting fees from Sanofi, Novartis, Otsuka, Abbott, Xcenda, Preventric Diagnostics, and the Medicines Company. The other authors have nothing to report. This work was presented as a poster presentation at the ESPACOMP Annual Meeting in November 2020.

O Regimento dos preços dos medicamentos... na farmácia brasileira oitocentista / Regulation of drug prices in nineteenth-century Bazilian pharmacy

Resumo Em 5 de novembro de 1808, dom João de Bragança promulgou um alvará sobre o exercício dos boticários e o preço das drogas e ordenou a criação de um regulamento para taxar o custo dos medicamentos comercializados no Brasil. Publicado pela primeira vez em 1809, o Regimento dos preços dos medicamentos... ganhou novas edições nos anos subsequentes e tornou-se um indispensável instrumento de trabalho para os envolvidos com a feitura e o comércio dos remédios. Este texto situa historicamente e destaca esse documento brevemente explorado pelos pesquisadores da história da farmácia brasileira, visto ter sido uma das primeiras iniciativas do governo luso-brasileiro condizentes com a atividade farmacêutica no Brasil no século XIX.

Abstract On November 5th, 1808, D. João de Bragança issued a license about the practice of druggists and the price of drugs and ordered the creation of a regulation to tax the cost of medicines marketed in Brazil. First published on 1809, the Regimento dos preços dos medicamentos... gained new editions in the following years and became an indispensable working tool for those involved in the making and trading of drugs at this time. This paper situates historically and sheds light on a document briefly explored by the researchers of the history of the Brazilian pharmacy, taking into account that it was one of the first initiatives of the Luso-Brazilian government in line with the pharmaceutical activity in Brazil in the nineteenth century.

Changes in List Prices, Net Prices, and Discounts for Branded Drugs in the US, 2007-2018.

Importance: Most studies that have examined drug prices have focused on list prices, without accounting for manufacturer rebates and other discounts, which have substantially increased in the last decade. Objective: To describe changes in list prices, net prices, and discounts for branded pharmaceutical products for which US sales are reported by publicly traded companies, and to determine the extent to which list price increases were offset by increases in discounts. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective descriptive study using 2007-2018 pricing data from the investment firm SSR Health for branded products available before January 2007 with US sales reported by publicly traded companies (n = 602 drugs). Net prices were estimated by compiling company-reported sales for each product and number of units sold in the US. Exposures: Calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included list and net prices and discounts in Medicaid and other payers. List prices represent manufacturers' price to wholesalers or direct purchasers but do not account for discounts. Net prices represent revenue per unit of the product after all manufacturer concessions are accounted for (including rebates, coupon cards, and any other discount). Means of outcomes were calculated each year for the overall sample and 6 therapeutic classes, weighting each product by utilization and adjusting for inflation. Results: From 2007 to 2018, list prices increased by 159% (95% CI, 137%-181%), or 9.1% per year, while net prices increased by 60% (95% CI, 36%-84%), or 4.5% per year, with stable net prices between 2015 and 2018. Discounts increased from 40% to 76% in Medicaid and from 23% to 51% for other payers. Increases in discounts offset 62% of list price increases. There was large variability across classes. Multiple sclerosis treatments (n = 4) had the greatest increases in list (439%) and net (157%) prices. List prices of lipid-lowering agents (n = 11) increased by 278% and net prices by 95%. List prices of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (n = 3) increased by 166% and net prices by 73%. List prices of insulins (n = 7) increased by 262%, and net prices by 51%. List prices of noninsulin antidiabetic agents (n = 10) increased by 165%, and net prices decreased by 1%. List price increases were lowest (59%) for antineoplastic agents (n = 44), but discounts only offset 41% of list price increases, leading to 35% increase in net prices. Conclusions and Relevance: In this analysis of branded drugs in the US from 2007 to 2018, mean increases in list and net prices were substantial, although discounts offset an estimated 62% of list price increases with substantial variation across classes.

Economic Outcomes Following Combinatorial Pharmacogenomic Testing for Elderly Psychiatric Patients.

OBJECTIVE: We compared economic outcomes when elderly patients with neuropsychiatric disorders received psychotropic medications guided by a combinatorial pharmacogenomic (PGx) test. METHODS: This is a subanalysis of a 1-year prospective assessment of medication cost for patients with neuropsychiatric disorders receiving combinatorial PGx testing. Pharmacy claims were used to compare per member per year (PMPY) medication cost for patients ≥65 and <65 years old when medications were congruent or incongruent with the PGx test. Polypharmacy was also assessed. RESULTS: Congruent prescribing was associated with savings of US$3497 PMPY (P < .001) for patients ≥65 years and US$2467 PMPY (P < .001) for patients <65, compared to incongruent prescribing. Congruent prescribing in patients ≥65 treated by primary care providers was associated with US$4113 PMPY (P = .026) in savings, while congruent prescribing by psychiatrists was associated with US$120 PMPY (P = .719). Congruent prescribing was also associated with one fewer neuropsychiatric medication for patients ≥65 (P = .070). CONCLUSION: Congruence with PGx testing was associated with medication cost savings in elderly patients.

Association of Patient-reported Experiences and Surgical Outcomes Among Group Practices: Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the association of patient-reported experiences (PREs) and risk-adjusted surgical outcomes among group practices. BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services required large group practices to submit PREs data for successful participation in the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems for PQRS survey. Whether these PREs data correlate with perioperative outcomes remains ill defined. METHODS: Operations between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016 in the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry were merged with 2015 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems for PQRS survey data. Hierarchical logistic models were constructed to estimate associations between 7 subscales and 1 composite score of PREs and 30-day morbidity, unplanned readmission, and unplanned reoperation, separately, while adjusting for patient- and procedure mix. RESULTS: Among 328 group practices identified, patients reported their experiences with clinician communication the highest (mean ±â€Šstandard deviation, 82.66 ±â€Š3.10), and with attention to medication cost the lowest (25.96 ±â€Š5.14). The mean composite score was 61.08 (±6.66). On multivariable analyses, better PREs scores regarding medication cost, between-visit communication, and the composite score of experience were each associated with 4% decreased odds of morbidity [odds ratio (OR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-0.99], readmission (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99), and reoperation (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99), respectively. In sensitivity analyses, better between-visit communication remained significantly associated with fewer readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: In these data, patients' report of better between-visit communication was associated with fewer readmissions. More sensitive, surgery-specific PRE assessments may reveal additional unique insights for improving the quality of surgical care.

Amifampridine for the Management of Lambert-Eaton Myasthenic Syndrome: A New Take on an Old Drug.

Objective: The purpose of this article is to review the literature for both 3,4-diaminopyridine (3,4-DAP) and amifampridine for the treatment of Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome (LEMS). Amifampridine (Firdapse) is the salt form of 3,4-DAP and was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of LEMS. Data Sources: PubMed, TRIP database, and EMBASE searches were conducted without a back date (current to June 2019) utilizing the following search terms: amifampridine, 3,4-diaminopyridine, and Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome. Completed trials were also reviewed at clinicaltrials.gov. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Criteria for article inclusion consisted of human subjects, age ≥18 years, phase II or III clinical trials, and English language for both drugs. Observational and pharmacokinetic studies for amifampridine were also included. Data Synthesis: Prior to the approval of amifampridine, 3,4-DAP was first-line for the management of LEMS symptoms. Two phase III trials have evaluated amifampridine to confirm efficacy, both showing superiority over placebo in the management of LEMS symptoms, with minimal adverse effects. A significant improvement in both quantitative myasthenia gravis scores and Subjective Global Impression scores was established at days 4 and 14. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: With an improved stability profile and decreased dose variability, amifampridine will likely assume the role of first-line management of LEMS. Conclusions: Amifampridine has been shown to improve symptoms of LEMS and is generally well tolerated.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the pharmacological management of chronic low back pain with four leading drugs.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain is a major health problem that has a substantial effect on people's quality of life and places a significant economic burden on healthcare systems. However, there has been little cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatments for it. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective observational study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the pharmacological management of chronic low back pain. METHODS: A total of 474 patients received pharmacological management for chronic low back pain using four leading drugs for 6 months at 28 institutions in Japan. Outcome measures, including EQ-5D, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, the JOA back pain evaluation questionnaire (BPEQ), the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, the Medical Outcomes Study SF-8, and the visual analog scale, were investigated at baseline and every one month thereafter. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was calculated as drug cost over the quality-adjusted life years. An economic estimation was performed from the perspective of a public healthcare payer in Japan. Stratified analysis based on patient characteristics was also performed to explore the characteristics that affect cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The ICUR of pharmacological management for chronic low back pain was JPY 453,756. Stratified analysis based on patient characteristics suggested that the pharmacological treatments for patients with a history of spine surgery or cancer, low frequency of exercise, long disease period, low scores in lumbar spine dysfunction and gait disturbance of the JOA BPEQ, and low JOA score at baseline were not cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacological management for chronic low back pain is cost-effective from the reference willingness to pay. Further optimization based on patient characteristics is expected to contribute to the sustainable development of a universal insurance system in Japan.

Predictors of first-year nonadherence and discontinuation of statins among older adults: a retrospective cohort study.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to examine the level of and predictors of statin nonadherence and discontinuation among older adults. METHODS: Among 22 340 Australians aged ≥65 years who initiated statin therapy from January 2014 to December 2015, we estimated the first-year nonadherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] <0.80) and discontinuation (≥90 days without statin coverage) rates. Predictors of nonadherence and discontinuation were examined via multivariable logistic regression. Analyses were performed separately for general beneficiaries (with a higher co-payment; n = 4841) and concessional beneficiaries (with a lower co-payment; n = 17 499). RESULTS: During the one-year follow-up, 55.1% were nonadherent (concessional 52.6%; general beneficiaries 64.2%) and 44.7% discontinued statins (concessional 43.1%; general beneficiaries 50.4%). Among concessional beneficiaries, those aged 75-84 years and ≥85 years were more likely to discontinue than people aged 65-74 years (odds ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.04-1.19 and 1.38, 1.23-1.54, respectively). Diabetes was associated with an increased likelihood of nonadherence and discontinuation, while hypertension, angina and congestive heart failure were associated with a lower likelihood of nonadherence and discontinuation. Anxiety was associated with an increased likelihood of discontinuation, but polypharmacy (concurrent use of five or more drugs) was associated with a lower likelihood of nonadherence and discontinuation. Statin initiation by a general medical practitioner was associated with both increased likelihood of nonadherence and discontinuation. Similar predictors of nonadherence and discontinuation were identified for the general beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: Among older adults prescribed statins, first-year nonadherence and discontinuation are high. Specific population subgroups such as people aged ≥85 years, those with diabetes or anxiety may require additional attention to improve statin adherence.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Monoclonal Antibodies (Bevacizumab, Cetuximab, and Panitumumab) in Combination with Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The last decade has seen the increasing use of biological medicines in combination with chemotherapy containing 5-fluorouracil/oxaliplatin or irinotecan for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). These combinations have resulted in increased progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with mCRC; however, there are remaining concerns over the extent of their effect on overall survival (OS). Published studies to date suggest no major differences between the three currently available monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs); however, there are differences in costs. In addition, there is rising litigation in Brazil in order to access these medicines as they are currently not reimbursed. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to investigate the comparative effectiveness and safety of three MoAbs (bevacizumab, cetuximab and panitumumab) associated with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens and compared to fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy alone in patients with mCRC, through an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of concurrent or non-concurrent observational cohort studies, to guide authorities and the judiciary. METHOD: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed based on cohort studies published in databases up to November 2017. Effectiveness measures included OS, PFS, post-progression survival (PPS), Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST), response rate, metastasectomy and safety. The methodological quality of the studies was also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 21 observational cohort studies were included. There were statistically significant and clinically relevant benefits in patients treated with bevacizumab versus no bevacizumab mainly around OS, PFS, PPS and the metastasectomy rate, but not for the disease control rates. However, there was an increase in treatment-related toxicities and concerns with the heterogeneity of the studies. CONCLUSION: The results pointed to an advantage in favor of bevacizumab for OS, PFS, PPS, and metastasectomy. Although this advantage may be considered clinically modest, bevacizumab represents a hope for increased survival and a chance of metastasectomy for patients with mCRC. However, there are serious adverse events associated with its use, especially severe hypertension and gastrointestinal perforation, that need to be considered.

The Guideline-Policy Gap in Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants Usage in Atrial Fibrillation: Evidence, Practice, and Public Policy Considerations.

Atrial fibrillation has a high disease burden-both in prevalence and associated consequences. Despite anticoagulation being an effective treatment in atrial fibrillation, stroke prevention is slow to reflect evidence-based practice. Real-world data reveal a substantial portion of patients who would benefit from anticoagulation, yet do not receive it adequately or at all. A large part of this suboptimal treatment is due to the underutilization of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). In response to abundant evidence published over a short timeframe, international guidelines have adopted DOAC usage ahead of policy and fund holders. This paper reviews the evidence and values that influence published guidelines, patient-physician decision making, and policy framework on DOAC usage. An important factor is the access gap between patients who qualify for DOAC according to evidence-based guidelines and the subset of this cohort who are eligible for DOAC based on government funded policy. We analyse the Canadian health system in detail-including drug approval and funding process. Health care systems in other countries are explored, with emphasis on similar universal health care systems that may help overcome barriers common to Canada. We will discuss strategies to: (1) improve awareness of the risk and preventability of stroke; (2) enable physicians to provide evidence-based DOAC usage; (3) empower patients to improve adherence and persistence; (4) collect real-life data that encourages patient self-monitoring, physician outcomes auditing, and building evidence that is useful for policy makers; and (5) use postmarketing data in negotiating shared risk management between pharmaceuticals and government to improve access to DOACs.

Healthcare expenditures for privately insured US patients with cystic fibrosis, 2010-2016.

OBJECTIVES: Published cost estimates for cystic fibrosis (CF) are based on older data and do not reflect increased use of specialty drugs in recent years. We assessed recent trends in healthcare expenditures for CF patients in the United States (US) with employer-sponsored health insurance. METHODS: The study is a retrospective analysis of claims data for privately insured individuals aged 0-64 years who were continuously enrolled in non-capitated plans for at least 1 calendar year during 2010-2016. Mean annual expenditures during a calendar year were calculated for individuals who met a claims-based CF case definition. Average annual growth rates were calculated through linear regression of the natural logarithm of annual expenditures. RESULTS: The annual CF prevalence was 1.1-1.4 per 10 000 adults and 2.9-3.0 per 10 000 children. Average spending adjusted for inflation nearly doubled from roughly $67 000 per patient in 2010 and 2011 to approximately $131 000 per patient in 2016. Inflation-adjusted spending on outpatient and inpatient care increased by 0.5% and 2.5% per year, respectively, whereas pharmaceutical spending increased by 20.2% per year. Virtually all of the growth in pharmaceutical spending was accounted for by spending on specialty drugs; inflation-adjusted spending on other medications increased by 1.3% per year. The annual growth rate in pharmaceutical spending rose by 33.1% during 2014-2016, the years during which lumacaftor/ivacaftor was introduced. CONCLUSIONS: Per-patient expenditures for privately-insured patients with CF almost doubled during 2010-2016; specialty drugs were largely responsible for this increase, with a major contribution from new, genotype-targeted CFTR modulator medications.

Cost-effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel for adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in the United States.

PURPOSE: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) was recently approved for treatment of relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) following two or more prior therapies. As the first CAR T-cell therapy available for adults in the US, there are important questions about clinical and economic value. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of axi-cel compared to salvage chemotherapy using a decision model and a US payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision model was developed to estimate life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime cost for adult patients with R/R LBCL treated with axi-cel vs salvage chemotherapy (R-DHAP). Patient-level analyses of the ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1 studies were used to inform the model and to estimate the proportion achieving long-term survival. Drug and procedure costs were derived from US average sales prices and Medicare reimbursement schedules. Future healthcare costs in long-term remission was derived from per capita Medicare spending. Utility values were derived from patient-level data from ZUMA-1 and external literature. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty. Outcomes were calculated over a lifetime horizon and were discounted at 3% per year. RESULTS: In the base case, LYs, QALYs, and lifetime costs were 9.5, 7.7, and $552,921 for axi-cel vs 2.6, 1.1, and $172,737 for salvage chemotherapy, respectively. The axi-cel cost per QALY gained was $58,146. Cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the fraction achieving long-term remission, discount rate, and axi-cel price. The likelihood that axi-cel is cost-effective was 95% at a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Axi-cel is a potentially cost-effective alternative to salvage chemotherapy for adults with R/R LBCL. Long-term follow-up is necessary to reduce uncertainties about health outcomes.

Projection of future pharmacy service fees using the dispensing claims in hospital and clinic outpatient pharmacies: national health insurance database between 2006 and 2012.

BACKGROUND: Predicting pharmacy service fees is crucial to sustain the health insurance budget and maintain pharmacy management. However, there is no evidence on how to predict pharmacy service fees at the population level. This study compares the status of pharmacy services and constructs regression model to project annual pharmacy service fees in Korea. METHODS: We conducted a time-series analysis by using sample data from the national health insurance database from 2006 and 2012. To reflect the latest trend, we categorized pharmacies into general hospital, special hospital, and clinic outpatient pharmacies based on the major source of service fees, using a 1% sample of the 2012 data. We estimated the daily number of prescriptions, pharmacy service fees, and drugs costs according to these three types of pharmacy services. To forecast pharmacy service fees, a regression model was constructed to estimate annual fees in the following year (2013). The dependent variable was pharmacy service fees and the independent variables were the number of prescriptions and service fees per pharmacy, ratio of patients (≥ 65 years), conversion factor, change of policy, and types of pharmacy services. RESULTS: Among the 21,283 pharmacies identified, 5.0% (1064), 4.6% (974), and 77.5% (16,340) were general hospital, special hospital, and clinic outpatient pharmacies, respectively, in 2012. General hospital pharmacies showed a higher daily number of prescriptions (111.9), higher pharmacy service fees ($25,546,342), and higher annual drugs costs ($215,728,000) per pharmacy than any other pharmacy (p <  0.05). The regression model to project found the ratio of patients aged 65 years and older and the conversion factor to be associated with an increase in pharmacy service fees. It also estimated the future rate of increase in pharmacy service fees to be between 3.1% and 7.8%. CONCLUSIONS: General hospital outpatient pharmacies spent more on annual pharmacy service fees than any other type of pharmacy. The forecast of annual pharmacy service fees in Korea was similar to that of Australia, but not that of the United Kingdom.

Drug wastage and costs to the healthcare system in the care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers in the US. This study was designed to evaluate the actual drug wastage and cost to the healthcare system using patient-level retrospective observational electronic medical record (EMR) data from a cohort of lung cancer patients in the US. METHODS: Data from the Flatiron Health advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort was used for this study. Drug administered amount (in mg) was used to determine an optimal set of available vial sizes to minimize waste. Drug wastage was defined as the difference between the drug amount in the optimal set of vials and the administered amount. Wholesale acquisition costs were used to value the cost of drugs, with and without vial sharing assumptions. The amount and cost of waste were quantified over the 2-year study period (January 2015-December 2016). RESULTS: There were 8,467 eligible patients included in this study, providing data from 103,826 unique drug administrations across multiple lines of therapy. Overall wastage was 4.37% of the total medication used to care for patients. While costs per administration were low, the total cost of wastage for the study population represented $16,630,112 across the 2-year study period. Assuming that vial sharing occurred at the site level slightly reduced waste to 3.74% (reducing costs to $15,953,212 over 2 years). CONCLUSIONS: Drug wastage is an important concern and has implications on healthcare costs in NSCLC. Evaluation of these real-world data suggest that pharmacists and physicians are able to reduce drug wastage by optimizing vial combinations and sharing vials among patients. Even small amounts of reduction in wastage could be useful in reducing healthcare costs in the US; however, caution is needed with drug rounding efforts to ensure patients do not receive a sub-optimal dose of medication.

Primary Nonadherence to Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: Real-World Data from a Population-Based Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Primary nonadherence (not filling a first prescription) is an important yet unstudied aspect of adherence to oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the rates of primary nonadherence to OACs and determine associated factors in real-world practice. METHODS: This population-based retrospective cohort study set in the Valencia region of Spain (about 5 million inhabitants) included all patients with atrial fibrillation who were newly prescribed OACs during 2011-2014 (N = 18,715). Primary nonadherence was obtained by linking electronic prescription and dispensing data and assessed by type of OAC-vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Covariates were obtained from diverse databases, including electronic medical records. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess characteristics associated with primary nonadherence, adjusting for a propensity score to minimize confounding by indication. RESULTS: Primary nonadherence to OACs was 5.62% (VKA 4.29% vs. NOAC 10.81%; P < 0.001), with varying rates among specific drugs (acenocoumarol 4.2%, warfarin 10.9%, apixaban 5.0%, dabigatran 7.9%, and rivaroxaban 15.5%). After adjusting for potential confounders, the likelihood of not filling the first prescription was higher for NOAC patients than for VKA patients (OR = 2.76, 95% CI = 2.41-3.15). High coinsurance in the older groups (OR = 2.63, 95% CI = 1.47-4.69 for patients aged 66-75 years and OR = 3.02, 95% CI = 1.58-5.76 for patients aged > 75 years); being a non-Spanish European (OR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.12-1.99); and having dementia (OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.37-2.16) were positively associated with primary nonadherence. Electronic transmission of prescriptions (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.74-0.96); liver disease (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.54-0.99); and polypharmacy (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.50-0.70) were inversely associated with primary nonadherence. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, primary nonadherence to OACs was relatively low (5%). However, important differences were found between VKAs and NOACs. After adjustment, patients prescribed NOACs nearly tripled the likelihood of nonadherence compared with patients prescribed VKAs, which could negatively affect their effectiveness in clinical practice. Identified correlates were similar to those shown in the limited evidence for other medications. DISCLOSURES: This work was partially supported by the 2013 Collaboration Agreement between the Fundación para el Fomento de la Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica (FISABIO) from the Valencia Ministry of Health and Boehringer Ingelheim, a nonconditioned program to conduct independent research in chronic health care, pharmacoepidemiology, and medical practice variation. Rodriguez-Bernal was funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Health, and cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund (grant number RD12/0001/0005). The views presented here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the FISABIO Foundation, the Valencia Ministry of Health, or the study sponsors. The funding sources had no access to study data and did not participate in any way in the design or conduct of the study, data analysis, decisions regarding the dissemination of findings, the development of the manuscript, or its publication. Peiró has received fees for participation in scientific meetings and courses sponsored by Novartis and Ferrer International. In 2014, Sanfélix-Gimeno participated in an advisory meeting of Boehringer Ingelheim. García-Sempere is a former employee of Boehringer Ingelheim. Rodriguez-Bernal and Hurtado have no relationships relevant to the contents of this article to disclose. This work was previously submitted as an abstract (podium presentation) at the 31st International Society of Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) Annual Conference; August 22-26, 2015; Boston, Massachusetts.