Comparison of hospitalization costs for the same adverse reaction associated with different medications.

PURPOSE: Costs of hospitalization due to severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were previously estimated within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), but additional analyses are needed to infer potential interventions to mitigate these negative outcomes. The objective of this study was to compare specific adverse reaction-related hospitalization costs between medications with similar indications. METHODS: Mean hospitalization costs associated with the same ADR symptom were compared for different drugs with similar indications using adjusted generalized linear models with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons as well as a gamma distribution. RESULTS: Overall, hospitalization costs between medications with similar indications were not significantly different for specific adverse reactions. However, gastrointestinal hemorrhage-associated costs were higher for warfarin versus nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (model estimate of mean cost, $18,114 [range of lower and upper model estimates, $12,522-$26,202] vs $14,255 [estimate range, $9,710-$20,929]). Similarly, the estimated mean hospitalization cost associated with angioedema was higher for losartan versus lisinopril or lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide: $14,591 (range, $9467-$22,488) versus $8,935 (range, $6,301-$12,669) and $8,022 (range, $5,424-$11,865), respectively. CONCLUSION: Although we found few differences in the cost of hospitalization when comparing drugs with similar indications and the same adverse reaction, there were specific drug-ADR pairs that merit attention and consideration of interventions to improve safe and appropriate medication use. Evaluation of the effect of those interventions on the incidence of ADRs is an area for future study.

Pharmacy Benefits Management in the Veterans Health Administration Revisited: A Decade of Advancements, 2004-2014.

Over the past decade, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pharmacy Benefits Management Services (PBM) has enhanced its formulary management activities and added programs to ensure that the national drug plan continues to meet the pharmacy needs of veterans and to promote safe and appropriate drug therapy in the face of rising medication expenditures. This article describes the broad range of services provided by the VA PBM that work in partnership to deliver a high-quality and sustainable pharmacy benefit for veterans. In support of formulary management, VA PBM pharmacists prepare extensive clinical guidance documents (e.g., drug monographs and criteria for use) that are used by physicians and pharmacists with operational and clinical oversight of the VA national formulary. The VA PBM has utilized various contracting techniques and continually evaluates drug utilization data to identify opportunities for potential savings. Remarkably, since before 2004, the average acquisition cost for a 1-month supply of medication has remained fairly stable at approximately $13-$15. Two new VA PBM programs are the VA Center for Medication Safety (VA MedSAFE) and the Clinical Pharmacy Practice Office (CPPO). VA MedSAFE is a comprehensive pharmacovigilance program focused on the detection, assessment, and prevention of adverse drug events, and CPPO is dedicated to improving safe and appropriate medication use by supporting and expanding clinical pharmacy practice. Moving forward, the VA PBM will consider new initiatives to stay at the forefront of providing quality care while maintaining economic viability. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this research. This work was supported by VA Pharmacy Benefits Management Services (VA PBM), Hines, Illinois, and VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Glassman is co-director of the VA Center for Medication Safety, which is part of the VA PBM. He is also part of the Medical Advisory Panel for the VA PMB. All other authors are employed by the VA PBM. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors, and no official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs or the U.S. government is intended or should be inferred. Study concept and design were contributed by Valentino, Cunningham, Good, Aspinall, and Sales. Calabrese and Ourth took the lead in data collection, along with Good, Cunningham, Aspinall, Sales, Burk, Moore, Neuhauser, and Golterman. Data interpretation was performed by Burk, Newhauser, and Golterman, along with Glassman, Calabrese, Moore, and Ourth. The manuscript was written by Aspinall and Sales, along with Burk, Newhauser, Golterman, Ourth, and Cunningham. Good, Glassman, and Moore revised the manuscript, along with Calabrese, Valentino, and Aspinall.

Monitoring adverse drug reactions across a nationwide health care system using information technology.

PURPOSE: The improvement and linkage of two Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) databases for monitoring adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are described, with a discussion of the potential implications for improved medication safety within the VA health care system. SUMMARY: Before 2007, VA had limited capability to track and evaluate ADRs across its nationwide network of health care facilities. Since then, VA has established a standardized monitoring system that has improved the reporting, analysis, and trending of ADRs reported by providers and pharmacists at individual VA facilities. The enhanced system has two components with distinct but complementary functions: the Adverse Reaction Tracking database, which is derived by extracting text-based, patient-specific information entered into the VA electronic medical record system by clinicians at the point of care; and the VA Adverse Drug Event Reporting System (VA ADERS), an external web-based portal that contains aggregated data from 146 VA facilities, with standardized coding of reported events. Both databases allow for ADR reporting at the local, regional, and national levels. The VA ADERS database permits rapid electronic reporting of certain ADRs to the federal MedWatch program. The two databases can be used in tandem for more comprehensive assessments of ADR patterns and reporting rates and to generate a wide range of benchmarking data. CONCLUSION: In recent years, the refinement of two databases for ADR reporting has increased VA's capability to systematically monitor, track, and report ADRs across its national network of health care facilities. Linking the two databases has further strengthened those capabilities, enhancing medication safety practices and aiding in pharmacovigilance.