Online Tools to Decrease Out-of-Pocket Prescription Costs for Patients: A Practical Guide for Urologists.

INTRODUCTION: Patients who seek urologic care have recently reported a high degree of financial toxicity from prescription medications, including management for nephrolithiasis, urinary incontinence, and urological oncology. Estimating out-of-pocket costs can be challenging for urologists in the US because of variable insurance coverage, local pharmacy distributions, and complicated prescription pricing schemes. This article discusses resources that urologists can adopt into their practice and share with patients to help lower out-of-pocket spending for prescription medications. METHODS: We identify 4 online tools that are designed to direct patients toward more affordable prescription medication options: the Medicare Part D Plan Finder, GoodRx, Amazon, and the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company. A brief historical overview and summary for patients and clinicians are provided for each online resource. A patient-centered framework is provided to help navigate these 4 available tools in clinic. RESULTS: Among the 4 tools we identify, there are multiples tradeoffs to consider as financial savings and features can vary. First, patients insured by Medicare should explore the Part D Plan Finder each year to compare drug plans. Second, patients who need to urgently refill a prescription at a local pharmacy should visit GoodRx. Third, patients who are prescribed recurrent generic prescriptions for chronic conditions can utilize the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company. Finally, patients who are prescribed 3 or more chronic medications can benefit from subscribing to Amazon RxPass. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription medications for urologic conditions can be expensive. This article includes 4 online resources that can help patients access medications at their most affordable costs. Urologists can provide this framework to their patients to help support lowering out-of-pocket drug costs.

Factors Associated with Insured Children's Use of Physician Visits, Dentist Visits, Hospital Care, and Prescribed Medications in the United States: An Application of Behavioral Model of Health-Services Use.

This study is the first to examine factors in the utilization of physician services, dentist services, hospital care, and prescribed medications focusing exclusively on insured children in the United States. Data describing 48,660 insured children were extracted from the 2021 National Survey of Children's Health. Children in the present sample were covered by private health insurance, public health insurance, or other health insurance. Logistic regression results showed self-reported health to be negatively associated with physician visits, hospital-care use, and prescription use, but teeth condition to be positively associated with dentist visits. Physician visits were associated negatively with age, Hispanic ethnicity, Asian ethnicity, family income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level, and other health insurance, but positively with parental education and metropolitan residency. Dentist visits were associated positively with girls, age, and parental education, but negatively with Asian ethnicity and public health insurance. Use of hospital care was associated negatively with age and Asian ethnicity, but positively with parental education and public health insurance. Use of prescriptions was associated positively with age, Black ethnicity, parental education, and public health insurance, but negatively with Hispanic ethnicity, Asian ethnicity, and family income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. Implications included the expansion of public health insurance, promotion of awareness of medicine discount programs, and understanding of racial/ethnic minorities' cultural beliefs in health and treatment.

Prescription Drug Dispensing and Patient Costs After Implementation of a No Behavioral Health Cost-Sharing Law.

Importance: On January 1, 2022, New Mexico implemented a No Behavioral Cost-Sharing (NCS) law that eliminated cost-sharing for mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) treatments in plans regulated by the state, potentially reducing a barrier to treatment for MH/SUDs among the commercially insured; however, the outcomes of the law are unknown. Objective: To assess the association of implementation of the NCS with out-of-pocket spending for prescription for drugs primarily used to treat MH/SUDs and monthly volume of dispensed drugs. Design, Settings, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used a difference-in-differences research design to examine trends in outcomes for New Mexico state employees, a population affected by the NCS, compared with federal employees in New Mexico who were unaffected by NCS. Data were collected on prescription drugs for MH/SUDs dispensed per month between January 2021 and June 2022 for New Mexico patients with a New Mexico state employee health plan and New Mexico patients with a federal employee health plan. Data analysis occurred from December 2022 to January 2024. Exposure: Enrollment in a state employee health plan or federal health plan. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were mean patient out-of-pocket spending per dispensed MH/SUD prescription and the monthly volume of dispensed MH/SUD prescriptions per 1000 employees. A difference-in-differences estimation approach was used. Results: The implementation of the NCS law was associated with a mean (SE) $6.37 ($0.30) reduction (corresponding to an 85.6% decrease) in mean out-of-pocket spending per dispensed MH/SUD medication (95% CI, -$7.00 to -$5.75). The association of implementation of NCS with the volume of prescriptions dispensed was not statistically significant. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the implementation of the New Mexico NCS law was successful in lowering out-of-pocket spending on prescription medications for MH/SUDs, but that there was no association of NCS with the volume of medications dispensed in the first 6 months after implementation. A key challenge is to identify policies that protect from high out-of-pocket spending while also promoting access to needed care.

Why the increase? Examining the rise in prescription medication expenditures in the United States between 2011 and 2020.

The objective of this cross-sectional analysis was to identify determinants of increasing medicine expenditures in the US between 2011 and 2020. Prescription medication expenditures from the 2011-2020 Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS) were used to calculate total annual medication expenditures by payer categories (Out-of-pocket, Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE/Veterans Administration/CHAMPVA (TVAC), Other Government Sources, Private Insurance, and Other Sources). From here, expenditures were stratified by therapeutic category using Multum Lexicon Drug Class to examine trends in expenditures by therapeutic area. Linear regression was used to identify temporal trends in medication expenditures. From 2011 to 2020, total annual prescription medication expenditures rose from $341.49 to $473.12 billion per year with metabolic agents being the most costly category. Among the metabolic agents, antidiabetic agents were the most costly therapeutic area, with an increasing trend observed from $27.15 to $89.17 billion over the same period. Medicare, Medicaid, Private Insurance, TVAC, and Other Sources also saw an increasing trend in antidiabetic agent expenditure, while no trend was observed for Out-of-pocket and Other Government Sources. Insulin had the highest expenditure among antidiabetic agents. Further studies are warranted to explore specific factors contributing to the increasing trend.

Prescription drug coverage and effective coverage of three chronic conditions of high prevalence in Chile: Hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Access to medicines is a serious problem globally and in Chile. Despite the creation of coverage policies, part of the population with chronic conditions of high prevalence, still does not have access to the medicines it requires and disease control continues to be low. The objective of the study was to estimate the medication use and effective coverage for diabetes, dyslipidemia and hypertension in Chile, analyzing them according to sociodemographic variables and social determinants of health. METHODS: Cross-sectional analytical study with information from the 2016-2017 National Health Survey (sample = 6,233 people aged 15 years or older, expanded = 14,518,969). Descriptive analyses of medication use and effective coverage for hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia were carried out, and multivariate logistic regression models were developed to analyze possible associations with variables of interest. RESULTS: 60% of people with hypertension or diabetes use medications and only 27.7% in dyslipidemia. While 54.2% of those with diabetes have their glycemia controlled, in hypertension and dyslipidemia the effective coverage drops to 33.3% and 6.6%, respectively. There are no differences in use by health system, but there are differences in the control of hypertension and diabetes, favoring beneficiaries of the private subsystem. Effective coverage of dyslipidemia and hypertension also increases in those using medications. The drugs coincide with the established protocols, although beneficiaries of the private sector report greater use of innovative drugs. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of Chileans with hypertension, diabetes or dyslipidemia still do not use the required medications and do not control their conditions.

Associations Between Annual Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy Loss and Prescription Drug Spending and Use.

Importance: The Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidy (LIS) program provides millions of beneficiaries with drug plan premium and cost-sharing assistance. The extent to which LIS recipients experience subsidy losses with annual redetermination cycles and the resulting associations with prescription drug affordability and use are unknown. Objective: To examine how frequently annual LIS benefits are lost among Medicare Part D beneficiaries and how this is associated with prescription drug use and out-of-pocket costs. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study of Medicare Part D beneficiaries from 2007 to 2018, annual changes in LIS recipients among those automatically deemed eligible (eg, due to dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid) and nondeemed beneficiaries who must apply for LIS benefits were analyzed using Medicare enrollment and Part D event data. Subsidy losses were classified in 4 groups: temporary losses (<1 year); extended losses (≥1 year); subsidy reductions (change to partial LIS); and disenrollment from Medicare Part D after subsidy loss. Temporary losses could more likely represent subsidy losses among eligible beneficiaries. Multinomial logit models were used to examine associations between beneficiary characteristics and subsidy loss; linear regression models were used to compare changes in prescription drug cost and use in the months after subsidy losses vs before. Analyses were conducted between November 2022 and November 2023. Exposure: Subsidy loss at the beginning of each year among subsidy recipients in December of the prior year. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were out-of-pocket costs and prescription drug fills overall and for 4 classes: antidiabetes, antilipid, antidepressant, and antipsychotic drugs. Results: In 2008, 731 070 full LIS beneficiaries (17%) were not deemed automatically eligible (39% were aged <65 years; 59% were female). Nearly all beneficiaries deemed automatically eligible (≥99%) retained the subsidy annually from 2007 to 2018, compared with 78% to 84% of nondeemed beneficiaries. Among nondeemed beneficiaries, disabled individuals younger than 65 years and racial and ethnic minority groups were more likely to have temporary subsidy losses vs none. Temporary losses were associated with an average 700% increase in out-of-pocket drug costs (+$52.72/mo [95% CI, 52.52-52.92]) and 15% reductions in prescription fills (-0.58 fills/mo [95% CI, -0.59 to -0.57]) overall. Similar changes were found for antidiabetes, antilipid, antidepressant, and antipsychotic prescription drug classes. Beneficiaries who retained their subsidy had few changes. Conclusions and Relevance: The conclusions of this cohort study suggest that efforts to help eligible beneficiaries retain Medicare Part D subsidies could improve drug affordability, treatment adherence, and reduce disparities in medication access.

The Impact of Prescription Drug Coverage on Disparities in Adherence and Medication Use: A Systematic Review.

Prescription drug cost-sharing is a barrier to medication adherence, particularly for low-income and minority populations. In this systematic review, we examined the impact of prescription drug cost-sharing and policies to reduce cost-sharing on racial/ethnic and income disparities in medication utilization. We screened 2,145 titles and abstracts and identified 19 peer-reviewed papers that examined the interaction between cost-sharing and racial/ethnic and income disparities in medication adherence or utilization. We found weak but inconsistent evidence that lower cost-sharing is associated with reduced disparities in adherence and utilization, but studies consistently found that significant disparities remained even after adjusting for differences in cost-sharing across individuals. Study designs varied in their ability to measure the causal effect of policy or cost-sharing changes on disparities, and a wide range of policies were examined across studies. Further research is needed to identify the types of policies that are best suited to reduce disparities in medication adherence.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on prescription drug use and costs in British Columbia: a retrospective interrupted time series study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on prescription drug use and costs. DESIGN: Interrupted time series analysis of comprehensive administrative health data linkages in British Columbia, Canada, from 1 January 2018 to 28 March 2021. SETTING: Retrospective population-based analysis of all prescription drugs dispensed in community pharmacies and outpatient hospital pharmacies and irrespective of the drug insurance payer. PARTICIPANTS: Between 4.30 and 4.37 million individuals (52% women) actively registered with the publicly funded medical services plan. INTERVENTION: COVID-19 pandemic and associated mitigation measures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Weekly dispensing rates and costs, both overall and stratified by therapeutic groups and pharmacological subgroups, before and after the declaration of the public health emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Relative changes in post-COVID-19 outcomes were expressed as ratios of observed to expected rates. RESULTS: After the onset of the pandemic and subsequent COVID-19 mitigation measures, overall medication dispensing rates dropped by 2.4% (p<0.01), followed by a sustained weekly increase to return to predicted levels by the end of January 2021. We observed abrupt level decreases in antibacterials (30.3%, p<0.01) and antivirals (22.4%, p<0.01) that remained below counterfactuals over the first year of the pandemic. In contrast, there was a week-to-week trend increase in nervous system drugs, yielding an overall increase of 7.3% (p<0.01). No trend changes in the dispensing of respiratory system agents, ACE inhibitors, antidiabetic drugs and antidepressants were detected. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic impact on prescription drug dispensing was heterogeneous across medication subgroups. As data become available, dispensing trends in nervous system agents, antibiotics and antivirals warrant further monitoring and investigation.

Characteristics of Prescription Drug Fills Using Pharmacy-Pharmacy Benefit Manager Discount Programs: The "GoodRx" Model.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to characterize products using pharmacy-pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) discounts and to estimate the association among such discounts, prescription utilization, and out-of-pocket costs. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using IQVIA's Formulary Impact Analyzer, which contains anonymized, individual-level pharmacy claims representing US retail pharmacy transactions. We focused on 20 products with the greatest number of transactions using a pharmacy-PBM discount. Our unit of analysis was a treatment episode, defined as the length of time from an incident fill to no continuous use for 60 consecutive days after allowing for indefinite stockpiling. Outcome measures included products with greatest pharmacy-PBM discount use, characteristics of treatment episodes, and out-of-pocket costs with and without pharmacy-PBM discount. RESULTS: Across all products, 3.82% of transactions and 7.69% of treatment episodes were accompanied by a pharmacy-PBM discount. Commonly discounted products included generic treatments for chronic disease (lisinopril, levothyroxine, metformin) and neuropsychiatric conditions (alprazolam, amphetamine, buprenorphine, hydrocodone). The median postdiscount out-of-pocket cost was >2.5-fold higher during treatment episodes with a discount than those without ($15.15, interquartile range [IQR] $8.53-32.00, vs $5.88, IQR $1.40-15.00). Median treatment episode duration was 249 days (IQR 132-418) with discount use compared with 236 days (IQR 121-396) without discount use, although treatment episodes that began with a discount had fewer transactions per treatment episode and were shorter (median 212 days, IQR 114-360) than those that did not (313 days, IQR 178-500). CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacy-PBM discounts may foster market competition and improve access for under- and uninsured individuals; however, these programs may not generate savings for many insured individuals.

Pharmaceutical demand response to utilization management.

Prescription drug insurance increasingly imposes prior authorization (requiring providers to request coverage before claim approval) to manage utilization. Prior authorization has been criticized because of its administrative burden on providers. The primary alternative to managing utilization is imposing out-of-pocket (OOP) payment to incentivize beneficiaries to seek lower-cost care, effectively providing beneficiaries with partial insurance. Would beneficiaries prefer indirectly paying for prior authorization through higher premiums; or would they prefer prior authorization was replaced by higher OOP costs? This tradeoff depends on how much OOP costs could be displaced by prior authorization, which depends on their relative impact on demand. I estimate the effect of prior authorization and OOP costs on pharmaceutical demand in Medicare Part D, addressing endogeneity caused by unobserved drug quality and selection into plans. Despite criticism of prior authorization, I find that Medicare beneficiaries would prefer higher premiums to pay for prior authorization, over higher OOP costs.

The cost of simplifying treatments for cystic fibrosis: Implications of the SIMPLIFY trial.

BACKGROUND: Dornase alfa and hypertonic saline are mucoactive therapies that can improve respiratory symptoms in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). A recent randomized control trial showed that participants with well-preserved pulmonary function taking elexacaftor + tezacaftor + ivacaftor (ETI) who discontinued dornase alfa or hypertonic saline for 6 weeks had no clinically meaningful decline in lung function. This may prompt discussions with care providers regarding ongoing use of these medications. OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of outpatient medications between people taking ETI who continued or discontinued (1) dornase alfa or (2) hypertonic saline from 2 clinical trials and project cost differences in the US CF population if these 2 medications were used only intermittently for symptom relief instead of chronically. METHODS: The SIMPLIFY study was 2 parallel multicenter trials that randomized participants 1:1 to either continue or discontinue therapy. To estimate costs, we used data from the Merative MarketScan Databases to identify people with CF from 2020 to 2021. Our primary outcomes were differences in costs of outpatient prescription drugs among those who continued vs discontinued dornase alfa and, separately, hypertonic saline. We obtained adjusted differences in median costs. To estimate the annual cost savings if the population of people with CF taking ETI used these medications only intermittently, we multiplied the proportion of people in MarketScan with CF diagnoses who were taking each of these medications by the median cost savings per year and subtracted the cost of "rescue" use. RESULTS: A total of 392 participants from the dornase alfa trial and 273 from the hypertonic saline trial were included in analyses. The adjusted difference in median medication costs was not significant for the hypertonic saline trial, but we observed a significantly decreased 6-week cost of medications in the dornase alfa trial (adjusted median difference in costs between discontinue and continue of $5,860 (95% CI = $4,870-$6,850); P < 0.0001). We estimated that two-thirds of people with CF use ETI and dornase alfa in the United States; if they discontinued dornase alfa except for intermittent use, the resulting annual savings would be $1.21 billion. CONCLUSIONS: Although the costs of dornase alfa and hypertonic saline are smaller compared with ETI, reduction in use would lead to substantial prescription drug cost savings and reduce the treatment burden. However, individual benefits of these therapies should be considered, and decisions regarding changes in therapy remain an important discussion between people with CF and their providers. Study registration number: NCT04378153.

Drug use and spending under a formulary informed by cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: The National Academy of Medicine has called for value-based drug formularies to address health plan prescription drug spending while maintaining access to high-value medicines. Thirty employer-sponsored plans implemented a "Value-Based Formulary-essentials" (VBF-e) program that uses cost-effectiveness evidence to inform cost-sharing and coverage exclusion. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if the VBF-e was associated with changes in medication use and patient out-of-pocket spending and health plan spending on prescription drugs and other health care. METHODS: This was a cohort study using a difference-in-differences design from 2015 through 2019 with 1 year of follow-up after VBF-e implementation at Premera Blue Cross, the largest nonprofit health plan in the Pacific Northwest. The VBF-e exposure group was composed of all individuals aged younger than 65 years and enrolled at least 12 months prior to their employer group's VBF-e implementation date. The contemporaneous control group was composed of propensity score-matched individuals with the same inclusion criteria but their employer group that did not implement VBF-e. We prespecified the following outcomes: days of medication on hand overall and by VBF-e tier (high-value generic, brand, and specialty drugs were in tiers 1 to 3, respectively, and low-value drugs were in tier 4 or excluded from coverage); prescription drug spending; and other health care use (emergency department visits, hospital days, and outpatient visits). RESULTS: Comparing 12,111 exposed (mean age = 36.0; 49.8% female sex) participants with 24,222 control participants (mean age = 34.7; 49.6% female sex), VBF-e reduced use of low-value drugs by 0.3 days per member per month (PMPM) (95% CI = -0.5 to -0.1; 17% decrease) for tier 4 drugs and 0.4 days PMPM (95% CI = -0.5 to -0.4; 83% decrease) for excluded drugs. High-value specialty drug use increased by 0.1 days PMPM (95% CI = 0.0-0.1; 123% increase). Health plan spending decreased by $14 PMPM (95% CI = -26 to -4) and member out-of-pocket spending increased by $1 PMPM (95% CI = 1-2). Other health care use did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS: An exclusion formulary informed by cost-effectiveness evidence reduced low-value drug use, increased high-value specialty drug use, reduced health plan spending, and increased member out-of-pocket spending without increasing acute care use. DISCLOSURES: This research was supported by a grant from the Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation's Greater Value Portfolio Program. Study Registration Number: NCT04904055.

Costs of Prescription Drugs for Children and Parental Adherence to Long-Term Medications.

Importance: The adverse effects of prescription drug costs on medication adherence and health have been well described for individuals. Because many families share financial resources, high medication costs for one could lead to cost-related nonadherence in another; however, these family-level spillover effects have not been explored. Objective: To evaluate whether the cost of a child's newly initiated medication was associated with changes in their parent's adherence to their own medications and whether that differed by likely duration of treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used interrupted time-series analysis with a propensity score-matched control group from a large national US health insurer database (2010-2020) and included children initiating medication and their linked presumed parents using long-term medications. Exposure: The cost of the child's initiated medication. Child medication cost was classified based on highest (≥90th) or lowest (<10th) decile from out-of-pocket medication spending, stratified by whether the medication was intended for short- or long-term use. Children initiating high-cost medications (based on the highest decile) were propensity-score matched with children initiating low-cost medications. Main Outcome and Measures: The child's parent's adherence to long-term medication assessed by the widely used proportion of days covered metric in 30-day increments before and after the child's first fill date. Parent demographic characteristics, baseline adherence, and length of treatment, and family unit size and out-of-pocket medication spending were key subgroups. Results: Across 47 154 included pairs, the parents' mean (SD) age was 42.8 (7.7) years. Compared with a low-cost medication, initiating a high-cost, long-term medication was associated with an immediate 1.9% (95% CI, -3.8% to -0.9%) reduction in parental adherence sustained over time (0.2%; 95% CI, -0.1% to 0.4%). Similar results were observed for short-term medications (0.6% immediate change; 95% CI, -1.3% to -0.01%). Previously adherent parents, parents using treatment for longer periods, and families who spent more out-of-pocket on medications were more sensitive to high costs, with immediate adherence reductions of 2.8% (95% CI, -4.9% to -0.6%), 2.7% (95% CI, -4.7% to -0.7%), and -3.8% (95% CI, -7.2% to -0.5%), respectively, after long-term medication initiation. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study small reductions in adherence across parents with higher child drug costs were observed. Health care systems should consider child-level or even household-level spending in adherence interventions or prescription policy design.

Controlling Pharmaceutical Costs in a Student-Run Free Clinic in a Resource-Limited Patient Setting.

Our institution's student-run free clinic has been able to offer medication at no out-of-pocket cost to all patients since it opened in 2004. We have employed two strategies to manage prescription drug costs while simultaneously increasing medication coverage: (1) using Patient Drug Assistance Programs (PDAPs) and (2) developing an institutional-level partnership with pharmaceutical charities for medication subsidization. In this study, we aimed to analyze the financial impact of these measures on the clinic.A query of clinic data over the past 5 years identified 299 active PDAPs, corresponding to 299 fully-subsidized prescriptions. In 2017, there were 35 active PDAPs, increasing to 52 (2018), 62 (2019), and 82 (2020) before a decline to 68 PDAPs in 2021. The company affiliated with the most PDAPs varied annually: GlaxoSmithKline (2017), Lilly (2018, 2019, 2020), and both GlaxoSmithKline and Lilly (2021). The most frequent medications were sitagliptin (2017), insulin (2018, 2019), albuterol (2017, 2018), and dulaglutide (2020, 2021).In addition, data extracted from the private company subsidization program was analyzed for the year 2021. Program membership was $10,000 for institution-wide medication subsidization for all uninsured patients in the hospital system. In total, the clinic was able to acquire 220 medications with a 96% subsidy, corresponding to a direct clinic cost of $2,101.28. Comparatively, the market value of these medications was $52,401.51.Utilization of free drug acquisition programs and partnerships with pharmaceutical charities allowed for an increase in cost-savings and medications provided. Although the process for applying for medication assistance programs is complex, these programs serve as powerful tools for providing medications that may otherwise be unavailable due to cost. Other clinics and healthcare settings with uninsured patients should consider these programs as a means to ease medication cost burden.

Health-care practitioner use of prescription drug monitoring programs in clinical practice in Australia: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP) are electronic databases used by prescribers and pharmacists to monitor the use of high-risk prescription medications subject to extramedical use. This study aimed to explore how Australian pharmacists and prescribers are using PDMPs in practice and to gain an understanding of barriers to tool use, as well as practitioner recommendations to increase tool usability and uptake. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with pharmacists and prescribers who use a PDMP (n = 21). The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. RESULTS: The four themes that emerged were: (i) PDMP notifications combined with practitioner clinical judgement guide PDMP usability; (ii) practitioners use PDMPs to facilitate patient and practitioner communication; (iii) workflow systems integration impacts tool usability; and (iv) optimising PDMP information and data access including practitioner-tool engagement to improve tool uptake and usability. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners appreciate the value of PDMP information support for clinical decisions and patient communication. However, they also acknowledge the challenges to tool use and recommend improvements including enhanced workflow, systems integration, optimisation of tool information and national data sharing. Practitioners provide an important perspective on PDMP use in clinical practice. The findings can be drawn on by PDMP administrators to improve tool usefulness. Consequently, this may lead to an increase in practitioner PDMP use and optimise the delivery of quality patient care.

A checklist for a consistent, comprehensive medication review.

INTRODUCTION: Medicare Advantage Part D plans and stand-alone Part D prescription drug plans are required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to have qualified providers, including pharmacists, and offer annual comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) for eligible Medicare beneficiaries. Although guidance on the components of a CMR is available, providers have flexibility in how to deliver the CMR to patients and which content to cover. With the variety of patient needs, CMR content is not always consistently delivered in practice. Our research group performed an extensive evaluation to create and test an ideal CMR content coverage checklist for CMR provision. CMR CONTENT CHECKLIST: The CMR Content Checklist can be used for quality improvement purposes to evaluate the comprehensiveness of pharmacist services-to assess either within pharmacist variation across patients or within organization variations between pharmacists or sites. INCORPORATING THE CMR CONTENT CHECKLIST INTO PRACTICE: Testing in a real-world setting demonstrated where gaps in service coverage existed. The CMR Content Checklist could be used as the first step for quality improvement given that it provides details on the key aspects of the service that can inform quality measure development.

Utilization Management Trends in Medicare Part D Oncology Drugs, 2010-2020.

This study examines the exposure of Medicare Part D beneficiaries to utilization management, such as prior authorization, for oral oncology drugs.

Critical Test of the Beneficial Consequences of Lifting the Ban on Direct-to-Consumer Advertising for Prescription Drugs in Italy: Experimental Exposure and Questionnaire Study.

BACKGROUND: There are only two countries in the world (the United States and New Zealand) that allow the pharmaceutical branch to advertise prescription medication directly to consumers. There is pressure on governments to allow direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) for prescription drugs elsewhere too. One argument the industry uses frequently is the claim that exposure to DCTA, through various methods and occasions, is supposed to improve customers' knowledge of a disease and treatment. This argument has been part of the health care community's wider discussion of whether DTCA of prescription drugs benefits the population's general interest or is only an attempt to increase the sales of the pharmaceutical branch. Belief in true learning by DTCA is rooted in concepts of empowered consumers and their autonomous and empowered decision-making. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we tested the hypotheses that contact with DTCA increases recipients' literacy/knowledge, especially regarding the side effects of treatment (hypothesis 1), and empowerment (hypothesis 2). We further hypothesized that DTCA exposure would not increase depression knowledge (ie, about treatments, symptoms, and prevalence) (hypothesis 3). METHODS: A snowball sample of 180 participants was randomly split into three experimental groups receiving (1) a traditional information sheet, (2) a DTCA video clip for an antidepressant prescription drug, or (3) both. The video was original material from the United States translated into Italian for the experiment. Dependent variables were measures of depression knowledge (regarding treatments, symptoms and prevalence, and antidepressant side effects), depression literacy, and empowerment. RESULTS: None of the experimental groups differed significantly from the others in the empowerment measure (hypothesis 2 not confirmed). Partial confirmation of hypothesis 1 was obtained. Lower values on the depression literacy scale were obtained when participants had been given the video compared to the sheet condition. However, the general depression knowledge and its subscale on side effects reached higher scores when participants were exposed to the DTCA, alone or in combination with the information sheet. Finally, participants showed lower scores on knowledge about treatment and symptoms or prevalence after watching the video compared to the sheet condition (hypothesis 3 confirmed). Symptoms and prevalence knowledge increased only when the video was presented in combination with the sheet. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence for an increase in empowerment following DTCA exposure. An increase in knowledge of the side effects of the medication was observed in the group exposed to the DTCA video. This was the only result that confirmed the hypothesis of the beneficial effect of DTCA videos on knowledge. Written information proved to be the most suitable way to convey knowledge on treatments and symptoms prevalence. Our findings support the necessity of studying health literacy and patient empowerment together and the consequences of such an increase in knowledge in terms of help-seeking behavior.

Changes in Prescription Drug and Health Care Use Over 9 Years After the Large Drug Price Increase for Colchicine.

Importance: Prescription drug prices are a leading concern among patients and policy makers. There have been large and sharp price increases for some drugs, but the long-term implications of large drug price increases remain poorly understood. Objective: To examine the association of the large 2010 price increase in colchicine, a common treatment for gout, with long-term changes in colchicine use, substitution with other drugs, and health care use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study examined MarketScan data from a longitudinal cohort of patients with gout with employer-sponsored insurance from 2007 through 2019. Exposures: The US Food and Drug Administration's discontinuation of lower-priced versions of colchicine from the market in 2010. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean price of colchicine; use of colchicine, allopurinol, and oral corticosteroids; and emergency department (ED) and rheumatology visits for gout in year 1 and over the first decade of the policy (through 2019) were calculated. Data were analyzed between November 16, 2021, and January 17, 2023. Results: A total of 2 723 327 patient-year observations were examined from 2007 through 2019 (mean [SD] age of patients, 57.0 [13.8] years; 20.9% documented as female; 79.1% documented as male). The mean price per prescription of colchicine increased sharply from $11.25 (95% CI, $11.23-$11.28) in 2009 to $190.49 (95% CI, $190.07-$190.91) in 2011, a 15.9-fold increase, with the mean out-of-pocket price increasing 4.4-fold from $7.37 (95% CI, $7.37-$7.38) to $39.49 (95% CI, $39.42-$39.56). At the same time, colchicine use declined from 35.0 (95% CI, 34.6-35.5) to 27.3 (95% CI, 26.9-27.6) pills per patient in year 1 and to 22.6 (95% CI, 22.2-23.0) pills per patient in 2019. Adjusted analyses showed a 16.7% reduction in year 1 and a 27.0% reduction over the decade (P < .001). Meanwhile, adjusted allopurinol use rose by 7.8 (95% CI, 6.9-8.7) pills per patient in year 1, a 7.6% increase from baseline, and by 33.1 (95% CI, 32.6-33.7) pills per patient through 2019, a 32.0% increase from baseline over the decade (P < .001). Moreover, adjusted oral corticosteroid use exhibited no significant change in the first year, then increased by 1.5 (95% CI, 1.3-1.7) pills per patient through 2019, an 8.3% increase from baseline over the decade. Adjusted ED visits for gout rose by 0.02 (95% CI, 0.02-0.03) per patient in year 1, a 21.5% increase, and by 0.05 (95% CI, 0.04-0.05) per patient through 2019, a 39.8% increase over the decade (P < .001). Adjusted rheumatology visits for gout increased by 0.02 (95% CI, 0.02-0.03) per patient through 2019, a 10.5% increase over the decade (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study among individuals with gout, the large increase in colchicine prices in 2010 was associated with an immediate decrease in colchicine use that persisted over approximately a decade. Substitution with allopurinol and oral corticosteroids was also evident. Increased ED and rheumatology visits for gout over the same period suggest poorer disease control.