Financial incentives and prescribing behavior in primary care.

Many healthcare systems prohibit primary care physicians from dispensing the drugs they prescribe due to concerns that this encourages excessive, ineffective or unnecessarily costly prescribing. Using data from the English National Health Service for 2011-2018, we estimate the impact of physician dispensing rights on prescribing behavior at the extensive margin (comparing practices that dispense and those that do not) and the intensive margin (comparing practices with different proportions of patients to whom they dispense). We control for practices selecting into dispensing based on observable (OLS, entropy balancing) and unobservable practice characteristics (2SLS). We find that physician dispensing increases drug costs per patient by 3.1%, due to more, and more expensive, drugs being prescribed. Reimbursement is partly based on a fixed fee per package dispensed and we find that dispensing practices prescribe smaller packages. As the proportion of the practice population for whom they can dispense increases, dispensing practices behave more like non-dispensing practices.

Financial incentives and physician prescription behavior: Evidence from dispensing regulations.

In many health care markets, physicians can respond to changes in reimbursement schemes by changing the volume (volume response) and the composition of services provided (substitution response). We examine the relative importance of these two behavioral responses in the context of physician drug dispensing in Switzerland. We find that dispensing increases drug costs by 52% for general practitioners and 56% for specialists. This increase is mainly due to a volume increase. The substitution response is negative on average, but not significantly different from zero for large parts of the distribution. In addition, our results reveal substantial effect heterogeneity.

Does Physician Dispensing Increase Drug Expenditures? Empirical Evidence from Switzerland.

This paper analyzes whether the opportunity for physicians to dispense drugs increases healthcare expenditures. We study the case of Switzerland, where dispensing physicians face financial incentives to overprescribe and sell more expensive pharmaceuticals. Using comprehensive physician-level data, we exploit the regional variation in the dispensing regime to estimate causal effects. The empirical strategy consists of a doubly-robust estimation that combines inverse probability weighting with regression. Our main finding suggests that dispensing leads to higher drug costs on the order of 34% per patient.

Physician drug dispensing in Switzerland: association on health care expenditures and utilization.

BACKGROUND: Several countries recently reassessed the roles of drug prescribing and dispensing, either by enlarging pharmacists' rights to prescribe (e.g. the US and the United Kingdom) or by limiting physicians' rights to dispense (e.g. Taiwan and South Korea). While integrating the two roles might increase supply and be convenient for patients, concern is that drug mark-ups incite providers to prescribe unnecessary drugs. We aimed to assess the association of physician dispensing (PD) in Switzerland on various outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study, using health care claims data for patients in the year 2013. The analysis of the association of PD was perfomed using a large patient level dataset and several target variables, including the number of different chemical agents, share of generic drugs, number of visits to physicians and expenditures. Different multivariate econometric models were applied in order to capture the association PD on the target variables. RESULTS: A total of 101'784 patients were enrolled in 2013, whereas 54 % were PD patients. We find that PD is associated with lower pharmaceutical expenditure per patient, which can be explained by an increased use of generic drugs. The decrease is compensated by higher use of physician services. We find no significant impact of physician dispensing on total health care expenditure. CONCLUSIONS: Our study offers insights for policy makers who are (re-)considering the separation between drug prescribing and dispensing, either by allowing physicians to dispense or pharmacists to prescribe certain drugs. In terms of total health care expenditures, we find no difference between the two systems, so we are doubtful that changing dispensing rights are a good measure to contain cost, at least in Switzerland.

Physician-dispensing as a determinant of clinical and process measurements in patients at increased cardiovascular risk: A cross-sectional study in Swiss general practice.

AIMS: In some healthcare systems, physicians are allowed to dispense drugs; in others, drug-dispensing is restricted to pharmacists. Whether physician-dispensing affects patient health is unknown. Thus, we aimed to investigate associations between physician-dispensing and clinical and process measurements in patients with selected long-term conditions indicating increased cardiovascular risk. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study in 2018 based on data from electronic medical records of 22405 patients (73.6% physician-dispensing) in Switzerland with medications for diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension, or lipid-related disorders. We used multilevel regression models to determine the associations between physician-dispensing and clinical measurements (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c], systolic blood pressure [sBP], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C]) or process measurements (number of annual clinical measurements, consultations, and drug prescriptions). RESULTS: Median (interquartile range) HbA1c value was 6.8% (6.3-7.5) both for the physician-dispensing and pharmacist-dispensing group, sBP was 137 (126-150) and 136 mmHg (126-149), and LDL-C was 2.3 (1.8-3.0) and 2.5 mmol/L (1.9-3.2). After adjustments, the physician-dispensing group had 4% lower LDL-C levels (p = 0.041), 12% more frequent HbA1c measurements (p = 0001), 16% higher annual consultation rates (p < 0.05 for all conditions), and equal number of different drugs, compared to the pharmacist-dispensing group. CONCLUSIONS: We found no relevant differences in selected clinical measurements between physician- and pharmacist-dispensing, and mixed results in process measurements. Our results do not indicate that one drug-dispensing channel is superior to the other.

Improving outpatient primary medication adherence with physician guided, automated dispensing.

BACKGROUND: Physician dispensing, different from pharmacist dispensing, is a way for practitioners to supply their patients with medications, at the point of care. The InstyMeds dispenser and logistics system can automate much of the dispensing, insurance adjudication, inventory management, and regulatory reporting that is required of physician dispensing. OBJECTIVE: To understand the percentage of patients that exhibit primary adherence to medication in the outpatient setting when choosing InstyMeds. METHOD: The InstyMeds dispensing database was de-identified and analyzed for primary adherence. This is the ratio of patients who dispensed their medication to those who received an eligible prescription. RESULTS: The average InstyMeds emergency department installation has a primary adherence rate of 91.7%. The maximum rate for an installed device was 98.5%. CONCLUSION: Although national rates of primary adherence have been found to be in the range of 70%, automated physician dispensing vastly improves the rate of adherence. Improved adherence should lead to better patient outcomes, fewer return visits, and lower healthcare costs.

Medication adherence in patients with diabetes mellitus: does physician drug dispensing enhance quality of care? Evidence from a large health claims database in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: The drug-dispensing channel is a scarcely explored determinant of medication adherence, which is considered as a key indicator for the quality of care among patients with diabetes mellitus. In this study, we investigated the difference in adherence between diabetes patients who obtained their medication directly from a prescribing physician (physician dispensing [PD]) or via a pharmacy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a large health care claims database from 2011 to 2014. Patients with diabetes of all ages and receiving at least one oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) prescription were included. We calculated patients' individual adherence to OADs defined as the proportion of days covered (PDC), which was measured over 1 year after patient identification. Good adherence was defined as PDC ≥80%. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the relationship between the PDC and the dispensing channel (PD, pharmacy). RESULTS: We identified a total of 10,430 patients prescribed drugs by a dispensing physician and 16,292 patients receiving drugs from a pharmacy. Medication adherence was poor in both patient groups: ~40% of the study population attained good adherence to OADs. We found no significant impact of PD on the adherence level in diabetes patients. Covariates associated significantly with good adherence were older age groups, male sex, occurrence of comorbidity and combined diabetes drug therapy. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, adherence to antihyperglycemic medication is suboptimal among patients with diabetes. The results of this study provide evidence that the dispensing channel does not have an impact on adherence in Switzerland. Certainly, medication adherence needs to be improved in both supply settings. Physicians as well as pharmacists are encouraged to develop and implement useful tools to increase patients' adherence behavior.

Prescription of potentially inappropriate medication in older persons in Switzerland: does the dispensing channel make a difference?

BACKGROUND: Drugs can be supplied either directly from the prescribing physician (physician dispensing [PD]) or via a pharmacy. It is unclear whether the dispensing channel is associated with quality problems. Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) is associated with adverse outcomes in older persons and can be considered a marker for quality deficits in prescribing. We investigated whether prevalence of PIM differs across dispensing channels. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed basic health insurance claims of 50,747 person quarter years with PIM use of residents of the Swiss cantons Aargau and Lucerne of the years 2012 and 2013. PIM was identified using the Beers 2012 criteria and the PRISCUS list. We calculated PIM prevalence stratified by supply channel. Adjusted mixed effects logistic regression analysis was done to estimate the effect of obtaining medications through the dispensing physician as compared to the pharmacy channel on receipt of PIM. The most frequent PIMs were identified. RESULTS: There is a small but detectable difference in total PIM prevalence: 30.7% of the population supplied by a dispensing physician as opposed to 29.3% individuals who received medication in a pharmacy. According to adjusted logistic regression individuals who obtained the majority of their medications from their prescribing physician had a 15% higher chance to receive a PIM (odds ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 1.08-1.22; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Physician dispensing seems to affect quality and safety of drug prescriptions. Quality issues should not be neglected in the political discussion about the regulations on PD. Future studies should explore whether PD is related to other indicators of inefficiency or quality flaws. The present study also underlines the need for interventions to reduce the high rates of PIM prescribing in Switzerland.