Pharmaceutical policies: effects of reference pricing, other pricing, and purchasing policies.

BACKGROUND: Pharmaceuticals are important interventions that could improve people's health. Pharmaceutical pricing and purchasing policies are used as cost-containment measures to determine or affect the prices that are paid for drugs. Internal reference pricing establishes a benchmark or reference price within a country which is the maximum level of reimbursement for a group of drugs. Other policies include price controls, maximum prices, index pricing, price negotiations and volume-based pricing. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of pharmaceutical pricing and purchasing policies on health outcomes, healthcare utilisation, drug expenditures and drug use. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), part of The Cochrane Library (including the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Register) (searched 22/10/2012); MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and MEDLINE, Ovid (searched 22/10/2012); EconLit, ProQuest (searched 22/10/2012); PAIS International, ProQuest (searched 22/10/2012); World Wide Political Science Abstracts, ProQuest (searched 22/10/2012); INRUD Bibliography (searched 22/10/2012); Embase, Ovid (searched 14/12/2010); NHSEED, part of The Cochrane Library (searched 08/12/2010); LILACS, VHL (searched 14/12/2010); International Political Science Abstracts (IPSA), Ebsco (searched (17/12/2010); OpenSIGLE (searched 21/12/10); WHOLIS, WHO (searched 17/12/2010); World Bank (Documents and Reports) (searched 21/12/2010); Jolis (searched 09/10/2011); Global Jolis (searched 09/10/2011) ; OECD (searched 30/08/2005); OECD iLibrary (searched 30/08/2005); World Bank eLibrary (searched 21/12/2010); WHO - The Essential Drugs and Medicines web site (browsed 21/12/2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Policies in this review were defined as laws; rules; financial and administrative orders made by governments, non-government organisations or private insurers. To be included a study had to include an objective measure of at least one of the following outcomes: drug use, healthcare utilisation and health outcomes or costs (expenditures); the study had to be a randomised trial, non-randomised trial, interrupted time series (ITS), repeated measures (RM) study or a controlled before-after study of a pharmaceutical pricing or purchasing policy for a large jurisdiction or system of care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Results were summarised in tables. There were too few comparisons with similar outcomes across studies to allow for meta-analysis or meaningful exploration of heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 studies (seven identified in the update): 17 of reference pricing, one of which also assessed maximum prices, and one of index pricing. None of the studies were trials. All included studies used ITS or RM analyses. The quality of the evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. Three reference pricing studies reported cumulative drug expenditures at one year after the transition period. Two studies reported the median relative insurer's cumulative expenditures, on both reference drugs and cost share drugs, of -18%, ranging from -36% to 3%. The third study reported relative insurer's cumulative expenditures on total market of -1.5%. Four reference pricing studies reported median relative insurer's expenditures on both reference drugs and cost share drugs of -10%, ranging from -53% to 4% at one year after the transition period. Four reference pricing studies reported a median relative change of 15% in reference drugs prescriptions at one year (range -14% to 166%). Three reference pricing studies reported a median relative change of -39% in cost share drugs prescriptions at one year (range -87% to -17%). One study of index pricing reported a relative change of 55% (95% CI 11% to 98%) in the use of generic drugs and -43% relative change (95% CI -67% to -18%) in brand drugs at six months after the transition period. The same study reported a price change of -5.3% and -1.1% for generic and brand drugs respectively six months after the start of the policy. One study of maximum prices reported a relative change in monthly sales volume of all statins of 21% (95% CI 19% to 24%) after one year of the introduction of this policy. Four studies reported effects on mortality and healthcare utilisation, however they were excluded because of study design limitations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the studies of pricing and purchasing policies that met our inclusion criteria evaluated reference pricing. We found that internal reference pricing may reduce expenditures in the short term by shifting drug use from cost share drugs to reference drugs. Reference pricing may reduce related expenditures with effects on reference drugs but the effect on expenditures of cost share drugs is uncertain. Reference pricing may increase the use of reference drugs and may reduce the use of cost share drugs. The analysis and reporting of the effects on patients' drug expenditures were limited in the included studies and administration costs were not reported. Reference pricing effects on health are uncertain due to lack of evidence. The effects of other purchasing and pricing policies are until now uncertain due to sparse evidence. However, index pricing may reduce the use of brand drugs, increase the use of generic drugs, and may also slightly reduce the price of the generic drug when compared with no intervention.

Pharmaceutical policies: effects of restrictions on reimbursement.

BACKGROUND: Public policy makers and benefit plan managers need to restrain rising pharmaceutical drug costs while preserving access and optimizing health benefits. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of a pharmaceutical policy restricting the reimbursement of selected medications on drug use, health care utilization, health outcomes and costs (expenditures). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the 14 major bibliographic databases and websites (to January 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Included were studies of pharmaceutical policies that restrict coverage and reimbursement of selected drugs or drug classes, often using additional patient specific information related to health status or need. We included randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series (ITS) analyses, repeated measures studies and controlled before-after studies set in large care systems or jurisdictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed study limitations. Quantitative re-analysis of time series data was undertaken for studies with sufficient data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 ITS analyses (12 were controlled) investigating policies targeting 11 drug classes for restriction. Participants were most often senior citizens or low income adult populations, or both, in publically subsidized or administered pharmaceutical benefit plans. Impact of policies varied by drug class and whether restrictions were implemented or relaxed. When policies targeted gastric-acid suppressant and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug classes, decreased drug use and substantial savings on drugs occurred immediately and for up to two years afterwards, with no increase in the use of other health services (6 studies). Targeting second generation antipsychotic drugs increased treatment discontinuity and the use of other health services without reducing overall drug expenditures (2 studies). Relaxing restrictions for reimbursement of antihypertensives and statins increased appropriate use and decreased overall drug expenditures. Two studies which measured health outcomes directly were inconclusive. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Implementing restrictions to coverage and reimbursement of selected medications can decrease third-party drug spending without increasing the use of other health services (6 studies). Relaxing reimbursement rules for drugs used for secondary prevention can also remove barriers to access. Policy design, however, needs to be based on research quantifying the harm and benefit profiles of target and alternative drugs to avoid unwanted health system and health effects. Health impact evaluation should be conducted where drugs are not interchangeable. Impacts on health equity, relating to the fair and just distribution of health benefits in society (sustainable access to publically financed drug benefits for seniors and low income populations, for example), also require explicit measurement.

Rational prescribing in primary care (RaPP): economic evaluation of an intervention to improve professional practice.

BACKGROUND: Interventions designed to narrow the gap between research findings and clinical practice may be effective, but also costly. Economic evaluations are necessary to judge whether such interventions are worth the effort. We have evaluated the economic effects of a tailored intervention to support the implementation of guidelines for the use of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs. The tailored intervention was evaluated in a randomized trial, and was shown to significantly increase the use of thiazides for patients started on antihypertensive medication, but had little or no impact on other outcomes. The increased use of thiazides was not expected to have an impact on health outcomes. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed cost-minimization and cost-effectiveness analyses on data from a randomized trial involving 146 general practices from two geographical areas in Norway. Each practice was randomized to either the tailored intervention (70 practices; 257 physicians) or control group (69 practices; 244 physicians). Only patients that were being started on antihypertensive medication were included in the analyses. A multifaceted intervention was tailored to address identified barriers to change. Key components were an educational outreach visit with audit and feedback, and computerized reminders. Pharmacists conducted the visits. A cost-minimization framework was adopted, where the costs of intervention were set against the reduced treatment costs (principally due to increased use of thiazides rather than more expensive medication). The cost-effectiveness of the intervention was estimated as the cost per additional patient being started on thiazides. The net annual cost (cost minimization) in our study population was 53,395 US dollars, corresponding to 763 US dollars per practice. The cost per additional patient started on thiazides (cost-effectiveness) was 454 US dollars. The net annual savings in a national program was modeled to be 761,998 US dollars, or 540 US dollars per practice after 2 y. In this scenario the savings exceeded the costs in all but two of the sensitivity analyses we conducted, and the cost-effectiveness was estimated to be 183 US dollars. CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant shift in prescribing of antihypertensive drugs towards the use of thiazides in our trial. A major reason to promote the use of thiazides is their lower price compared to other drugs. The cost of the intervention was more than twice the savings within the time frame of our study. However, we predict modest savings over a 2-y period.

Translating research into policy and practice in developing countries: a case study of magnesium sulphate for pre-eclampsia.

BACKGROUND: The evidence base for improving reproductive health continues to grow. However, concerns remain that the translation of this evidence into appropriate policies is partial and slow. Little is known about the factors affecting the use of evidence by policy makers and clinicians, particularly in developing countries. The objective of this study was to examine the factors that might affect the translation of randomised controlled trial (RCT) findings into policies and practice in developing countries. METHODS: The recent publication of an important RCT on the use of magnesium sulphate to treat pre-eclampsia provided an opportunity to explore how research findings might be translated into policy. A range of research methods, including a survey, group interview and observations with RCT collaborators and a survey of WHO drug information officers, regulatory officials and obstetricians in 12 countries, were undertaken to identify barriers and facilitators to knowledge translation. RESULTS: It proved difficult to obtain reliable data regarding the availability and use of commonly used drugs in many countries. The perceived barriers to implementing RCT findings regarding the use of magnesium sulphate for pre-eclampsia include drug licensing and availability; inadequate and poorly implemented clinical guidelines; and lack of political support for policy change. However, there were significant regional and national differences in the importance of specific barriers. CONCLUSION: The policy changes needed to ensure widespread availability and use of magnesium sulphate are variable and complex. Difficulties in obtaining information on availability and use are combined with the wide range of barriers across settings, including a lack of support from policy makers. This makes it difficult to envisage any single intervention strategy that might be used to promote the uptake of research findings on magnesium sulphate into policy across the study settings. The publication of important trials may therefore not have the impacts on health care that researchers hope for.

The potential savings of using thiazides as the first choice antihypertensive drug: cost-minimisation analysis.

BACKGROUND: All clinical practice guidelines recommend thiazides as a first-choice drug for the management of uncomplicated hypertension. Thiazides are also the lowest priced antihypertensive drugs. Despite this, the use of thiazides is much lower than that of other drug-classes. We wanted to estimate the potential for savings if thiazides were used as the first choice drug for the management of uncomplicated hypertension. METHODS: For six countries (Canada, France, Germany, Norway, the UK and the US) we estimated the number of people that are being treated for hypertension, and the proportion of them that are suitable candidates for thiazide-therapy. By comparing this estimate with thiazide prescribing, we calculated the number of people that could switch from more expensive medication to thiazides. This enabled us to estimate the potential drug-cost savings. The analysis was based on findings from epidemiological studies and drug trials, and data on sales and prescribing provided by IMS for the year 2000. RESULTS: For Canada, France, Germany, Norway, the UK and the US the estimated potential annual savings were US13.8 million dollars, US37.4 million dollars, US72.2 million dollars, US10.7 million dollars, US119.7 million dollars and US433.6 million dollars, respectively.

[Evaluation of reimbursement applications for new drugs]. / Vurderinger av refusjonssøknader for nye legemidler.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that decisions about which drugs should be reimbursed by the Norwegian National Insurance Administration (NIA) are ad hoc and made without explicit criteria for evaluating applications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We assessed all documents that we were able to retrieve from the NIA for a sample of 31 applications to add new drugs to the drug benefit program, mainly in the 1990s. The assessment was done with respect to two questions. First, to what extent were different factors explicitly evaluated, such as treatment effects, side effects, cost-effectiveness and reimbursement costs? Second, to what extent did these factors affect the decisions that were made? RESULTS: We found documents for 19 of the 31 drugs. For the 19 drugs and nine factors that we considered as potentially important in making a decision (a total of 19 x 9 = 171 possible assessments), we found a total of only eight explicit written evaluations. In 10 out of 19 cases costs to the NIA and control of these costs, or use of the drug, appeared to have an important impact on the decision that was reached. INTERPRETATION: Based on the documents to which we have had access, the NIA's evaluations have not been systematic or transparent for the vast majority of drugs.