Effects of a 3-Tier Pharmacy Benefit Design on the Prescription Purchasing Behavior of Individuals With Chronic Disease.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of 3-tier (copayment) pharmacy benefit structures on medication utilization behavior. METHODS: A pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design was employed. Chronic disease sufferers (N=8,132) from a health plan were classified into the following groups: (a) 2-tier copayment moving to a 3-tier structure, ("converting" group), (b) 2-tier staying in a 2-tier structure and, (c) 3-tier staying in a 3-tier structure. The latter 2 were "comparison" groups. Two 7-month time periods were determined: the "preperiod" (June through December 2000) and the "postperiod" (January through July 2001) for a change in pharmacy benefit structure. Pharmacy claims data were used for data collection. Statistical analyses included bivariate tests to evaluate predifferences and postdifferences across study groups. Maximum likelihood estimates from a repeated measures model were used to examine changes in formulary compliance and generic use rates. Discontinuation of nonformulary medications was evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Controlling for demographics, number of comorbidities, disease state, and pharmacy benefit structure, the formulary compliance rate increased by 5.6% for the converting group. No significant increases were seen for the comparison groups. Generic use rates increased by 6 to 8 absolute percentage points for all groups (3.3% to 4.9 % adjusted rates). Converting group members were 1.76 times more likely to discontinue their nonformulary medication than those in the 2-tier comparison group and 1.49 times more likely than those in the 3-tier comparison group. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that shifting individuals from a 2-tier to a 3-tier drug benefit copayment structure resulted in changes in medication utilization. Decision makers need to balance these changes with the potential dissatisfaction that members may express in paying higher copayments. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was provided by Merck and Company through the Academic Medicine and Managed Care Forum and was obtained by authors Kavita V. Nair, Robert J. Valuck, Pamela Wolfe, Julie M. Ganther, and Marianne M. McCollum. Nair served as principal author of the study. Study concept and design was contributed by Nair, Valuck, Wolfe, Ganther, McCollum, and author Sonya J. Lewis. Analysis and interpretation of data and drafting of the manuscript were primarily the work of Nair and Wolfe, and all authors contributed to the critical revision of the manuscript. Statistical expertise was contributed by Wolfe. Administrative, technical, and/or material support was provided by Mark Enders.

Considerations for optimal management of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: a multi-stakeholder roundtable discussion.

A roundtable panel of national and regional managed care decision makers and providers met to discuss pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and strategies for management. As a rare, complex disease with high economic costs and potentially devastating outcomes, PAH necessitates that managed care providers balance optimal care with efficient use of healthcare resources. PAH specialists are recognized by health plans as knowledgeable experts and integral partners in managing patients and resources. The diagnosis of PAH must be confirmed by a right heart catheterization. Available therapies are indicated almost exclusively for patients with PAH (riociguat is also indicated in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension) and target 1 of 3 pathways: endothelin receptor antagonists for the endothelin pathway; phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors and soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators for the nitric oxide pathway; and prostanoids as well as a prostacyclin receptor agonist for the prostacyclin pathway, with combination therapy becoming more common. Even in the modern treatment era, as shown in the REVEAL and French registries, PAH is often diagnosed years after symptoms first appear, which leads to a poor prognosis and increased burden on the healthcare system. Facilitating treatment of patients with PAH through centers of excellence, and coordinating care management between health plans and providers with evidence-based approaches can lead to both better results for patients and lower healthcare costs. When PAH experts have access to the right treatments for the right patients at the right time, they can work with insurers to improve the health of patients with PAH while helping to reduce the impact on the healthcare system.

Medicare Part D-a roundtable discussion of current issues and trends.

BACKGROUND: Medicare Part D was introduced with a goal of providing access to prescription drug coverage for all Medicare beneficiaries. Regulatory mandates and the changing landscape of health care require continued evaluation of the state of the Part D benefit. OBJECTIVE: To review the current state of plan offerings and highlight key issues regarding the administration of the Part D benefit. SUMMARY: The Part D drug benefit continues to evolve. The benefit value appears to be diluted compared to the benefit value of large employer plans. Regulatory restrictions mandated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are reported to inhibit the ability of plans to create an effective, competitive drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. Management in this restrictive environment impedes competitive price negotiations and formulary coverage issues continue to create confusion especially for patients with chronic diseases. The doughnut hole coverage gap represents a significant cost-shifting issue for beneficiaries that may impact medication adherence and persistence. To address these and other challenges, CMS is working to improve the quality of care for Part D beneficiaries by designing and supporting demonstration projects. Although these projects are in different stages, all stakeholders are hopeful that they will lead to the development of best practices by plans to help manage their beneficiaries more efficiently. CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of Medicare beneficiaries are currently receiving prescription drug benefits through Part D. The true value of this benefit has been called into question as a result of plan design parameters that lead to cost-shifting, an increasing burden for enrollees. Concerns regarding the ability to provide a competitive plan given the stringent rules and regulations have been voiced by plan administrators. In an effort to drive toward evidence-based solutions, CMS is working to improve the overall quality of care through numerous demonstration projects.

The future of Medicare Part D drug plans--results from a roundtable discussion.

BACKGROUND: The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, signed into law in 2003, provided access to prescription drugs for elderly Americans. The Part D benefit continues to evolve. Changes in plan designs, the impact of the doughnut hole on beneficiaries, and increased cost shifting have the potential to hamper the future of the Part D benefit. OBJECTIVE: To discuss factors that will likely have the most impact on the future of Medicare Part D from a patient and payer perspective. SUMMARY: The continued growth of the elderly population is expected to place an increasing burden on the services provided through Medicare. Given the current financial situation, it has been predicted that Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be depleted by 2019. To provide quality benefits and remain competitive, health plans are continually evaluating and redesigning their Part D benefits. However, the current regulatory environment is preventing plans from offering innovative products and designs that could lower costs to beneficiaries. The growing number of beneficiaries hitting the doughnut hole is also becoming a concern for both beneficiaries and health plans. More beneficiaries are reaching the doughnut hole, and this has resulted in changes in beneficiary behaviors, including stopping medications, switching to alternative drug classes, and reducing medication use. Because of the increasing concerns about Medicare's sustainability, it is anticipated that the government may become more involved. CONCLUSION: As the health care landscape continues to change, payers will be challenged to offer benefit designs that are affordable to elderly beneficiaries. For its part, the government must allow plans to design benefits that will improve the overall quality of care. Additionally, closer attention must be given to the growing number of beneficiaries hitting the doughnut hole and its potential adverse clinical and economic consequences.

Health information technology--results from a roundtable discussion.

BACKGROUND: Health information technology (HIT), notably e-prescribing and electronic health records (EHR), have the potential to improve the quality of care, reduce medication errors and adverse events, and decrease overall health care utilization and costs. However, the United States continues to lag behind other countries in the adoption and use of HIT. OBJECTIVE: To review the various issues surrounding the implementation of HIT in the United States and potential drivers that will influence the use of e-prescribing and EHR. SUMMARY: The United States has been slow to embrace HIT. However, various factors, including increasing government involvement, are speeding the implementation and use of HIT. E-prescribing and EHR are both electronic means to provide better coordination of care by enabling various health care professionals to access patient medical records. Widespread adoption of HIT can be especially helpful for the elderly, since this population tends to have more chronic conditions requiring polypharmacy. Adoption of e-prescribing can reduce medication errors due to poor handwriting, while EHR can promote better clinical outcomes, improve medication adherence and refill rates, improve member satisfaction, and lower overall health care expenditures. Unfortunately, barriers to the adoption of e-prescribing and EHR still exist, including resistance to learning new technology, initial start-up costs, delay in seeing a return on investment, lack of a standardized platform, increased administrative burden, and misaligned incentives. In an effort to promote greater adoption of e-prescribing and EHR, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid has designed several initiatives, and other private organizations are now becoming more involved to close the HIT gap. CONCLUSION: Although the United States has been slow to implement HIT, there is reason to be hopeful. Increasing involvement by the government and other organizations will facilitate the greater adoption and use of e-prescribing and EHR in the near future. Ongoing data are needed, however, to demonstrate improvements in overall patient care and reductions in health care utilization and costs. These data are necessary to remove existing barriers that may prevent widespread implementation.

Consumer attitudes and factors related to prescription switching decisions in multitier copayment drug benefit plans.

OBJECTIVES: To examine patient attitudes related to formulary medications and medication-related decision making in multitier copayment prescription drug plans. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional retrospective analysis. METHODS: Data were collected via mail survey from a random sample of 25,008 members of a managed care organization. The selected members were enrolled in a variety of 2- and 3-tier copayment plans and were taking prescription medication to treat 1 or more of 5 chronic disease states. RESULTS: Most respondents did not believe that formulary drugs were safer or more effective than nonformulary drugs, but 39.7% thought that formulary drugs were relatively less expensive. Most respondents appeared willing to consider switching from a nonformulary drug to a formulary drug with a lower copayment. The percent of respondents who reported they would be very unlikely or unlikely to switch was only 15.3% for a new prescription and 24.2% for a refill prescription. Medication efficacy and physician opinion were important factors in plan members' switching decisions. Cost was an important factor for some members, but older plan members were less likely to report that cost was important. CONCLUSIONS: Multitier plan members generally believed that drugs are placed on the formulary for reasons of cost rather than safety or efficacy. Most plan members were receptive to switching from a nonformulary to a formulary medication, but financial incentives alone may not convince some plan members to make the switch.

Impact of multi-tiered pharmacy benefits on attitudes of plan members with chronic disease states.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of 2- and 3-tiered pharmacy benefit plans on member attitudes regarding their pharmacy benefits. METHODS: We performed a mail survey and cross-sectional comparison of the outcome variables in a large managed care population in the western United States. Participants were persons with chronic disease states who were in 2- or 3-tier copay drug plans. A random sample of 10,662 was selected from a total of 25,008 members who had received 2 or more prescriptions for a drug commonly used to treat one of 5 conditions: hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), or arthritis. Statistical analysis included bivariate comparisons and regression analysis of the factors affecting member attitudes, including satisfaction, loyalty, health plan choices, and willingness to pay a higher out-of-pocket cost for medications. RESULTS: A response rate of 35.8% was obtained from continuously enrolled plan members. Respondents were older, sicker, and consumed more prescriptions than nonrespondents. There were significant differences in age and health plan characteristics between 2- and 3-tier plan members: respondents aged 65 or older represented 11.7% of 2-tier plan members and 54.7% of 3-tier plan members, and 10.0% of 2-tier plan members were in Medicare+Choice plans versus 61.4% in Medicare+Choice plans for 3-tier plan members (P<0.05). Controlling for demographic characteristics, number of comorbidities, and the cost of health care, 2-tier plan members were more satisfied with their plan, more likely to recommend their plan to others, and less likely to switch their current plans to obtain better prescription drug coverage than 3-tier plan members. While members were willing to purchase higher cost nonformulary and brand-name medications, in general, they were not willing to pay more than 10 dollars (in addition to their copayment amount) for these medications. Older respondents and sicker individuals (those with higher scores on the Chronic Disease Indicator) appeared to have more positive attitudes toward their pharmacy benefit plans in general. Higher reported incomes by respondents were also associated with greater satisfaction with prescription drug coverage and increased loyalty toward the pharmacy benefit plan. Conversely, the more individuals spent for either their health care or prescription medications, the less satisfied they were with their prescription drug coverage and less loyalty they appeared to have for their health plans. An inverse relationship also appeared to exist between the out-of-pocket costs for prescription medications and members' willingness to pay for nonformulary medications. CONCLUSIONS: Three-tier members had lower reported satisfaction with their plans compared to members in 2-tier plans. The financial resources available to members (which may be a function of being older and having more education and higher incomes), the number of chronic disease states that members have, and other factors may influence their attitudes toward their prescription drug coverage.