Diabetes tipo 2 en Andalucía: uso de recursos y coste económico / Type 2 diabetes in Andalusia: Resources use and economic cost

Antecedentes y objetivos Estudios previos que cuantifican el coste de la diabetes tipo 2 (DM2) muestran resultados muy dispares. Nos planteamos definir el perfil del paciente con DM2 en Andalucía, analizar el uso de recursos sanitarios y, cuantificar su coste económico en el año 2022. Pacientes y métodos Estudio multicéntrico, transversal y descriptivo; 385 pacientes con DM2 de toda Andalucía (IC 95%; error: 5%). Datos analizados: edad, sexo, asistencia a consultas de Atención Primaria (AP), de enfermería, de urgencias y de especialidades hospitalarias; consumo de fármacos en general y antidiabéticos en particular, tiras de glucemia, pruebas complementarias y días de ingreso hospitalario. Resultados Edad media: 70,7 ± 12,44 años; 53,6% hombres. Contactos asistenciales: médico de AP: 8,36 ± 4,69; enfermería: 7,17 ± 12; consultas hospitalarias: 2,31 ± 2,38; urgencias: 1,71 ± 2,89. Días de ingreso hospitalario: 2,26 ± 6,46. Analíticas: 3,79 ± 5,45 y 2,17 ± 3,47 Rx. Fármacos consumidos: 9,20 ± 3,94 (1,76 ± 0,90 antidiabéticos). Tiras glucemia: 184 ± 488. Coste anual: 5.171,05 €/paciente/año (2.228,36 € por ingresos hospitalarios, 1.702,87 € por fármacos y 1.239,82 € por asistencias y pruebas complementarias). Conclusiones El andaluz con DM2 tiene 71 años de edad, consume 10 fármacos diferentes y trata su DM2 con doble terapia. Tiene 20 asistencias/año (75% en AP), cuatro análisis, dos Rx y precisa dos días de ingreso hospitalario. Los costes sanitarios directos superan los 5.000 €/año. Lo que supone 41,66% del presupuesto de la Consejería de Salud y triplica el gasto medio por habitante (AU)

Background and objectives Previous studies that quantify the cost of type 2 diabetes (DM2) show very different results. We set out to define the profile of the patient with DM2 in Andalusia, analyze the use of health resources and quantify their economic cost during 2022. Patients and methods Multicenter, cross-sectional and descriptive study. Three hundred and eighty-five patients with DM2 from Andalusia (confidence level: 95%; error: 5%). Data analyzed: age, sex, attendance at primary care (PC), nursing, emergency and hospital specialty consultations; consumption of drugs in general and antidiabetics in particular, blood glucose strips, complementary tests and hospitalization days. Results Mean age: 70.7 ± 12.44 years; 53.6% men. Care contacts: PC physician: 8.36 ± 4.69; nursing: 7.17 ± 12; hospital visits: 2.31 ± 2.38; emergencies: 1.71 ± 2.89; hospitalization days: 2.26 ± 6.46. Laboratory tests: 3.79 ± 5.45 and 2.17 ± 3.47 Rx. Drugs consumed: 9.20 ± 3.94 (1.76 ± 0.90 antidiabetics). Blood glucose strips: 184 ± 488. Annual cost: 5171.05 €/patient/year (2228.36 € for hospital admissions, 1702.87 € for drugs and 1239.82 € for assistance and complementary tests). Conclusions The DM2 Andalusian is 71 years old, consumes 10 different drugs and treats DM2 with double therapy. He has been 20 attendances/year (75% in PC), 4 analyses, 2 X-rays and requires 2 days of hospitalization. Direct healthcare costs goes over 5000 €/year. This represents 41.66% of the budget of the Andalusian Ministry of Health and triples the average cost per habitant (AU)

Initial prescriptions and medication switches of biological products: an analysis of prescription pathways and determinants in the Swiss healthcare setting.

OBJECTIVES: Biological products have contributed to extraordinary advances in disease treatments over the last decade. However, the cost-saving potential of imitator products, so-called biosimilars, is still under-researched in Switzerland. This study aims to assess biosimilars' prescriptions at treatment initiation and their determinants, as well as biological therapy switches. DESIGN: The study included all patients who had at least one biosimilar available on the market at the time when they were prescribed a biological product. We analysed longitudinal data for biosimilar prescriptions in Switzerland using descriptive statistics and logistic regression to quantify the associations with individual, pharmaceutical and provider-related variables. SETTING: The analysis is based on de-identified claims data of patients with mandatory health insurance at Helsana, one of the Swiss health insurance companies with a substantial enrollee base in mandatory health insurance. PARTICIPANTS: Overall, 18 953 patients receiving at least one biological product between 2016 and 2021 were identified. OUTCOME MEASURES: We differentiated between initial prescriptions and follow-up prescriptions. Our regression focused on initial prescriptions due to evidence indicating that patients tend to follow the medication prescribed at therapy initiation. RESULTS: Although biosimilars' market share was low (28.6%), the number of prescriptions has increased (from 1016 in 2016 to 6976 in 2021). Few patients with medication switches (n=1492, 8.5%) were detected. Increased relative price difference (difference in the price of available biosimilars relative to price of corresponding reference product) was associated with decreased probability of biosimilar prescriptions, whereas male sex, an increase of available imitator drugs on the market, larger packaging sizes, and prescriptions from specialists or physicians in outpatient settings were associated with increased biosimilar use. CONCLUSION: The low number of biosimilar prescriptions, despite the proliferating biosimilar market, indicates a high potential for biosimilar diffusion. The findings indicate that patients typically adhere to the therapy options initially chosen and are less inclined to make changes following the initiation of treatment. Our research highlights the need for awareness initiatives to improve understanding among patients and physicians, enabling informed, shared decision-making about biosimilar prescriptions.

Sponsorship bias in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of national reimbursement negotiation drugs in China: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: China's National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) has become the primary route for drug reimbursement in China. More recently, the authority has made pharmacoeconomic evaluation an integral part of the application for NRDL inclusion. The underlying financial conflict of interests (FCOI) of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, however, has the potential to influence evidence generated and thus subsequent decision-making yet remains poorly understood. METHODS: We searched for studies published between January 2012 and January 2022 on the 174 drugs added to the 2017-2020 NRDLs after successful negotiation. We categorised the study's FCOI status into no funding, industry funding, non-profit funding and multiple fundings based on authors' disclosure and assessed the reporting quality of included studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist. We compiled descriptive statistics of funding types and study outcomes using t-tests and χ2 tests and conducted multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: We identified 378 records and our final sample included 92 pharmacoeconomic evaluations, among which 69.6% were conducted with at least one funding source. More than half (57.6%) of the evaluations reached favourable conclusions towards the intervention drug and 12.6% reached a dominant result of the intervention drug over the comparison from model simulation. The reporting quality of included studies ranged from 19 to 25 (on a scale of 28), with an average of 22.3. The statistical tests indicated that industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to conclude that the intervention therapy was economical (p<0.01) and had a significantly higher proportion of resulting target drug economically dominated the comparison drug (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The study revealed that FCOI bias is common in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations conducted in Chinese settings and could significantly influence the study's economical results and conclusions through various mechanisms. Multifaceted efforts are needed to improve transparency, comparability and reporting standardisation.

Prevalence and nature of manufacturer-sponsored patient support programs for prescription drugs in Canada: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Globally, pharmaceutical companies offer patient support programs in tandem with their products, which aim to enhance medication adherence and patient experience through education, training, support and financial assistance. We sought to identify the proportion and characteristics of such patient support programs in Canada and to describe the nature of supports provided. METHODS: We conducted a crosssectional study to identify and characterize all marketed prescription drugs available in Canada as of Aug. 23, 2022, using the Health Canada Drug Product and CompuScript databases. To describe the nature of supports provided, we conducted a content analysis of publicly available patient support program websites and Web-based documents. Using logistic regression, we identified characteristics of drugs associated with having a patient support program including brand-name or branded generic (generic medications with a proprietary name), orphan (medications for rare diseases) or biologic drug status; estimated total cost of prescriptions dispensed at retail pharmacies; and price per unit. RESULTS: Of the 2556 prescription drugs marketed by 89 companies in the study period, 256 (10.0%) had a patient support program in Canada. Many of the 89 drug manufacturers (n = 55, 61.8%) offered at least 1 patient support program, frequently relying on third-party administrators for delivery. Brandname and branded generic medications, biologic agents and drugs with orphan status were more likely to have a patient support program than generic drugs. Compared with drugs priced $1.01-$10.00 per unit, drugs priced $10.01-$100.00 per unit were nearly 8 times more likely to have a patient support program (adjusted odds ratio 7.54, 95% confidence interval 4.07- 14.64). Most sampled patient support programs included reimbursement navigation (n = 231, 90.2%) and clinical case management (n = 223, 87.1%). INTERPRETATION: About 1 in 10 drugs marketed in Canada has a manufacturersponsored patient support program, but these are concentrated around brand-name, branded generic, biologic and high-cost drugs, often for rare diseases. To understand the impact of patient support programs on health outcomes and sustainable access to cost-effective medicines, greater transparency and independent evaluation of patient support programs is necessary.

Impact of including drug spending in oncology alternative payment models.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a method for determining the effect of including drug costs in alternative payment models (APMs). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective claims analysis. METHODS: Using the Oncology Care Model as an example, we developed an oncology episode payment model for a commercial payer using historical claims data. We defined 6-month episodes of chemotherapy. Using claims data, we characterized episodes and developed a risk adjustment model. We used bootstrapping to estimate the variation in episode cost with drugs included and without. RESULTS: Episode costs were approximately $100,000. Although absolute cost variation was higher when we included drugs, the percent of total cost represented by variation was lower. Under reasonable assumptions about potential savings from drug and nondrug spending, our results suggest that including drugs in APMs can improve the risk-benefit trade-off faced by provider groups. We introduce a risk-mitigated sharing rate that may enable inclusion of drugs in APMs without substantially increasing downside risk. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a method to assess whether the inclusion of drug spending in APMs is a good decision for provider groups. Including drug costs in episode payments for oncology patients may be preferable for many provider groups.

The pan-Canadian Tiered Pricing Framework and Chinese National Volume-Based Procurement: A comparative study using Donabedian's structure-process-outcome framework.

Background: Generic drugs have been seen as a potentially powerful way to alleviate the financial burden on patients and health care systems. Two strategies for achieving rational prices of generic drugs are tiered pricing framework and pooled purchasing power. We compare the pan-Canadian Tiered Pricing Framework (TPF) and the Chinese National Volume-Based Procurement (NVBP) as comparators to explore the similarities and differences between the two mechanisms and summarise lessons for other jurisdictions. Methods: This comparative study applies Donabedian's structure-process-outcome framework to systematically analyse the macro contexts, procedures, and long- and short-term results of each pricing mechanism, and the interactions between them. Results: Structure: TPF is an upstream initiative aimed at lowering the prices of generic drugs and increasing coverage and price consistency. NVBP is a downstream national initiative prioritised for reducing drug prices to achieve value-based purchasing. Process: By associating the number of manufacturers with price cuts, TPF leaves the choice to manufacturers to decide if they want to enter a specific market. In contrast, the Chinese government determines NVBP list and has the authority to choose manufacturer(s) with the lowest price(s). TPF provides clear price information to potential suppliers with unclear order quantity. The NVBP drug price is determined by tendering, while procurement volume is clear and massive. Outcome: The effectiveness of TPF and NVBP is similar, with both achieving a 53% price cut. Both TPF and NVBP experienced efficiency improvement since their establishment, with 98 and 86 drugs priced per year. By comparing 60 drugs covered by both programmes, the NVBP price is 57% of that of the TPF counterpart on average (1.1 to 301.6%), by purchase power parity. Conclusions: The tiered pricing scheme is feasible in regions with a stable and mature pharmaceutical market, typically seen in high-income countries, while tendering is more workable in low- and middle-income countries where the pharmaceutical market is weak and unstable. Experience in the two countries shows that a coordinated pricing mechanism involves many piecemeal interactive problems, which a sophisticated system with a robust long-range plan may address better.

Outcomes of the 340B Drug Pricing Program: A Scoping Review.

Importance: The 340B Drug Pricing Program requires manufacturers to offer discounted drug prices to support safety net hospitals and clinics (covered entities) providing care to low-income populations. Amid expansion, the program has received criticism and calls for reform. Objective: To assess the literature on the foundations of and outcomes associated with the 340B program. Evidence Review: The databases searched in this scoping review included PubMed, Embase, EconLit, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Westlaw, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG) website, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) website, and Google in February 2023 for peer-reviewed literature, legal publications, opinion pieces, and government agency and committee reports related to the 340B program. Findings: Among a collected 900 documents, 289 met inclusion criteria: 83 articles from PubMed, 12 articles from Embase, 2 articles from EconLit, 1 article from NBER, 28 articles from Westlaw, 23 legislative history documents, 103 documents from Google, 11 GAO reports, and 26 HHS-OIG reports. Included literature pertained to 4 stakeholders in the 340B program: covered entities, pharmacies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and patients. This literature showed that hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies generated revenue and manufacturers have forgone revenue from 340B discounted drugs. Audits of covered entities found low rates of compliance with 340B program requirements, whereas mixed evidence was uncovered on how covered entities used their 340B revenue, with some studies suggesting use to expand health care services for low-income populations and others to acquire physician practices and open sites in higher-income neighborhoods. These studies were hampered by a lack of transparency and reporting on the use of 340B revenue. Studies revealed patient benefits from access to expanded health care services, but there was mixed evidence on patient cost savings. Although the review identified considerable research on 340B hospitals, pharmacies, and patients, less research was found evaluating the 340B program's effect on nonhospital covered entities, drug pricing, and racial and ethnic minority groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this scoping review of the 340B program, we found that the 340B program was associated with financial benefits for hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies; improved access to health care services for patients; and substantial costs to manufacturers. Increased transparency regarding the use of 340B program revenue and strengthened rulemaking and enforcement authority for the Health Resources and Services Administration would support compliance and help ensure the 340B program achieves its intended purposes.

Health care system costs related to potentially inappropriate medication use involving opioids in older adults in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Older adults are at risk of potentially inappropriate medication use given polypharmacy, multimorbidity, and age-related changes, which contribute to the growing burden associated with opioid use. The objective of this study was to estimate the costs of health service utilization attributable to opioid use and potentially inappropriate medication use involving opioids in older adults in a public health care system. METHODS: The sample included 1201 older adults consulting in primary care, covered by the public drug plan, without a cancer diagnosis and opioid use in the year before interview. Secondary analyses were conducted using two data sources: health survey and provincial administrative data. Health system costs included inpatient and outpatient visits, physician billing, and medication costs. Unit costs were calculated using annual financial and activity reports from 2013-2014, adjusted to 2022 Canadian dollars. Opioid use and potentially inappropriate medication use involving opioids were identified over 3 years. Generalized linear models with gamma distribution were employed to model 3-year costs associated with opioid use and potentially inappropriate medication use involving opioids. A phase-based approach was implemented to provide descriptive results on the costs associated with each phase: i) no use, ii) opioid use, and iii) potentially inappropriate medication use involving opioids. RESULTS: Opioid use and potentially inappropriate medication use involving opioids were associated with adjusted 3-year costs of $2,222 (95% CI: $1,179-$3,264) and $8,987 (95% CI: $7,370-$10,605), respectively, compared to no use. In phase-based analyses, costs were the highest during inappropriate use. CONCLUSIONS: Potentially inappropriate medication use involving opioids is associated with higher costs compared to those observed with opioid use and no use. There is a need for more effective use of health care resources to reduce costs for the health care system.

Access in all areas? A round up of developments in market access and health technology assessment: part 2.

In this latest update, we explore the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) enacted by the US Congress in August 2022, with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently releasing the list of the first ten drugs it will negotiate prices on. We also cover the consequences of price controls and rigid value assessment in Germany which have led to the withdrawal of a number of medicines. It will be important to see how the IRA balances cost-saving with holistic value assessment, incentives for innovation and patient access to treatment.

The impact of drug shortages on drug prices: evidence from China.

Introduction: Drug shortages pose a serious global public health challenge, affecting China and other countries. Evidence from USA shows that short-supplied drugs demonstrated a very high price growth during and after a shortage. However, the effect of shortages on drug prices in China remains unknown. This paper aims to understand the impact of drug shortages on prices and explore implications for shortage prevention policy. Methods: We collected the purchase prices and delivery rates of 120 drugs from April 2019 to December 2021 across whole China. We examined price progression of affected drugs using linear mixed-effects models and performed subgroup analyses based on the number of manufacturers and the severity of shortage. Results: Non-shortage cohort had an annual price growth of 11.62% (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.34 to 14.98). Shortage cohort demonstrated an annual price growth of 8.08% (95%CI 0.12 to 16.77) in the period preceding a shortage, 27.57% (95%CI 6.17 to 52.87) during a shortage, and 9.38% (95%CI -12.64 to 36.39) in the post-shortage period. Drug shortages' impact on prices varied across subgroups. Compared with that of drug markets supplied by a single manufacturer, the price growth rate of markets supplied by more than one manufacture declined more after the shortage resolution. Conclusion: Shortages resulted in significant price increases of study markets, especially the low-priced markets, while the shortage resolution slowed the growth. The primary shortage driver has shifted from the low price to others drivers, such as unavailability of active pharmaceutical ingredients. For currently sole-supplied drugs, the expedited review of applications from other manufacturers should be considered.

Budget impact of introducing oral semaglutide to the public healthcare benefit package in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has embarked on a Health Sector Transformation Program as part of the Kingdom's Vision 2030 initiatives with the facilitation of access to healthcare services for the millions in KSA with diabetes an essential part of the Program. Decision-making tools, such as budget impact models, are required to consider the addition of new medications like oral semaglutide that have multifaceted health benefits and address barriers related to therapeutic inertia to reduce diabetes-related complications. OBJECTIVE: To determine the financial impact of the introduction of oral semaglutide as a treatment option for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in KSA. METHODS: From the public payer's perspective, the budget impact model estimates the costs before and after the introduction of oral semaglutide over a 5-year time horizon. The budget impact of introducing oral semaglutide (primary comparator) compared with three different classes of diabetes medicines: glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1), sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors (SGLT 2i) and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DDP-4i) have been calculated based on the projected market shares. The model includes the cost of care through the incorporation of health outcomes that have an impact on the national payer's budget in Saudi Riyals (SAR). RESULTS: The budget impact over the five-year time horizon indicates a medication cost increase (17,424,788 SAR), and cost offsets which include a difference in diabetes management costs (-3,625,287 SAR), CV complications costs (-810,733 SAR) and weight loss savings of 453,936 SAR. The cumulative total cost difference is 12,427,858 SAR (0.66%). CONCLUSION: The introduction of oral semaglutide 14 mg as a second-line treatment option after metformin is indicated as budget-neutral to slightly budget-inflating for the public pharmaceutical formulary of KSA. The price difference is offset by positive health outcomes and costs. This conclusion was confirmed through a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

PACTA-Ped: programa de optimización de antimicrobianos en un hospital de tercer nivel en España / PACTA-Ped: Antimicrobial stewardship programme in a tertiary care hospital in Spain

Introducción: La lucha contra la resistencia a los antimicrobianos es actualmente prioritaria; son necesarios esfuerzos para mejorar la prescripción y reducir la propagación de infecciones en el entorno pediátrico. Métodos: Estudio longitudinal prospectivo sobre el uso de antimicrobianos realizado desde el inicio del programa de optimización del uso de antimicrobianos (PROA) en enero de 2016 hasta diciembre de 2017 (período 2; P2) en el hospital infantil. Los resultados obtenidos se han comparado retrospectivamente con el periodo anterior al inicio del PROA (2014-2015, periodo 1; P1). La población estudiada fueron niños ingresados que recibieron antimicrobianos de amplio espectro, antifúngicos o tratamiento antibiótico intravenoso durante más de 5 días.Resultados: Durante el P2 se incluyeron un total de 160 pacientes. Los antibióticos más comunes para los que se realizó una recomendación fueron: meropenem (41,6%) y cefotaxima (23,4%). En el 45% de los episodios se recomendó «no cambiar» el antimicrobiano prescrito. La tasa de aceptación de las recomendaciones por parte de los facultativos responsables fue del 89%. Se objetivó una disminución promedio del 27,8 y del 22,9% en los días de tratamiento (DOT)/1.000 días de ingreso y el número de tratamientos iniciados/1.000 ingresos, respectivamente. El uso de carbapenémicos, cefalosporinas y glucopéptidos disminuyó del P1 al P2. El coste medio anual del tratamiento antimicrobiano pasó de 150.356€/año durante en el P1 a 98.478€/año en el P2. Conclusiones: Nuestro PROA conllevó una disminución significativa en el uso de antibióticos y antifúngicos de amplio espectro. Los costes asociados con la prescripción de antimicrobianos disminuyeron desde el inicio del PROA y resultó una acción coste-efectiva durante el período de estudio.(AU)

Introduction: Fighting against antimicrobial resistance is a current priority, and further efforts need to be made to improve antimicrobial prescribing and reduce the spread of infections in paediatric care settings. Methods: We conducted a prospective longitudinal study on the use of antimicrobials from the time the antimicrobial stewardship programme (ASP) was introduced in January 2016 to December 2017 (period 2 [P2]) in our children's hospital. We compared the obtained results on antimicrobial prescribing with retrospective data from the period preceding the introduction of the ASP (2014–2015, period 1 [P1]). The sample consisted of paediatric in patients who received broad-spectrum antimicrobials, antifungals or intravenous antibiotherapy lasting more than 5 days. We compared the use of antimicrobials in P1 versus P2. Results: A total of 160 patients were included during P2. The antibiotics for which a recommendation was made most frequently were meropenem (41.6%) and cefotaxime (23.4%). In 45% of care episodes, the consultant recommended “no change” to the prescribed antimicrobial. The final rate of acceptance of received recommendations by the prescribing physicians was 89%. We found average decreases of 27.8% in the days of treatment per 1000 inpatient days and 22.9% in the number of antimicrobial starts per 1000 admissions in P2. The use of carbapenems, cephalosporins and glycopeptides decreased in P2 compared to P1. The average annual cost of antimicrobial treatment decreased from €150 356/year during P1 to €98 478/year in P2. Conclusion: Our ASP achieved a significant decrease in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics and antifungals. The costs associated with antimicrobial prescribing decreased following the introduction of the ASP, which was a cost-effective action in this study period.(AU)

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.

Cost and utilization of healthcare services for persons with diabetes.

AIMS: Describe and compare healthcare costs and utilization for insured persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes (T2D), and without diabetes in the United States. METHODS: Using a nationally representative healthcare claims database, we identified matched persons with T1D, T2D, and without diabetes using a propensity score quasi-randomization technique. In each year between 2009 and 2018, we report costs (total and out-of-pocket) and utilization for all healthcare services and those specific to medications, diabetes-related supplies, visits to providers, hospitalizations, and emergency department visits. RESULTS: In 2018, we found out-of-pocket costs and total costs were highest for persons with T1D (out-of-pocket: $2,037.2, total: $25,652.0), followed by T2D (out-of-pocket: $1,543.3, total: $22,408.1), and without diabetes (out-of-pocket: $1,122.7, total: $14,220.6). From 2009 to 2018, out-of-pocket costs were increasing for persons with T1D(+6.5 %) but decreasing for T2D (-7.5 %) and without diabetes (-2.3 %). Medication costs made up the largest proportion of out-of-pocket costs regardless of diabetes status (T1D: 51.4 %, T2D: 55.4 %,without diabetes: 51.1 %). CONCLUSIONS: Given the substantial out-of-pocket costs for people with diabetes, especially for those with T1D, providers should screen all persons with diabetes for financial toxicity (i.e., wide-ranging problems stemming from healthcare costs). In addition, policies that aim to lower out-of-pocket costs of cost-effective diabetes related healthcare are needed with a particular focus on medications.

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.

Association Between Prescription Drug Discount Cards and Out-of-Pocket Costs for HFrEF Regimens.

BACKGROUND: The burden from medication costs for treating heart failure can be financially toxic for uninsured/underinsured patients and their families. Prescription discount cards, which offer cash price reductions, may decrease out-of-pocket costs for patients without prescription benefits, but the degree to which they offer financial relief remains unclear. Our objective was to assess the financial burden for uninsured/underinsured patients prescribed a drug from each of the 4 standard classes of medications for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. A second objective assessed whether discounts varied across economically and geographically diverse regions in Tennessee. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional pricing analysis of guideline-directed medical therapy heart failure with reduced ejection fraction regimens utilizing prescription discount cards. Between February 9 and March 31, 2022, we conducted searches on 3 discount card websites (GoodRx, NeedyMeds, and Blink Health) for the prices of 30- and 90-day supplies of select guideline-directed medical therapy heart failure regimens for 6 Tennessee ZIP codes. Prices were compared with Amazon and Redbook prices. RESULTS: Monthly costs among discount card services varied from $10.58 to $30.86 for a generic 3-drug regimen consisting of beta blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. With the addition of a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, prices increased to $540.32 to $593.74. The ideal 4-drug regimen (beta blocker, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor) ranged from $1188.31 to $1464.54. When compared with Amazon cash prices, the cards offered an average discount of 65% on a generic 3-drug regimen; when brand-name medications were added, discounts were modest (<12%). There were no significant variations in pricing based on ZIP codes in differing economic and geographic regions. CONCLUSIONS: Although prescription discount cards offered significant savings on generic medications, brand-name drug discounts were small and overall costs remained high. These findings highlight the potential for unequal access to life-saving therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.