Impact of brand drug discount cards on private insurer, government and patient expenditures.

BACKGROUND: Brand discount cards have become a popular way for patients to reduce out-of-pocket spending on drugs; however, controversy exists over their potential to increase insurers' costs. We estimated the impact of brand discount cards on Canadian drug expenditures. METHODS: Using national claims-level pharmacy adjudication data, we performed a retrospective comparison of prescriptions filled using a brand discount card matched to equivalent generic prescriptions between September 2014 and September 2017. We investigated the impact on expenditures for 3 groups of prescriptions: those paid only through private insurance, those paid only through public insurance and those paid only out of pocket. RESULTS: We studied 2.82 million prescriptions for 89 different medications for which brand discount cards were used. Use of discount cards resulted in 46% higher private insurance expenditures than comparable generic prescriptions (+$23.09 per prescription, 95% confidence interval [CI] $22.97 to $23.21). Public insurance expenditures were only slightly higher with cards: an increase of 1.3% or $0.37 per prescription (95% CI $0.33 to $0.41). Finally, out-of-pocket transactions using a card resulted in mean patient savings of 7% or $3.49 per prescription (95% CI -$3.55 to -$3.43). The impact varied widely among medicines across all 3 analyses. INTERPRETATION: The use of brand discount cards increased costs to private insurers, had little impact on public insurers and resulted in mixed impacts for patients. These effects likely resulted from private insurers reimbursing brand drug prices even when generics were available and from discount cards being adjudicated after claims were sent to other insurers in most cases. Patients and their clinicians should recognize that discount cards have mixed impacts on out-of-pocket costs.

The impact of the Choosing Wisely Canada campaign on the simultaneous use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers: interrupted time-series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Choosing Wisely is a high-profile campaign seeking to reduce the use of low-value care. We investigated the impact of a Choosing Wisely Canada recommendation against using a combination of angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for the management of hypertension, heart failure or diabetic nephropathy on population-level use of these medications in British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: We identified all people (any age) who were continuously registered with BC's Medical Service Plan between 2010 and 2017 with the targeted conditions. Using prescription claims data and an interrupted time-series analysis, we estimated the number of people on combination therapy per month, the proportion of days covered (PDC) by combination therapy per month and proportion of all combination prescriptions started per month in the 2 years before and after the introduction of the recommendation on Oct. 29, 2014. RESULTS: Of 1 104 593 people (mean age 65 yr, standard deviation 16 yr) in our study cohort, 4.6% were exposed to combination therapy, largely prescribed by family physicians (84%). The number of people on combination therapy and the PDC were declining before the recommendation, but the proportion of combination prescriptions started in the 2 years before the recommendation was increasing. After the recommendation, we observed no statistically significant changes in any outcome. The pre-existing downward trend of the monthly number of people decelerated (16.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.0 to 19.5) and the proportion of prescriptions started increased (0.13%, 95% CI 0.08% to 0.18%). INTERPRETATION: The Choosing Wisely Canada recommendation against using a combination of ACE inhibitors and ARBs was not associated with reduced combination therapy use in the targeted conditions. The observed pre-existing declines in this practice questions the process of selecting recommendations, and the optimal implementation and value of Choosing Wisely campaigns without other reinforcing interventions.

What happens to drug use and expenditure when cost sharing is completely removed? Evidence from a Canadian provincial public drug plan.

OBJECTIVES: The role of cost-sharing for medicines is under active policy discussion, including in proposals for value-based insurance design. To inform this debate, we estimated the impact of completely removing cost-sharing on medication use and expenditure using a quasi-experimental approach. METHODS: Fair PharmaCare, British Columbia's income-based public drug plan, includes a household out-of-pocket limit. Therefore, when one household member starts a long-term high-cost drug surpassing this maximum, cost-sharing is completely removed for other family members. We used an interrupted time series design to estimate monthly prescriptions and expenditures of other household members, 24 months before and after cost-sharing removal. RESULTS: We studied 2191 household members newly free of cost-sharing requirements, most of whom had lower incomes. R emoving cost-sharing increased the level of drug expenditure and prescription numbers by 16 and 19%, respectively (i.e. $2659.43 (95%$1507.27-$3811.59, p < 0.001); 50.0 (95%CI 25.1-74.9, p < 0.001)) relative to prior expenditures and utilization without changing pre-existing trends. Much of this change was driven by 533 individuals initiating medication for the first time after cost-sharing removal. This initiation substantially increased average expenditure, especially for antiviral agents. CONCLUSIONS: Completely removing cost-sharing, independent of health status, significantly increased medication use and expenditure particularly due to medicine initiation by new users. While costs may be preventing use, the appropriateness of additional use, especially among new users, is unclear.

The impact of a physician detailing and sampling program for generic atorvastatin: an interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, Manitoba implemented a province-wide program of physician detailing and free sampling for generic atorvastatin to increase use of this generic statin. We examined the impact of this unique combined program of detailing and sampling for generic atorvastatin on the use and cost of statin medicines, market share of generic atorvastatin, the choice of starting statin for new users, and switching from a branded statin to generic atorvastatin. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of Manitoba insurance claims data for all continuously enrolled patients who filled one or more prescriptions for a statin between 2008 and 2013. Data were linked to physician-level data on the number of detailing visits and sample provision. We used interrupted time series analyses to assess policy-related changes in the use and cost of statin medicines, market share of generic atorvastatin, the choice of starting statin for new users, and switching from a branded statin to generic atorvastatin. RESULTS: The detailing program reached 31% (651/2103) of physicians who prescribed a statin during the study period. Collectively, these physicians prescribed 61% of statins dispensed in the province. Free sample cards were provided to 61% (394/651) of the detailed physicians. The program did not change the level or trend in the overall statin use rate and the total cost of statins or increase the number of patients switching from another branded statin to generic atorvastatin. We found the program had a small impact on atorvastatin's market share of new prescriptions, with a level increase of 2.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Though physician detailers were skilled at targeting high-prescribing physicians, a combined program of detailing visits and sample provision for generic atorvastatin did not lower overall statin costs or lead to switching from branded statins to the generic. The preceding introduction of generic atorvastatin appeared sufficient to modify prescribing patterns and decrease costs.