Over-the-counter pain reliever and aspirin use within a sample of long-term cyclooxygenase 2 users.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Acetaminophen↗
Biomedical subjects
Emily R Cox
Publications and source records attributed to Emily R Cox.
Plan-sponsor savings and member experience with point-of-service prescription step therapy.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of prescription step-therapy programs in terms of plan-sponsor savings and member experience at the point of service. STUDY DESIGN: Plan-sponsor savings were measured using a quasi-experimental, case-control design. Member experience with step therapy was measured using a self-administered mailed survey. METHODS: A 20,000-member plan implemented 3 step therapy programs in September 2002: proton pump inhibitors, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Pharmacy claims from September 1, 2001, through June 30, 2003, were examined to compare changes in per-member-per-month (PMPM) net cost between the intervention group and a random sample of members from commercial plans without the step therapy programs. A mailed, self-administered survey was sent to members with a step edit from September 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002. RESULTS: The employer experienced a decrease of 0.83 dollars in net cost after implementing step therapy, while the comparison group had an upward trend of 0.10 dollars PMPM for these therapy classes. Member-reported outcomes indicated that approximately 30% of patients received a generic, 23% were granted a medical exception for the brand, 17% received no medication, and 16% paid the full retail price for the brand. If the pharmacist vs the patient contacted the physician, members were 8 times more likely to receive a medication covered by the health plan (OR, 8.10; 95% CI, 2.94-22.33 vs OR, 8.23; 95% CI, 3.11-21.93). Compared with those who received first-line therapy, those who paid out of pocket for the brand medication vs those who did not receive any medication were less likely to be satisfied with their pharmacy benefit (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.08-0.80 vs OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.04-0.41). CONCLUSIONS: Step therapy produces significant drug savings. However, there appear to be opportunities to further members' and providers' understanding of these programs.
Adolescent↗
Geographic variation in the prevalence of stimulant medication use among children 5 to 14 years old: results from a commercially insured US sample.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate geographic variation in the prevalence of prescription stimulant use and predictors of use among a nationally representative, commercially insured population 5 to 14 years old. METHODS: Prescription claims activity from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999 for a continuously eligible population 5 to 14 years old was evaluated. Age-gender adjusted prevalence rates were estimated for each state. Multivariate logistic regression using hierarchical linear modeling was used to evaluate the impact of age, gender, number of child dependents, and region of the country on stimulant prevalence. The contextual effects of urban or rural residence, median income, percent white, and physician rate per 100 000 residents were also controlled for. RESULTS: The 1-year prevalence of stimulant treatment for the entire study sample was 4.2%. Multivariate logistic regression indicated that stimulant prescription use was positively associated with age, male gender, fewer child dependents, living in higher income communities, and living in communities with greater percent white. Compared with children living in the Western region of the country, children living in the Midwest and South were 1.55 (99% confidence interval: 1.28-1.87) and 1.71 (99% confidence interval: 1.42-2.06) times more likely to consume at least 1 stimulant medication, respectively. Differences in stimulant prevalence across urban and rural residence were also noted. CONCLUSIONS: Geographic variation in the prevalence of stimulant use exists nationally, despite controlling for important predictors of use including age and gender. Possible reasons for the variation are discussed as are calls for additional research.
Adolescent↗
Prescribing COX-2s for patients new to cyclo-oxygenase inhibition therapy.
OBJECTIVES: To profile the pattern of cyclo-oxygenase 2 inhibitor (COX-2) use, including length of therapy, medical conditions treated, and gastrointestinal (GI) risk profile of users. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive retrospective analysis of medical and prescription claims data from a large preferred provider organization in the Midwest. METHODS: During an index period of January through May 31, 2000, patients new to COX-2 therapy were evaluated 365 days before and after their first prescription. Among the inclusion criteria, patients had to have no previous use of COX-2 therapy, be at least 18 years of age, and be continuously eligible during the entire study period. RESULTS: Of the more than 300 000 members with at least 1 day of coverage in the index window, 1312 members met the inclusion criteria. The average age of COX-2 users was 49.5 years (SD = 11.4) and 60% were female. The number of days' supply of COX-2 agent obtained by members was highly skewed, with a mean of 116 days (SD = 119.5) and a median of 60 days. The medical conditions associated with COX-2 use included a variety of musculoskeletal conditions, the most common being low back pain (22%) and osteoarthritis (18%). Approximately 19% of members did not have a diagnosis associated with COX-2 use. Sixty-five percent of those new to COX-2 therapy did not have an indication of being at risk for GI events, and 68% had no indication for trying a lower-cost nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescription prior to beginning COX-2 therapy. Taken together, 45% did not have a GI risk factor or prior use of nonselective NSAID prescription therapy. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that opportunities exist to encourage the cost-effective prescribing of COX-2 therapy. Possible methods include implementation of step therapy, academic detailing, and physician education programs, among others.
Adult↗
Verification of a decision analytic model assumption using real-world practice data: implications for the cost effectiveness of cyclo-oxygenase 2 inhibitors (COX-2s).
OBJECTIVE: To verify the gastroprotective agent (GPA) rate assumption used in cost-effectiveness models for cyclo-oxygenase 2 inhibitors (COX-2s) and to re-estimate model outcomes using GPA rates from actual practice. METHODS: Prescription and medical claims data obtained from January 1, 1999, through May 31, 2001, from a large preferred provider organization in the Midwest, were used to estimate GPA rates within 3 groups of patients aged at least 18 years who were new to nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and COX-2 therapy: all new NSAID users, new NSAID users with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or osteoarthritis (OA), and a matched cohort of new NSAID users. RESULTS: Of the more than 319,000 members with at least 1 day of eligibility, 1900 met the study inclusion criteria for new NSAID users, 289 had a diagnosis of OA or RA, and 1232 were included in the matched cohort. Gastroprotective agent estimates for nonselective NSAID and COX-2 users were consistent across all 3 samples (all new NSAID users, new NSAID users with a diagnosis of OA or RA, and the matched cohort), with COX-2 GPA rates of 22%, 21%, and 20%, and nonselective NSAID GPA rates of 15%, 15%, and 18%, respectively. Re-estimation of the cost-effectiveness model increased the cost per year of life saved for COX-2s from $18,614 to more than $100,000. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to COX-2 cost-effectiveness model assumptions, the rate of GPA use is positive and marginally higher among COX-2 users than among nonselective NSAID users. These findings call into question the use of expert opinion in estimating practice pattern model inputs prior to a product's use in clinical practice. A re-evaluation of COX-2 cost-effectiveness models is warranted.
Adult↗
Prescription use behavior among medicare beneficiaries with capped prescription benefits.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the strategies Medicare beneficiaries adopt to manage their out-of-pocket prescription costs in a prescription drug plan with maximum (.capped.) benefits and to evaluate differences in the likelihood of participating in any one strategy before and after exhaustion of capped prescription benefits. METHODS: Self-administered surveys were mailed to 786 Medicare+Choice members with capped annual prescription drug benefits of 500 dollars or 1,000 dollars. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-one surveys were returned, for a 28% response rate. More than 70% of respondents participated in at least one strategy to manage prescription costs. The most frequently reported strategies included obtaining samples from their physician (45%), reducing spending on food and/or clothing (37%), shopping around at other pharmacies to obtain medications at a lower cost (29%), taking less than the prescribed amount (24%), receiving financial assistance from family or friends (17%), and stopping one or more regular-use medications (15%). More than two thirds of those who participated in at least one strategy participated in 2 or more strategies. While the combinations of strategies suggested prudence on the part of respondents (e.g., obtaining samples, shopping around), a subset of respondents participated in strategies that would be considered less desirable (e.g., stopping medications and taking less than prescribed). Finally, more than 35% indicated that they did not know their cap amount, and 24% did not know whether they had exhausted their benefit in 2000. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the difficulties many Medicare beneficiaries face in managing prescription costs, even those with some coverage for prescription costs. In the design of prescription coverage for the elderly, policy makers should recognize the impact that capped benefits have on member behavior. The apparent high rate of reliance upon prescription drug samples to reduce prescription drug expenditures for many Medicare+Choice members raises the question of whether prescription drug samples may discourage the prescribing of lower-cost therapeutic alternatives.
Journal Article↗
Health plan member experience with point-of-service prescription step therapy.
OBJECTIVE: To better understand health plan member experience with point-of-service prescription step-therapy edits and outcomes in terms of drug received. METHODS: Self-administered mailed surveys were sent to 1,000 members who experienced a step-therapy edit from September 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003, for proton pump inhibitors or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Based upon these findings, a second survey was conducted by telephone among 617 members who experienced a step-therapy edit from January through April 25, 2003, and who had no subsequent prescription claim for the drug therapy class associated with the edit. RESULTS: The mailed survey generated a 23% response rate, and the telephone survey generated a 33% response rate. Just over 66% of the mail survey respondents indicated that they contacted their physician directly to try to remedy the situation, while 40% indicated that their pharmacist contacted their physician. Forty-four (44%) percent of members indicated that they received a different medication than was originally prescribed, 15% obtained prior authorization for the brand medication, 11% received no medication, 11% paid full price for the branded medication, 8% got an over-the-counter medication, and 4% received samples from their physician. Approximately 7% sought other means of obtaining coverage (i.e., they used spouse.s insurance) or did not remember the outcome. Member and pharmacy contact with the physician significantly influenced whether the member obtained a medication covered by their health plan (odds ratio [OR] = 6.5; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.76-15.12 and OR = 4.6; 95% CI, 1.96-10.60, respectively). In a separate survey conducted by telephone among a different group of members, insight into reasons why members did not obtain any medication was obtained. Using a closed-ended question, 12% (n = 25) of members indicated receiving no medication. Upon further questioning, however, 32% of those who indicated that they had not received a medication said that they had in fact received a medication to treat their condition some time after the step edit. The second most common reason for not receiving a medication included issues related to cost (i.e., willingness to pay) or affordability (16% and 28%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that a majority of members receive a medication covered by their health plan subsequent to rejection of a claim for a prescribed drug that is the target of a step-therapy edit. However, there are opportunities for better member and provider communication designed to increase the use of first-line drugs and reduce the number of members paying out-of-pocket or receiving no medication.
Adolescent↗