Lieberman Daniel A, Polinski Jennifer M, Choudhry Niteesh K, Avorn Jerry, Fischer Michael A
Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
CVS Health, Woonsocket, RI, USA.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Jan 15;16:15. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1258-0.
Medicaid programs face growing pressure to control spending. Despite evidence of clinical harms, states continue to impose policies limiting the number of reimbursable prescriptions (caps). We examined the recent use of prescription caps by Medicaid programs and the impact of policy implementation on prescription utilization.
We identified Medicaid cap policies from 2001-2010. We classified caps as applying to all prescriptions (overall caps) or only branded prescriptions (brand caps). Using state-level, aggregate prescription data, we developed interrupted time-series analyses to evaluate the impact of implementing overall caps and brand caps in a subset of states with data available before and after cap initiation. For overall caps, we examined the use of essential medications, which were classified as preventive or as providing symptomatic benefit. For brand caps, we examined the use of all branded drugs as well as branded and generic medications among classes with available generic replacements.
The number of states with caps increased from 12 in 2001 to 20 in 2010. Overall cap implementation (n = 3) led to a 0.52% (p < 0.001) annual decrease in the proportion of essential prescriptions but no change in cost. For preventive essential medications, overall caps led to a 1.12% (p = 0.001) annual decrease in prescriptions (246,000 prescriptions annually) and a 1.20% (p < 0.001) decrease in spending (-$12.2 million annually), but no decrease in symptomatic essential medication use. Brand cap implementation (n = 6) led to an immediate 2.29% (p = 0.16) decrease in branded prescriptions and 1.26% (p = 0.025) decrease in spending. For medication classes with generic replacements, the decrease in branded prescriptions (0.74%, p = 0.003) approximately equaled the increase in generics (0.79%, p = 0.009), with estimated savings of $17.4 million.
An increasing number of states are using prescription caps, with mixed results. Overall caps decreased the use of preventive but not symptomatic essential medications, suggesting that patients assign higher priority to agents providing symptomatic benefit when faced with reimbursement limits. Among medications with generic replacements, brand caps shifted usage from branded drugs to generics, with considerable savings. Future research should analyze the patient-level impact of these policies to measure clinical outcomes associated with these changes.
医疗补助计划面临着越来越大的控制支出的压力。尽管有临床危害的证据,但各州仍在继续实施限制可报销处方数量(上限)的政策。我们研究了医疗补助计划近期对处方上限的使用情况以及政策实施对处方使用的影响。
我们确定了2001年至2010年期间的医疗补助上限政策。我们将上限分为适用于所有处方(总体上限)或仅适用于品牌处方(品牌上限)。利用州一级的汇总处方数据,我们开展了中断时间序列分析,以评估在启动上限前后有数据可用的部分州实施总体上限和品牌上限的影响。对于总体上限,我们研究了基本药物的使用情况,这些药物被分类为预防性药物或具有对症益处的药物。对于品牌上限,我们研究了所有品牌药物的使用情况,以及在有通用替代药物的类别中品牌药物和通用药物的使用情况。
实施上限的州数量从2001年的12个增加到2010年的20个。总体上限的实施(n = 3)导致基本处方比例每年下降0.52%(p < 0.001),但成本没有变化。对于预防性基本药物,总体上限导致处方每年下降1.12%(p = 0.001)(每年减少246,000张处方),支出下降1.20%(p < 0.001)(每年减少1220万美元),但对症基本药物的使用没有减少。品牌上限的实施(n = 6)导致品牌处方立即下降2.29%(p = 0.16),支出下降1.26%(p = 0.025)。对于有通用替代药物的药物类别,品牌处方的下降(0.74%,p = 0.003)大致等于通用药物的增加(0.79%,p = 0.009),估计节省1740万美元。
越来越多的州在使用处方上限,结果不一。总体上限减少了预防性基本药物的使用,但没有减少对症基本药物的使用,这表明患者在面临报销限制时,会更优先选择具有对症益处的药物。在有通用替代药物的药物中,品牌上限使使用从品牌药物转向通用药物,节省了大量费用。未来的研究应分析这些政策对患者层面的影响,以衡量与这些变化相关的临床结果。