Pharmaceutical cost management and access to psychotropic drugs: the U.S. context

Treatment patterns and hospitalizations following rejection, reversal, or payment of the initial once-monthly paliperidone palmitate long-acting injectable antipsychotic claim among patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder

BACKGROUND

Once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) is a long-acting injectable antipsychotic approved for the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder (SCA) in adults.

OBJECTIVE

To assess treatment patterns and schizophrenia/SCA-related hospitalization following payer rejection, patient reversal, or payment of an initial PP1M claim.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using the IQVIA Formulary Impact Analyzer database linked to the Medical Claims, Hospital Charge Detail Master, and Experian consumer databases. Patients with schizophrenia/SCA and ≥1 PP1M pharmacy claim from January 1, 2018, to February 28, 2022, were identified and stratified into 3 cohorts based on the transaction status of the initial PP1M claim (index date): rejected (payer not approved), reversed (payer approved, patient abandoned), and paid (payer approved, patient filled). Patient characteristics during the 12 months before the index date, subsequent treatment patterns, and schizophrenia/SCA-related hospitalization for patients with >6 months of follow-up were assessed by cohort.

RESULTS

The rejected, reversed, and paid cohorts included 1,260, 1,046, and 1,686 patients, respectively. Across these cohorts, the mean ages ranged between 39.2 and 44.5 years; more than half were male (50.8%-51.6%) and White (50.6%-58.3%); 19.8%-24.6% of patients had a Quan-Charlson Comorbidity Index score of ≥2. Rates of prior atypical oral and long-acting injectable antipsychotic use ranged between 76.4%-80.3% and 7.8%-12.7%, respectively. Among patients with ≥6 months of follow-up, 52.2% in the rejected and 53.1% in the reversed cohorts had a subsequent paid PP1M claim during the study period; the median (quartile 1-quartile 3) time to the first paid PP1M claim was 22 (5-74) days for rejection and 11 (1-41) days for reversal. In the rejected and reversed cohorts, 10.2% (n = 111) and 9.8% (n = 90) of patients, respectively, did not receive any paid claim for an antipsychotic after the initial PP1M rejection/reversal. The prevalence of schizophrenia/SCA-related hospitalization during follow-up was similar between patients with a paid (7.4%) and rejected PP1M claim (7.0%; P = 0.689) but higher among patients with a reversed claim (10.8%; P = 0.004). After adjusting for confounders, patients in the reversed cohort were 39% more likely to have a schizophrenia/SCA-related hospitalization than those in the paid cohort (odds ratio = 1.39; 95% CI = 1.03-1.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Payer rejection and patient reversal of initial PP1M claims is a form of primary nonadherence and may influence patient trajectory. Data from this study suggest that patient reversal of PP1M may lead to an increased risk of schizophrenia/SCA-related hospitalizations, potentially caused by missed or delayed treatment. Policy initiatives that remove barriers to primary adherence or fulfillment may help improve patients' clinical outcomes.

Stability of the Inclusion Complexes of Dodecanoic Acid with α-Cyclodextrin, β-Cyclodextrin and 2-HP-β-Cyclodextrin

In the presented work, the stability of the formation of inclusion complexes of dodecanoic acid (lauric acid) with three cyclodextrins, α-cyclodextrin, β-cyclodextrin and 2-HP-β-cyclodextrin, was analyzed from the point of view of the size of the cavity in cyclodextrins, their molar mass and the structure of the studied fatty acid. The measurements were made in a wide temperature range of 283.15–318.15K. The conductometric method was used for these studies. The results obtained allowed us to determine the value of the theoretical limiting molar conductivity (Λm0) of the studied complexes, the values of the inclusion complex formation constants (Kf) and the values of thermodynamic functions (ΔG0, ΔH0 and ΔS0) describing the complexation process in the studied temperature range.

Factors Associated With Off-Label Utilization of Second-Generation Antipsychotics Among Publicly Insured Adults

OBJECTIVE

Off-label utilization of second-generation antipsychotic medications may expose patients to significant risks. The authors examined the prevalence, temporal trends, and factors associated with off-label utilization of second-generation antipsychotics among publicly insured adults.

METHODS

A retrospective repeated panel was used to examine monthly off-label utilization of second-generation antipsychotics among fee-for-service Medicare, Medicaid, and dually eligible White, Black, and Latino adult beneficiaries filling prescriptions for second-generation antipsychotics in California, Georgia, Mississippi, and Oklahoma from July 2008 through June 2013.

RESULTS

Among 301,367 users of second-generation antipsychotics, between 36.5% and 41.9% had utilization that was always off-label. Payer did not modify effects of race-ethnicity on off-label utilization. Compared with Whites, Blacks had lower monthly odds of off-label utilization in all four states, and Latinos had lower odds of utilization in California and Georgia. Payer was associated with off-label utilization in California, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. California Medicaid beneficiaries were 1.12 (95% confidence interval=1.10-1.13) times as likely as dually eligible beneficiaries to have off-label utilization. Off-label utilization increased relative to the baseline year in all states, but a downward trend followed in three states.

CONCLUSIONS

Off-label utilization of second-generation antipsychotics was prevalent despite the drugs' cardiometabolic risks and little evidence of their effectiveness. The lower likelihood of off-label utilization among patients from racial-ethnic minority groups might stem from prescribers' efforts to minimize risks, given a higher baseline risk for these groups, or from disparities-associated factors. Variation among payers suggests that payer policies can affect off-label utilization.

Trends in the access to and the use of antipsychotic medications and psychotropic co-treatments in Asian patients with schizophrenia

To date, antipsychotics remain the mainstay of treatment for schizophrenia and related disorders although other psychotropic medications and non-pharmaceutical interventions have been used adjunctively in some patients and settings. Regular surveys on access to and prescription patterns of psychotropic medications in clinical practice are an important and efficient way of examining the use and time trends of treatments in a given population and region. Unlike developed Western countries, Asian countries have not fully undergone deinstitutionalisation of the severely and chronically mentally ill, and community-based mental health services are still under-developed. As a result, a large number of psychiatric patients still receive treatments in psychiatric hospitals. Moreover, there have been very limited studies examining access to and prescription patterns of psychotropic medications for schizophrenia patients in Asian countries. In this paper, we focus on the only international project on the use of psychotropic medications in schizophrenia patients in selected East and Southeast Asian countries/territories summarising its major findings. Most of the first- and second-generation antipsychotics (FGAs and SGAs) are available in Asian countries, but the access to psychotropic medications is largely affected by socio-cultural and historical contexts, health insurance schemes, health care policy, medication cost and consumers' preference across different countries/territories. Overall, the proportional use of FGAs, high dose antipsychotic treatment and antipsychotic polypharmacy have decreased, while the use of SGAs and antidepressants have increased and the utilisation of benzodiazepines and mood stabilisers has remained relatively stable over time. However, within these general trends, there is great inter-country variation regarding the psychotropic prescribing patterns and trends in Asian schizophrenia patients that also seems to differ from data in many Western countries.

Management of newer medications for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in commercial health plans

PURPOSE

In the United States, many individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) pay for their medications using private health insurance coverage. As in other drug classes, private insurers are actively seeking to influence use and costs, particularly for newer and costlier medications. The approaches that insurers use may have important effects on patients' access to medications. This article examines approaches (eg, copayments, prior authorization, and step therapy) that commercial health plans are using to manage newer medications used to treat ADHD and changes in approaches since 2003.

METHODS

Data are from a nationally representative survey of commercial health plans in 60 market areas regarding alcohol, drug abuse, and mental health services in 2010. Responses were obtained from 389 plans (89% response rate), reporting on 925 insurance products. For each of 6 branded ADHD medications, respondents were asked whether the plan covered the medication and, if so, on what copayment tier each medication was placed and whether it was subject to prior authorization or step therapy. Measures of management approach were constructed for each medication and for the group of medications. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to test for association of the management approach with various health plan characteristics.

FINDINGS

There was considerable variation across these 6 medications in how tightly they were managed by health plans, with newer medications being subject to more stringent management. The proportion of insurance products relying solely on copayment tiering to manage new ADHD medications appears to have decreased since 2003. Less than half of insurance products (43%) managed these 6 medications solely by use of tier 3 or 4 placement, and most of the remainder (48%) used other restrictions (with or without tier 3 or 4 placement). The average insurance product restricted access to at least 3 of the 6 brand-only medications examined, whether through copayment tier placement or other approaches. More ADHD medications were left unrestricted in health maintenance organization products than in preferred provider organization ones, products with internal or hybrid-internal contracts for behavioral health, those not contracting with pharmacy benefits managers, and those with for-profit ownership.

IMPLICATIONS

Many plans have supplemented copayment tiering with other approaches, such as prior authorization and step therapy, to influence use and decrease costs. It may be that plans have found copayments to be less effective in redirecting use in this medication class. The effect on clinical outcomes was not examined in this study but should be prioritized using other data sources.

National trends in second-generation antipsychotic augmentation for nonpsychotic depression

OBJECTIVE

This study estimates national trends and patterns in use of second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for adjunctive treatment of nonpsychotic adult depression in office-based practice.

METHOD

Twelve consecutive years (1999-2010) of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey were analyzed to estimate trends and patterns of adjunctive SGA treatment for adult (≥ 18 years) nonpsychotic depression in office-based visits. Adjunctive SGA use was examined among all office visits in which depression was diagnosed (N = 7,767), excluding visits with diagnoses for alternative SGA indications (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, pervasive development disorder, psychotic depression, dementia) and those without an active antidepressant prescription.

RESULTS

From 1999 to 2010, 8.6% of adult depression visits included an SGA. SGA use rates increased from 4.6% in 1999-2000 to 12.5% in 2009-2010, with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for time trend of 2.78 (95% CI, 1.84-4.20). The increase in SGA augmentation was broad-based, with no significant differences in time trends between demographic and clinical subgroups. For the most recent survey years (2005-2010), SGA use rates were higher in visits to psychiatrists than to other physicians (AOR = 5.08; 95% CI, 2.96-8.73), visits covered by public than private insurance (AOR = 3.20; 95% CI, 2.25-4.54), visits with diagnosed major depressive disorder than other depressive disorders (AOR = 1.49; 95% CI, 1.08-2.06), and visits with diabetes, hyperlipidemia, or cardiovascular disease (AOR = 2.13; 95% CI, 1.12-4.03) and lower in visits by patients > 65 years than 18-44 years (AOR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32-0.82) and visits that included psychotherapy (AOR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

Between 1999 and 2010, SGAs were increasingly accepted in the outpatient treatment of adult nonpsychotic depression.

The Impact of Medicaid Preferred Drug Lists on Utilization and Costs of Antipsychotic Medication

Background: Few studies have attempted to assess the effectiveness of formulary management in reducing the antipsychotic costs and utilization across U.S. state Medicaid programs, despite concerns about the potential impact of such formulary management on Medicaid patient health outcomes. Objectives: Compare antipsychotic utilization and total costs across Medicaid states with preferred drug list (PDL) programs vs. states without PDLs in place. Methods: The following data from 48 Medicaid fee-for-service (FFS) programs were collected for calendar year 2010: antipsychotic prescription use (IMS Health); formulary management (MediMedia, Medicaid FFS programs' websites), and patient enrollment (MediMedia). For each program, the total antipsychotic cost per capita was estimated by multiplying antipsychotic utilization by list price (First DataBank), then dividing by program enrollment. To control for differences in the prevalence of antipsychotic use among Medicaid patients across states, cost estimates were adjusted using state-level mental-health illness prevalence data (Kaiser Family Foundation, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], and Thomson Healthcare). Volume-based market share of branded antipsychotics was also calculated to compare branded vs. generic antipsychotic use across states. Significance of difference between the means of PDL and non-PDL states was tested using a two-sided, two sample t-test, assuming unequal variances between samples. Results: Among the 48 states studied, 33 (68.8%) used PDLs as a means to limit access to branded antipsychotic medications, including those states with the largest populations with a mental-health illness (e.g. New York, California, Texas). In our analyses, the average difference in antipsychotic costs per capita between PDL and non-PDL states was less than $0.6M or 1.5% (p=0.95). The average difference in antipsychotic utilization per capita was less than 2.8% (p=0.91) and in branded antipsychotic market share was 0.7% (p=0.59). Conclusions: Although a majority of Medicaid states use PDLs to manage antipsychotic utilization, this analysis found no evidence of significant advantages for these Medicaid programs in terms of lowering percapita antipsychotic costs or increasing generic utilization.

Medicaid cost control measures aimed at second-generation antipsychotics led to less use of all antipsychotics

"Atypical" or second-generation antipsychotics are a class of drug introduced in the 1990 s for the treatment of schizophrenia. Given their growing use and rising cost, these and other psychotherapeutic drugs are increasingly subject to prior authorization and other restrictions in state Medicaid programs. To evaluate the effects of these policies, we collected drug-level information on their use and on utilization management strategies--for example, requirements for prior authorization, quantity limits, and so-called step therapy--in thirty state Medicaid programs between 1999 and 2008. In the eleven states that instituted prior authorization during that period, use of atypicals per enrollee rose by 14 percent, versus 19 percent in the other nineteen states. Prior authorization also had spillover effects, in that reduced use of drugs subject to this requirement was not fully offset by the substitution of other atypicals or of typical antipsychotics. To understand the impact on patients and the resulting use of health services, studies should be undertaken of a large, national sample of Medicaid enrollees being treated with atypical antipsychotics. Comparative effectiveness research should guide physicians and health plans on appropriate first treatments, while prior authorization policies should focus on moving patients to appropriate second-line therapies when necessary.

The relationship of antidepressant prescribing concentration to treatment duration and cost

BACKGROUND

Widely accepted treatment guidelines and performance measures encourage patients to stay on antidepressant medication beyond the acute phase of treatment in order to achieve full remission and reduce risk of relapse. However, many patients discontinue antidepressant medication treatment prematurely for various reasons, including side-effects or nonresponse to the initial medication prescribed. Customization of medications to differing patient profiles could potentially improve medication treatment duration, but for many diseases physicians tend to concentrate on a limited subset of available medications. Little is known about the effects of concentration in prescribing on medication treatment duration and expenditures.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

To determine the extent to which prescribing for treatment of depression is concentrated, using data from a privately insured population. To evaluate the relationship between prescribing concentration and subsequent duration of medication treatment, expenditure on medications, and the number of distinct medications used.

STUDY POPULATION

Individuals receiving antidepressant treatment paid for by a large private managed behavioral health organization, in the US.

METHODS

The study uses psychotropic pharmacy claims data for 2003-06 for plan members who received a depression diagnosis and had an antidepressant claim. The resulting sample includes 9,017 patients seen by 543 prescribers. For each prescriber, we compute prescribing concentration, using the Herfindahl index and the share for the three most-used medications. Treatment expenditure is computed as the sum of payments by plan and by patients. Regression analysis is used to identify the association of prescribing concentration with medication treatment duration, expenditures and other utilization measures.

RESULTS

For these physicians, the mean share of the physician's total antidepressant prescribing accounted for by their three most-used regimens was 72%. The mean value of the Herfindahl index was 0.27. Over the 180-day follow-up period, the average patient had 103 days covered by antidepressant prescriptions, resulting in mean expenditures of $286, or $2.25 per day of medication supplied. Regression analysis indicates that higher concentration in a physician's prescribing was associated with fewer days of antidepressant coverage, lower medication expenditures, and subsequent use of fewer distinct medications.

DISCUSSION

Higher concentration in prescribing is associated with shorter observed duration of medication treatment and lower expenditures on medications. The lower expenditures appear to be due to earlier discontinuation and fewer different medications, not to a lower cost per day supplied. Limitations of this study include lack of data on medical visits or on reasons for medication discontinuation, as the study is based on pharmacy claims data, not medical claims or surveys. In addition, it is not known whether the patient's antidepressant use represents a new episode. Finally, lack of randomization implies that the associations identified may not be causal.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE

Concentration of physicians on certain medications may run counter to the increasing calls for customization of medication selection.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICY

Insurer policies which limit physicians' choice of medications may be lowering expenditures in part by reducing patients' medication treatment duration.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Additional studies are needed to understand what mechanisms may link concentration in prescribing to medication treatment duration and expenditures.

Does private insurance adequately protect families of children with mental health disorders?

OBJECTIVE

Although private insurance typically covers many health care costs, the challenges faced by families who care for a sick child are substantial. These challenges may be more severe for children with special health care needs (CSHCN) with mental illnesses than for other CSHCN. Our objective was to determine if families of privately insured children who need mental health care face different burdens than other families in caring for their children.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used the 2005-2006 National Survey of Children With Special Health Care Needs (NS-CSHCN) to study privately insured children aged 6 to 17 years. We compared CSHCN with mental health care needs (N = 4918) to 3 groups: children with no special health care needs (n = 2346); CSHCN with no mental health care needs (n = 16250); and CSHCN with no mental health care need but a need for other specialty services (n = 7902). The latter group was a subset of CSHCN with no mental health care need. We used weighted logistic regression and study outcomes across 4 domains: financial burden; health plan experiences; labor-market and time effects; and parent experience with services.

RESULTS

We found that families of children with mental health care needs face significantly greater financial barriers, have more negative health plan experiences, and are more likely to reduce their labor-market participation to care for their child than other families.

CONCLUSIONS

Families of privately insured CSHCN who need mental health care face a higher burden than other families in caring for their children. Policies are needed to help these families obtain affordable, high-quality care for their children.

Patterns and predictors of antipsychotic medication use among the U.S. population: findings from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey

BACKGROUND

Given the importance of pharmacological treatment in mental disorders, it is important to have a thorough understanding of predictors and variations in antipsychotic use.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a description of patient characteristics associated with antipsychotic use and to examine predictors of atypical antipsychotic use among antipsychotic users.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the 2004 and 2005 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Dependent variables were annual, self-reported, atypical and typical antipsychotic use. Independent variables included predisposing, enabling, and need characteristics according to Andersen's Behavioral Model. In addition to descriptive statistics, logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the determinants of antipsychotic use.

RESULTS

Patients aged 65 and older were 0.63 times as likely to use antipsychotics as patients aged 26-45. Poor and near-poor patients were 1.55 and 1.37 times as likely to use antipsychotics as middle- to high-income patients, respectively. The odds of antipsychotic use were 2.95 and 1.99 times for patients with public and prescription insurance coverage, respectively. Patients with a usual source of health care were 1.51 times as likely to use antipsychotics as those without. Compared with typical antipsychotic use, patients aged 25 and younger were 3.88 times as likely to use atypical antipsychotics as patients aged between 26 and 45. Urban residents were 1.87 times as likely as rural residents to use atypical antipsychotics. The odds of antipsychotic and atypical antipsychotic use for the poor mental health population were 8.73 and 3.87 times as patients with good to excellent mental health status.

CONCLUSIONS

Predisposing and need factors play important roles in determining the use of antipsychotics. However, among antipsychotic users, the use of atypical versus typical antipsychotics appears to have been influenced primarily by need. These findings should be useful to clinicians and policy makers in directing antipsychotic treatments to patients in need.

Benefit limits for behavioral health care in private health plans

Data from a nationally representative sample of private health plans reveal that special lifetime limits on behavioral health care are rare (used by 16% of products). However, most plans have special annual limits on behavioral health utilization; for example, 90% limit outpatient mental health and 93% limit outpatient substance abuse treatment. As a result, enrollees in the average plan face substantial out-of-pocket costs for long-lasting treatment: a median of $2,710 for 50 mental health visits, or $2,400 for 50 substance abuse visits. Plans' access to new managed care tools has not led them to stop using benefit limits for cost containment purposes.

Antipsychotic use at adult ambulatory care visits by patients with mental health disorders in the United States, 1996-2003: national estimates and associated factors

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective analysis was conducted to derive national estimates of typical, atypical, and combination (typical-atypical) antipsychotic use and to examine factors associated with their use at adult (age >>-18 years) ambulatory care visits by patients with mental health disorders in the United States.

METHODS

Data on adult visits with an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code for a mental health disorder were extracted from the office-based National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the outpatient facilitybased National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 1996 through 2003. The visits were categorized according to whether use of a typical, atypical, or combination antipsychotic was mentioned (either prescribed, supplied, administered, ordered, or continued at the visits). Total weighted visit estimates, weighted visit percentages, and 95% CIs were calculated across the 3 types of visit groups. Bivariate analysis was performed on the association between selected characteristics and the 3 visit groups. Multivariate logistic regression was performed on factors associated with atypical versus typical antipsychotic use.

RESULTS

During the 8-year period, there were an estimated 47.7 million adult ambulatory care visits involving a mental health disorder and mention of an antipsychotic (weighted percent: 0.83%; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93). From 1996/1997 to 2002/2003, visits involving atypical and combination antipsychotics increased by 195% and 149%, respectively, and visits involving typical antipsychotics decreased by 71%. Men, blacks, and those with public insurance made more visits in which combination antipsychotics rather than typical or atypical antipsychotics were mentioned. Relative to typical or combination antipsychotic visits, more atypical antipsychotic visits involved antide-pressants (weighted percent: 61.23% atypical, 37.29% typical, and 38.32% combination). Fewer atypical antipsychotic visits compared with typical or combination antipsychotic visits involved psychotic disorders (weighted percent: 32.94%, 51.23%, and 69.93%, respectively) and medications for extrapyramidal symptoms (weighted percent: 6.69%, 29.95%, and 36.64%). In multivariate analyses controlling for sex, race, diagnosis of schizophrenia, region, diagnosis of anxiety, and recent years, atypical versus typical antipsychotic use was significantly less likely at visits by those aged 41 to 64 years compared with those aged 18 to 40 years (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.84; P = 0.002); significantly less likely at visits by those with public compared with private insurance (Medicare OR = 0.59 [95% CI, 0.40-0.88], P = 0.010; Medicaid OR = 0.44 [95% CI, 0.28-0.69], P < 0.001); and significantly more likely at visits associated with depression compared with those not associated with depression (OR = 1.92; 95% CI, 1.26-2.93; P = 0.003) and those associated with bipolar disorder compared with those not associated with bipolar disorder (OR = 2.10; 95% CI, 1.32-3.36; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective analysis found more atypical than typical or combination antipsychotic use at US ambulatory care visits by adults with mental health disorders other than schizophrenia or psychoses in the period studied. Atypical versus typical antipsychotic use was significantly less likely at visits by adults aged 41 to 64 years and those with public insurance, but significantly more likely at visits by those with depression or bipolar disorder.

Study on Variations in Price of Prescription Medicines in Thailand

There are evidences describing that the prices of prescription medicines can affect users, suppliers, and, in particular, payers in the health care system. Despite the significant effects of prices, the information regarding their characteristics is scarce. The objective of this study was to examine the prices and price variations of prescription medicines in an actual setting. A cross-sectional study on the prices of prescription medicines listed in a hospital formulary was undertaken. The medicines (n=1531) listed in the formulary were recorded according to the category of the medicine (essential or non-essential medicines), manufacturer types (local or foreign), dosage forms, therapeutic classifications (classes), and prices per unit in Baht. This study used coefficients of relative variations (CRVs) to determine the extent of price variations. Results revealed that the mean prices of non-essential and foreign medicines were significantly greater than those of its counterparts by 1.7 and 21.2 times, respectively. On an average, the classes with the highest prices were blood-related, antineoplastic, and endocrinological agents, while those with the lowest prices were the psychotherapeutic, CNS, and cardiovascular agents. The majority of the medicines (37%) were in the price range of >10-100 Baht. The price variations of different classes of medicines varied from about 100% to 600%. The mean price and CRV levels (low and high) formed four groups of medicines with different risks of high prices and variations to payers. In conclusion, the prices are associated with the category and manufacturer type. The prices and their variations could be used to distinguish the classes of medicines that possess different risks of high prices and variations to payers. Identifying the classes with high prices and high variations, high prices and low variations, and low prices and high variations is necessary for careful intervention to reduce the effect of prices and their variations on payers.

Overview of Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit: potential implications for patients with psychotic disorders

PURPOSE

Medicare Part D prescription drug benefits are reviewed. Potential implications for patients with psychotic disorders in relation to Medicare Part D are discussed.

SUMMARY

The newly created Medicare Part D provides prescription drug benefits to many individuals formerly without prescription benefits and, possibly, lower-cost benefits to those who previously relied on other benefits. Participating prescription plans use a variety of pharmacy management tools to minimize costs while providing benefit plans that meet Part D requirements for composition and coverage. Patients then have the challenge of choosing a prescription drug plan that will best satisfy their prescriptions needs.

CONCLUSION

The rollout of Part D has not been without problems, and although more Medicare participants are receiving prescription drug benefits at a greater savings, there are concerns that Part D may not provide adequate coverage for all patients or for patients requiring certain types of medications, especially some psychotropic medications. Pharmacists have voiced concerns about the Medicare Part D drug plan in regard to both the degree of coverage it provides to enrollees and the difficulty in administering the benefit.

Impact of pharmaceutical prior authorisation policies : a systematic review of the literature

Policies consisting of or including prior authorisation (PA) of pharmaceutical prescriptions have been increasingly implemented by public and private insurers in the last decade, especially in the US, in order to control drug spending. We conducted a systematic review of published articles determining the effects of these policies on drug use, healthcare utilisation, healthcare expenditures and health outcomes.A literature search was carried out in the electronic databases PubMed (which includes MEDLINE), EconLit, Web of Science and online sources including Google Scholar, from 1 January 1985 to 12 September 2006. Reference lists of retrieved articles were also searched. Peer-reviewed studies that provided empirical results about the impact of pharmaceutical PA policies, including randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, repeated measures studies, interrupted time series analyses and before-and-after studies were included. Use of, and expenditure on, directly affected drugs per patient, and overall drug expenditure, significantly decreased after PA implementation, or increased after PA removal. Health outcome changes attributed to PA policies were not directly evaluated. In most cases, except for cimetidine, PA implementation was not associated with significant changes in the utilisation of other medical services. Although the literature indicates a reduction in drug expenditure and a non-negative impact on use of other health services, policy recommendations still require improved study designs, and evidence cannot be easily transferred from one setting to another. The evidence still remains mainly limited to US Medicaid settings and to a small number of drug classes. There is a lack of consideration of implications of PA policies as heterogeneous interventions, outcome measurements require improvement, and there is a notable lack of evidence of medium- and long-term policy effects.