Physician gender and changes in drug prescribing after the implementation of reference pricing in British Columbia

Gender differences in physician decisions to adopt new prescription drugs

Physician adoption of new technologies is a key issue for population health and the sustainability of the healthcare system. This paper explores gender differences in general practitioners' (GPs) adoption of new oral anticoagulants. We combine detailed individual data on physician and practice style characteristics from the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) panel survey of Australian physicians with administrative prescribing data from the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) for the period January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015. After adjusting for various factors proposed in the literature as drivers of this gender gap, in addition to risk preferences and personality traits, we find a large statistical gender difference in the speed of adoption with men being faster than women in uptake. However, conditional on having prescribed for the first time, female and male GPs differ only slightly in the intensity of use of these new drugs. We show that the gender gap depends on the measure of uptake and discuss possible channels that could be driving the relatively large gender difference that remains in the speed of adoption.

Prescriber Variation in Relation to Prescribing Trends within the Preferred Drugs Initiative in Ireland (2012-2015): An Interrupted Time-Series Study Using Latent Curve Models

OBJECTIVES

To examine the impact of the Preferred Drugs Initiative (PDI), an Irish health policy aimed at reducing prescribing variation.

DESIGN

Interrupted time series spanning 2012 to 2015.

SETTING

Health Service Executive pharmacy claims data for General Medical Services (GMS) patients, approximately 40% of the Irish population.

PARTICIPANTS

Prescribers issuing preferred drug group items to GMS adults before and after PDI guidelines.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

The percentage coverage of PDI medications within each drug class per calendar quarter per prescriber.

METHODS

Latent curve models with structured residuals (LCM-SRs) were used to model coverage of the preferred drugs over time. The number of GMS adults receiving medication and the percentage who were 65 years and older at the start of the study were included as covariates.

RESULTS

In the quarter following PDI guidelines, coverage of the preferred drugs increased most in absolute terms for proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) (1.50% [SE 0.15], P < 0.001) and selective and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) (1.17% [SE 0.26], P < 0.001). Variation between prescribers remained relatively unchanged and increased for urology medications. Prescribers who increased coverage of the preferred PPI also increased coverage of the preferred statin immediately following guidelines (correlation 0.47 [SE 0.13], P < 0.001). Where guidelines were disseminated simultaneously, coverage of one preferred drug did not significantly predict coverage of the other preferred drug in the next calendar quarter. Prescribing of preferred drugs was not moderated by prescriber-level factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Modest changes in prescribing of the preferred drugs have been observed over the course of the PDI. However, the guidelines have had little impact in reducing variation between prescribers. Further strategies may be necessary to reduce variation in clinical practice and enhance patient care.

Pharmaceutical policies: effects of reference pricing, other pricing, and purchasing policies

BACKGROUND

Pharmaceuticals are important interventions that could improve people's health. Pharmaceutical pricing and purchasing policies are used as cost-containment measures to determine or affect the prices that are paid for drugs. Internal reference pricing establishes a benchmark or reference price within a country which is the maximum level of reimbursement for a group of drugs. Other policies include price controls, maximum prices, index pricing, price negotiations and volume-based pricing.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of pharmaceutical pricing and purchasing policies on health outcomes, healthcare utilisation, drug expenditures and drug use.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), part of The Cochrane Library (including the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Register) (searched 22/10/2012); MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and MEDLINE, Ovid (searched 22/10/2012); EconLit, ProQuest (searched 22/10/2012); PAIS International, ProQuest (searched 22/10/2012); World Wide Political Science Abstracts, ProQuest (searched 22/10/2012); INRUD Bibliography (searched 22/10/2012); Embase, Ovid (searched 14/12/2010); NHSEED, part of The Cochrane Library (searched 08/12/2010); LILACS, VHL (searched 14/12/2010); International Political Science Abstracts (IPSA), Ebsco (searched (17/12/2010); OpenSIGLE (searched 21/12/10); WHOLIS, WHO (searched 17/12/2010); World Bank (Documents and Reports) (searched 21/12/2010); Jolis (searched 09/10/2011); Global Jolis (searched 09/10/2011) ; OECD (searched 30/08/2005); OECD iLibrary (searched 30/08/2005); World Bank eLibrary (searched 21/12/2010); WHO - The Essential Drugs and Medicines web site (browsed 21/12/2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Policies in this review were defined as laws; rules; financial and administrative orders made by governments, non-government organisations or private insurers. To be included a study had to include an objective measure of at least one of the following outcomes: drug use, healthcare utilisation and health outcomes or costs (expenditures); the study had to be a randomised trial, non-randomised trial, interrupted time series (ITS), repeated measures (RM) study or a controlled before-after study of a pharmaceutical pricing or purchasing policy for a large jurisdiction or system of care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Results were summarised in tables. There were too few comparisons with similar outcomes across studies to allow for meta-analysis or meaningful exploration of heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 studies (seven identified in the update): 17 of reference pricing, one of which also assessed maximum prices, and one of index pricing. None of the studies were trials. All included studies used ITS or RM analyses. The quality of the evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. Three reference pricing studies reported cumulative drug expenditures at one year after the transition period. Two studies reported the median relative insurer's cumulative expenditures, on both reference drugs and cost share drugs, of -18%, ranging from -36% to 3%. The third study reported relative insurer's cumulative expenditures on total market of -1.5%. Four reference pricing studies reported median relative insurer's expenditures on both reference drugs and cost share drugs of -10%, ranging from -53% to 4% at one year after the transition period. Four reference pricing studies reported a median relative change of 15% in reference drugs prescriptions at one year (range -14% to 166%). Three reference pricing studies reported a median relative change of -39% in cost share drugs prescriptions at one year (range -87% to -17%). One study of index pricing reported a relative change of 55% (95% CI 11% to 98%) in the use of generic drugs and -43% relative change (95% CI -67% to -18%) in brand drugs at six months after the transition period. The same study reported a price change of -5.3% and -1.1% for generic and brand drugs respectively six months after the start of the policy. One study of maximum prices reported a relative change in monthly sales volume of all statins of 21% (95% CI 19% to 24%) after one year of the introduction of this policy. Four studies reported effects on mortality and healthcare utilisation, however they were excluded because of study design limitations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The majority of the studies of pricing and purchasing policies that met our inclusion criteria evaluated reference pricing. We found that internal reference pricing may reduce expenditures in the short term by shifting drug use from cost share drugs to reference drugs. Reference pricing may reduce related expenditures with effects on reference drugs but the effect on expenditures of cost share drugs is uncertain. Reference pricing may increase the use of reference drugs and may reduce the use of cost share drugs. The analysis and reporting of the effects on patients' drug expenditures were limited in the included studies and administration costs were not reported. Reference pricing effects on health are uncertain due to lack of evidence. The effects of other purchasing and pricing policies are until now uncertain due to sparse evidence. However, index pricing may reduce the use of brand drugs, increase the use of generic drugs, and may also slightly reduce the price of the generic drug when compared with no intervention.

Patient socioeconomic determinants for the choice of the cheapest molecule within a cluster: evidence from Belgian prescription data

Reference pricing is a common cost-sharing mechanism, with the financial penalty for the use of costly drugs shifted from the third-party payer to the patient. Unintended distributional consequences might arise, if the weakest socioeconomic groups face a relatively higher financial burden. This study analyzed for a sample of Belgian individual prescription data for 4 clusters of commonly used drugs (proton pump inhibitors, statins and two groups of antihypertensives [drugs acting on renin-angiotensin system and dihydropyridine derivatives]) whether the probability to receive the least expensive molecule within a cluster was linked to the socioeconomic status of the patient. Logistic regression models included individual demographic, working, chronic illness and financial status and small area education data for 906,543 prescriptions from 1,280 prescribing general practitioners and specialists. For the 4 clusters, results show that patients with lower socioeconomic status consistently use slightly more the least expensive drugs than other patients. Larger effects are observed for patients residing in a nursing home for the elderly, patients entitled to increased reimbursement of co-payments, unemployed, patients treated in a primary care center financed per capita (and not fee-for-service) and patients having a chronic illness. Also, patients residing in neighborhoods with low education status use more less expensive drugs. The findings of the study suggest that although equity considerations were not explicitly taken into account in the design of the reference price system, there is no real equity problem, as the costly drugs with supplement are not prescribed more often in patients from lower socioeconomic classes.

Time series evaluation of an intervention to increase statin tablet splitting by general practitioners

BACKGROUND

Tablet splitting, in which a higher-dose tablet is split to get 2 doses, reduces patients' drug costs. Statins can be split safely. General practitioners (GPs) may not direct their patients to split statins because of safety concerns or unawareness of costs. Medical chart inserts provide cost-effective education to physicians.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess whether providing GPs with statin-splitting chart inserts would increase splitting rates, and to identify predictors of splitting.

METHODS

In 2005 and 2006, we faxed a statin chart insert to British Columbia GPs with a request for a telephone interview. Consenting GPs were mailed 3 statin chart inserts and interviewed by phone (the intervention). In an interrupted time series, we compared monthly rates of statin-splitting prescriptions among intervention and nonintervention GPs before, during, and after the intervention. In multivariate logistic regressions accounting for patient clustering, predictors of splitting included physician and patient demographics and the specific statin prescribed.

RESULTS

Of 5051 GPs reached, 282 (6%) agreed to the intervention. Before the intervention, GPs' splitting rate was 2.6%; after intervention, GPs' splitting rate was 7.5%. The rate for the nonintervention GPs was 4.4%. Intervention GPs were 1.68 (95% CI, 1.12-2.53) times more likely to prescribe splitting after the intervention than were nonintervention GPs. Other predictors were a patient's female sex (odds ratio [OR] = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.18-1.34), lower patient income (OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.18-1.34), and a lack of drug insurance (OR = 1.89; 95% CI, 1.69-2.04).

CONCLUSIONS

An inexpensive intervention was effective in producing a sustained increase in GPs' splitting rate during 22 months of observed follow-up. Expanding statin-splitting education to all GPs might reduce prescription costs for many patients and payors.

Pharmaceutical policies: effects of reference pricing, other pricing, and purchasing policies

BACKGROUND

Pharmaceuticals can be important for people's health. At the same time drugs are major components of health care costs. Pharmaceutical pricing and purchasing policies are used to determine or affect the prices that are paid for drugs. Examples are price controls, maximum prices, price negotiations, reference pricing, index pricing and volume-based pricing policies. The essence of reference pricing is to establish a maximum level of reimbursement for a group of drugs assumed to be therapeutically equivalent.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of pharmaceutical pricing and purchasing policies on drug use, healthcare utilisation, health outcomes and costs (expenditures).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following databases and web sites: Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Register (date of last search: 22/08/03), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (15/10/03), MEDLINE (07/09/05), EMBASE (07/09/05), ISI Web of Science (08/09/05), CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts (21/10/03), EconLit (23/10/03), SIGLE (12/11/03), INRUD (21/11/03), PAIS International (23/03/04), International Political Science Abstracts (09/01/04), NHS EED (20/02/04), PubMed (25/02/04), NTIS (03/03/04), IPA (22/04/04), OECD Publications & Documents (30/08/05), SourceOECD (30/08/05), World Bank Documents & Reports (30/08/05), World Bank e-Library (04/05/05), JOLIS (22/08/05), Global Jolis (22/08/05 and 23/08/05), WHOLIS (29/08/05).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Policies in this review were defined as laws, rules, financial and administrative orders made by governments, non-government organisations or private insurers. To be included a study had to include an objective measure of at least one of the following outcomes: drug use, healthcare utilisation, health outcomes, and costs (expenditures); the study must be a randomised controlled trial, non-randomised controlled trial, interrupted time series analysis, repeated measures study or controlled before-after study of a pharmaceutical pricing or purchasing policy for a large jurisdiction or system of care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study limitations. Quantitative analysis of time series data, for studies with sufficient data, and qualitative analyses were undertaken.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies of reference pricing and one study of index pricing. Most of the reference pricing studies were for senior citizens in British Columbia, Canada. The use (dispensing) of reference drugs increased in five studies, between 60% and 196% immediately after introduction of reference drug pricing, whereas the use of cost sharing drugs decreased by between 19% and 42% in four studies. In three studies the reference drug group expenditures decreased (range 19% - 50%), whereas in the fourth study the expenditures increased by 5% in the short term. The results after six months of reference pricing do not show any clear pattern in relationship to the immediate effects. We found no evidence of adverse effects on health and no clear evidence of increased health care utilisation. For index pricing the evidence was much more limited than for reference drug pricing. A small reduction in drug prices was found.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found relatively few studies of pricing policies. The majority of the studies dealt with reference pricing. They had few methodological limitations. Based on the evidence in this review, mostly from senior citizens in British Columbia, Canada, reference drug pricing can reduce third party drug expenditures by inducing a shift in drug use towards less expensive drugs. We found no evidence of adverse effects on health and no clear evidence of increased health care utilisation. The analysis and reporting of the effects on patient drug expenditures were limited in the included studies and administration costs were not reported.

Motivations and perceived influences on rural and urban general practitioners when prescribing conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or COX-2 inhibitors

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Prescribers in rural and remote locations perceive that there are different influences on their prescribing compared with those experienced by urban prescribers. The aim of this study was to compare the motivations and perceived influences on general practitioners (GPs) when prescribing COX-2 inhibitors rather than conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) between rural and urban-based GPs in Queensland, Australia.

METHODS

A questionnaire was administered to two geographically distinct groups of GPs, one urban (n=67) and one rural (n=67), investigating the reasons that the GP would prescribe a COX-2 inhibitor rather than a conventional NSAID or vice versa and also focusing on patients requesting a prescription for a COX-2 inhibitor.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A 51% response rate (n=68) was achieved. The difference between the rural and the urban GPs was that the urban GPs were more likely to perceive that they were influenced to prescribe COX-2 inhibitors by their patients' knowledge of these new (at the time) drugs. GPs in both the rural and urban areas perceived the COX-2 selective inhibitors to be safer than conventional NSAIDs, and that there was little difference in terms of efficacy between the two drug classes. However, GPs from both of the study areas stated that conventional NSAIDs were preferred over COX-2 selective inhibitors, primarily due to their expense, if their patients were not at risk for developing a GI bleed.

CONCLUSION

The motivations and perceived influences to prescribe a COX-2 inhibitor in rural and in urban areas of Queensland, Australia were very similar. Almost all surveyed GPs in rural and urban areas had patients request a prescription, or enquire about the COX-2 inhibitors. Urban GPs were more likely to feel pressured to prescribe a COX-2 inhibitor than their rural counterparts, agreeing with other research which found that patient pressure to prescribe appears to be greater in urban general practice.