Estimated effects of adding universal public coverage of an essential medicines list to existing public drug plans in Canada

Comparison of claims from high-drug cost beneficiaries in Ontario, Canada, and Australia: a cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

Globally, payers are struggling with rising drug costs, driven primarily by the increasing number of high-cost medications used by their beneficiaries. We aimed to compare the annual drug spending on claims from high-drug cost beneficiaries in the province of Ontario, Canada, and Australia.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of public drug claims in Ontario and Australia from fiscal years 2006 to 2017. We identified the total government costs for prescribed medications per beneficiary. During the study period, public drug coverage in Ontario was provided to all residents 65 years of age and older, those with financial needs, and those living in long-term care or in need of home care. Australia maintains a publicly funded, universal system covering all citizens. Based on annual spending, we divided beneficiaries into 4 cost groups, representing the top 1%, top 5%, top 10% and the remaining 90%. We reported the following for each cost group: medication cost and proportion of total government spending, number of unique drugs dispensed per person and the top 10 most costly drug classes.

RESULTS

In Ontario and Australia, the top 1% of beneficiaries accounted for a large and increasing proportion of all government drug costs, growing from 12% ($405 946 197) to 24% ($1 345 977 248) in Ontario, and from 14% ($86 565 586) to 34% ($416 097 984) in Australia between 2006 and 2017. The most costly drug classes among high-drug cost beneficiaries in both jurisdictions were biologics and hepatitis C treatments.

INTERPRETATION

In both Ontario and Australia, a small number of beneficiaries accounted for a large proportion of public drug spending, driven largely by the use of expensive medications. The current development of potential national pharmacare strategies in Canada must optimize the use of high-cost drugs to ensure the sustainability of the program.

Biologic medicine inclusion in 138 national essential medicines lists

BACKGROUND

Essential medicines lists (EMLs) are intended to reflect the priority health care needs of populations. We hypothesized that biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are underrepresented relative to conventional DMARDs in existing national EMLs. We aimed to survey the extent to which biologic DMARDs are included in EMLs, to determine country characteristics contributing to their inclusion or absence, and to contrast this with conventional DMARD therapies.

METHODS

We searched 138 national EMLs for 10 conventional and 14 biologic DMARDs used in the treatment of childhood rheumatologic diseases. Via regression modelling, we determined country characteristics accounting for differences in medicine inclusion between national EMLs.

RESULTS

Eleven countries (7.97%) included all 10 conventional DMARDs, 115 (83.33%) ≥5, and all countries listed at least one. Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was associated with the total number of conventional DMARDs included (β₁1.02 [95% CI 0.39, 1.66]; P = 0.00279). Among biologic DMARDs, 3 countries (2.2%) listed ≥10, 15 (10.9%) listed ≥5, and 47 (34.1%) listed at least one. Ninety-one (65.9%) of countries listed no biologic DMARDs. European region (β₁ 1.30 [95% CI 0.08, 2.52]; P = 0.0367), life expectancy (β₁-0.70 [95% CI -1.22, - 0.18]; P = 0.0085), health expenditure per capita (β₁ 1.83 [95% CI 1.24, 2.42]; P < 0.001), and conventional DMARDs listed (β₁ 0.70 [95% CI 0.33, 1.07]; P < 0.001) were associated with the total number of biologic DMARDs included.

CONCLUSION

Biologic DMARDs are excluded from most national EMLs. By comparison, conventional DMARDs are widely included. Countries with higher health spending and longer life expectancy are more likely to list biologics.

Adherence at 2 years with distribution of essential medicines at no charge: The CLEAN Meds randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Adherence to medicines is low for a variety of reasons, including the cost borne by patients. Some jurisdictions publicly fund medicines for the general population, but many jurisdictions do not, and such policies are contentious. To our knowledge, no trials studying free access to a wide range of medicines have been conducted.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We randomly assigned 786 primary care patients who reported not taking medicines due to cost between June 1, 2016 and April 28, 2017 to either free distribution of essential medicines (n = 395) or to usual medicine access (n = 391). The trial was conducted in Ontario, Canada, where hospital care and physician services are publicly funded for the general population but medicines are not. The trial population was mostly female (56%), younger than 65 years (83%), white (66%), and had a low income from wages as the primary source (56%). The primary outcome was medicine adherence after 2 years. Secondary outcomes included control of diabetes, blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in patients taking relevant treatments and healthcare costs over 2 years. Adherence to all appropriate prescribed medicines was 38.7% in the free distribution group and 28.6% in the usual access group after 2 years (absolute difference 10.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.3 to 16.9, p = 0.004). There were no statistically significant differences in control of diabetes (hemoglobin A1c 0.27; 95% CI -0.25 to 0.79, p = 0.302), systolic blood pressure (-3.9; 95% CI -9.9 to 2.2, p = 0.210), or LDL cholesterol (0.26; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.60, p = 0.130) based on available data. Total healthcare costs over 2 years were lower with free distribution (difference in median CAN$1,117; 95% CI CAN$445 to CAN$1,778, p = 0.006). In the free distribution group, 51 participants experienced a serious adverse event, while 68 participants in the usual access group experienced a serious adverse event (p = 0.091). Participants were not blinded, and some outcomes depended on participant reports.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we observed that free distribution of essential medicines to patients with cost-related nonadherence substantially increased adherence, did not affect surrogate health outcomes, and reduced total healthcare costs over 2 years.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02744963.

Outpatient oral anticancer agent utilization and costs in Manitoba from 2003 to 2016: a population-based study

INTERVENTION

In April 2012, the Manitoba Home Cancer Drug Program (HCDP) was introduced to allow 100% coverage for eligible oral anticancer agents (OAA) and supportive medications for Manitobans with cancer requiring these therapies.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

What is the extent of use and cost of OAAs among outpatients in Manitoba from 2003/04 to 2015/16? Did the HCDP change OAA user and prescription patterns?

METHODS

This was a retrospective, population-based study using administrative data to measure the prevalence of drug utilization over time and the impact of HCDP on OAA use and prescriptions using generalized linear models. Manitobans with cancer who filled an OAA or supportive medication covered by HCDP from 2003/04 to 2015/16 were included.

RESULTS

This study included 22,393 people with cancer who filled an OAA prescription. The prevalence of OAA use increased from 222 per 100,000 to 328 per 100,000 from 2003/04 to 2015/16. Hormone therapy for breast cancer was the most common class of OAA used (increased from 154 per 100,000 to 231 per 100,000). We observed a 2.6-fold decrease in the prevalence of oral alkylating agents and a 10.7-fold increase in the prevalence of protein kinase inhibitors during the study period. The total cost of targeted OAAs per year for all Manitobans with cancer increased from $1.8 million to $19 million.

CONCLUSION

We observed an increase in OAA prevalence and the cost of oral targeted chemotherapy is high. Our findings underline the need for addressing these high-cost medications in future developments of a national drug program.

Characteristics of high-drug-cost beneficiaries of public drug plans in 9 Canadian provinces: a cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

Drugs are the fastest growing cost in the Canadian health care system, owing to the increasing number of high-cost drugs. The objective of this study was to examine the characteristics of high-drug-cost beneficiaries of public drug plans across Canada relative to other beneficiaries.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study among public drug plan beneficiaries residing in all provinces except Quebec. We used the Canadian Institute for Health Information's National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System to identify all drugs dispensed to beneficiaries of public drug programs in 2016/17. We stratified the cohort into 2 groups: high-drug-cost beneficiaries (top 5% of beneficiaries based on annual costs) and other beneficiaries (remaining 95%). For each group, we reported total drug costs, prevalence of high-cost claims (> $1000), median number of drugs, proportion of beneficiaries aged 65 or more, the 10 most costly reimbursed medications and the 10 medications most commonly reimbursed. We reported estimates overall and by province.

RESULTS

High-drug-cost beneficiaries accounted for nearly half (46.5%) of annual spending, with an average annual spend of $14 610 per beneficiary, compared to $1570 among other beneficiaries. The median number of drugs dispensed was higher among high-drug-cost beneficiaries than among other beneficiaries (13 [interquartile range (IQR) 7-19] v. 8 [IQR 4-13]), and a much larger proportion of high-drug-cost beneficiaries than other beneficiaries received at least 1 high-cost claim (40.9% v. 0.6%). Long-term medications were the most commonly used medications for both groups, whereas biologics and antivirals were the most costly medications for high-drug-cost beneficiaries.

INTERPRETATION

High-drug-cost beneficiaries were characterized by the use of expensive medications and polypharmacy relative to other beneficiaries. Interventions and policies to help reduce spending need to consider both of these factors.

Universal Pharmacare in Canada: A Prescription for Equity in Healthcare

Despite progressive universal drug coverage and pharmaceutical policies found in other countries, Canada remains the only developed nation with a publicly funded healthcare system that does not include universal coverage for prescription drugs. In the absence of a national pharmacare plan, a province may choose to cover a specific sub-population for certain drugs. Although different provinces have individually attempted to extend coverage to certain subpopulations within their jurisdictions, out-of-pocket expenses on drugs and pharmaceutical products (OPEDP) accounts for a large proportion of out-of-pocket health expenses (OPHE) that are catastrophic in nature. Pharmaceutical drug coverage is a major source of public scrutiny among politicians and policy-makers in Canada. In this editorial, we focus on social inequalities in the burden of OPEDP in Canada. Prescription drugs are inconsistently covered under patchworks of public insurance coverage, and this inconsistency represents a major source of inequity of healthcare financing. Residents of certain provinces, rural households and Canadians from poorer households are more likely to be affected by this inequity and suffer disproportionately higher proportions of catastrophic out-of-pocket expenses on drugs and pharmaceutical products (COPEDP). Universal pharmacare would reduce COPEDP and promote a more equitable healthcare system in Canada.

A Critical Discourse Analysis of Intellectual Property Rights Within NAFTA 1.0: Implications for NAFTA 2.0 and for Democratic (Health) Governance in Canada

In 1993, the Canadian federal government ratified the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Prior to ratification, compulsory licensing was eliminated from Canada's Patent Act and intellectual property rights (IPRs) were strengthened. Compulsory licensing allows competitors to produce drugs under patent without the consent of the patent holder, challenging drug monopolies and lowering prices, whereas IPRs lengthen patent protections, shielding patent holders from competition and increasing prices. We perform a critical discourse analysis of key provisions in Chapter 17 of NAFTA in light of industry claims that pharmaceutical innovation requires important investments in research and development, justifying high drug prices. We note that since NAFTA, spending in research and development in Canada has decreased and drug prices have increased, becoming a major barrier to equitable access to critically necessary medications. We argue that by modifying the law, the federal government has wronged the Canadian people by discursively appropriating the language of protecting the public good while in practice legitimizing and consolidating private drug development and production, legalizing exorbitant profits, and excluding well-tested publicly financed alternatives. While NAFTA has now been superseded by the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, our analysis offers important lessons moving forward.

Effect on Treatment Adherence of Distributing Essential Medicines at No Charge: The CLEAN Meds Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Nonadherence to treatment with medicines is common globally, even for life-saving treatments. Cost is one important barrier to access, and only some jurisdictions provide medicines at no charge to patients.

Objective

To determine whether providing essential medicines at no charge to outpatients who reported not being able to afford medicines improves adherence.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A multicenter, unblinded, parallel, 2-group, superiority, outcomes assessor-blinded, individually randomized clinical trial conducted at 9 primary care sites in Ontario, Canada, enrolled 786 patients between June 1, 2016, and April 28, 2017, who reported cost-related nonadherence. Follow-up occurred at 12 months. The primary analysis was performed using an intention-to-treat principle.

Interventions

Patients were randomly allocated to receive free medicines on a list of essential medicines in addition to otherwise usual care (n = 395) or usual medicine access and usual care (n = 391).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was adherence to treatment with all medicines that were appropriately prescribed for 1 year. Secondary outcomes were hemoglobin A1c level, blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels 1 year after randomization in participants taking corresponding medicines.

Results

Among the 786 participants analyzed (439 women and 347 men; mean [SD] age, 51.7 [14.3] years), 764 completed the trial. Adherence to treatment with all medicines was higher in those randomized to receive free distribution (151 of 395 [38.2%]) compared with usual access (104 of 391 [26.6%]; difference, 11.6%; 95% CI, 4.9%-18.4%). Control of type 1 and 2 diabetes was not significantly improved by free distribution (hemoglobin A1c, -0.38%; 95% CI, -0.76% to 0.00%), systolic blood pressure was reduced (-7.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, -11.7 to -2.8 mm Hg), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were not affected (-2.3 mg/dL; 95% CI, -14.7 to 10.0 mg/dL).

Conclusions and Relevance

The distribution of essential medicines at no charge for 1 year increased adherence to treatment with medicines and improved some, but not other, disease-specific surrogate health outcomes. These findings could help inform changes to medicine access policies such as publicly funding essential medicines.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02744963.

Acceptability and feasibility of a national essential medicines list in Canada: a qualitative study of perceptions of decision-makers and policy stakeholders

BACKGROUND:

Policy approaches have been considered to address inconsistent and inequitable prescription drug coverage in Canada, including a national essential medicines list. We sought to explore key factors influencing the acceptability and feasibility of an essential medicines list in Canada.

METHODS:

We conducted semi-structured interviews with decision-makers and other key stakeholders from government or pan-Canadian institutions, civil society and the private sector across Canada. We analyzed data using inductive thematic analysis and by applying Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework to analyze the emergent themes deductively.

RESULTS:

We conducted 21 interviews before thematic saturation was achieved. We categorized emergent themes to describe the problem, the essential medicines list policy (including content and process), and politics. There was consensus among participants that prescription drug coverage was an important problem to address. Participants differed in their views on how to define essential medicines and concerns about what would be excluded from an essential medicines list. There was consensus on important features for a process to develop an essential medicines list: an independent decision-making body, use of defined selection criteria based on quality evidence, and clear communication of the purpose of the essential medicines list. Federal government financing and the broader pharmacare model, engagement of various interest groups and changing political agendas emerged as core political factors to consider if developing a Canadian essential medicines list.

INTERPRETATION:

Although stakeholders’ views on the content of a Canadian essential medicines list varied, there was consensus on the process to formulate and implement an essential medicines list or common national formulary, including choosing medicines based on best evidence. Greater understanding is now needed on how patients, clinicians and the public perceive the concept of an essential medicines list.

Drug price, dosage and safety: Real-world evidence of oral hypoglycemic agents

OBJECTIVES

Drug price reduction is one of the major policies to restrain pharmaceutical expenses worldwide. This study explores whether there is a relationship between drug price and clinical quality using real-world data.

METHODS

Patients with newly-diagnosed type 2 diabetes receiving metformin or sulfonylureas during 2001 and 2010 were identified using the claim database of the Taiwan universal health insurance system. Propensity score matching was performed to obtain comparable subjects for analysis. Pharmaceutical products were categorized as brand-name agents (BD), highpriced generics (HP) or low-priced generics (LP). Indicators of clinical quality were defined as the dosage of cumulative oral hypoglycemic agents (OHA), exposure to other pharmacological classes of OHA, hospitalization or urgent visit for hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia, insulin utilization and diagnosis of diabetic complications within 1 year after diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 40,152 study subjects were identified. A generalized linear mix model showed that HP and BD users received similar OHA dosages with comparable clinical outcomes. By contrast, LP users had similar outcomes to BD users but received a 39% greater OHA dosage. A marginally higher risk of poor glycemic control in LP users was also observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug price is related to indicators of clinical quality. Clinicians and health authorities should monitor the utilization, effectiveness and clinical safety indicators of generic drugs, especially those with remarkably low prices.

Prescription drug coverage in Canada: a review of the economic, policy and political considerations for universal pharmacare

BACKGROUND

Canadians have long been proud of their universal health insurance system, which publicly funds the cost of physician visits and hospitalizations at the point of care. Prescription drugs however, have been subject to a patchwork of public and private coverage which is frequently inefficient and creates access barriers to necessary medicine for many Canadians.

METHODS

A narrative review was undertaken to understand the important economic, policy and political considerations regarding implementation of universal prescription drug access in Canada (pan-Canadian pharmacare). PubMed, SCOPUS and google scholar were searched for relevant citations. Citation trails were followed for additional information sources. Published books, public reports, press releases, policy papers, government webpages and other forms of gray literature were collected from iterative internet searches to provide a complete view of the current state on this topic.

MAIN FINDINGS

Regarding health economics, all five of the reviewed pharmacare simulation models have shown reductions in annual prescription drug expenditure. However, differing policy and cost assumptions have resulted in a wide range of cost-saving estimates between models. In terms of policy, a single-payer, 'first-dollar' coverage model, using a minimum national formulary, is the model most frequently advocated by the academic community, healthcare professions and many public and patient groups. In contrast, a multi-payer, catastrophic 'last-dollar' coverage model, more similar to the current "patchwork" state of public and private coverage, is preferred by industry drug manufacturers and private health insurance companies. Primary concerns from the detractors of universal, single-payer, 'first-dollar' coverage are the financing required for its implementation and the access barriers that may be created for certain patient populations that are not majorly present in the current public-private payer mix.

CONCLUSION

Canada patiently awaits to see how the issue of prescription drug coverage will be resolved through the work of the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare. The overarching and ongoing discourse on policy and program implementation may be construed as a political debate informed by divergent public and private interests.

Public prescription drug plan coverage for antiretrovirals and the potential cost to people living with HIV in Canada: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Antiretrovirals are expensive and people living with HIV may experience a range of financial burdens when accessing these medications. Our aim was to describe the policy of all Canadian public drug insurance programs for antiretroviral drugs and illustrated how these policies might affect patients' annual out-of-pocket expenditures.

METHODS

In December 2017, we reviewed public drug programs offering antiretroviral coverage in Canada using government websites to summarize eligibility criteria. We estimated the annual out-of-pocket costs incurred by people living with HIV by applying the cost-sharing rules to 2 hypothetical cases, a single man and a married woman with a net household income of $39 000 and $80 000, respectively, receiving identical prescriptions in different jurisdictions.

RESULTS

We observed substantial variation in the subsidy provided based mainly on geography, income and age. All 5 federal programs and 6 of 13 provincial and territorial jurisdictions offered universal coverage. In the remaining regions, patients spend up to several thousand dollars annually depending on income (Manitoba), age and income (Ontario, Saskatchewan) and age, income and drug costs (Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador). We found the greatest variation for our higher income case, with out-of-pocket expenses ranging from 0 to over 50% of the antiretroviral cost.

INTERPRETATION

There is considerable inter- and intra-jurisdiction heterogeneity in the cost-sharing policies for antiretrovirals across Canada's public drug programs. Policy reforms that either eliminate or set national standards for copayments, deductibles or premiums would minimize variation and could reduce the risk of cost-associated non-adherence to HIV therapy.

Catastrophic drug coverage: utilization insights from the Ontario Trillium Drug Program

BACKGROUND

Catastrophic drug coverage programs help those with high drug-costs to reduce the burden of out-of-pocket expenses. We set out to measure changes in utilization, spending and demographic profiles of people accessing Ontario's catastrophic drug program, the Trillium Drug Program.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional time-series analysis examining quarterly utilization and spending trends among medications reimbursed by the Trillium Drug Program in Ontario, Canada from Jan. 1, 2000, to Dec. 31, 2016. In each of 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015, we described the population of beneficiaries, including demographic information, health care utilization and medication utilization.

RESULTS

Over our study period, use of the Trillium Drug Program increased threefold from 3.6 beneficiaries per 1000 to 10.9 beneficiaries per 1000 Ontarians, and total government spending on the program increased by over 700%, reaching $487 million in 2016. Between 2000 and 2015, there was an increase in the number of beneficiaries who were under the age of 35 years (19.6% to 25.3%; p < 0.0001), did not have a hospital admission (68.3% to 80.5%; p < 0.0001) and had medium to high deductibles (2.3% to 8.0%; p < 0.0001). Further, there was a large increase in the percentage of users with drug claims greater than $1000 (3.4% to 10.4%; p < 0.0001) and those dispensed a high-cost biologic drug (1.6% to 5.5%; p < 0.0001).

INTERPRETATION

Increasing use of Ontario's catastrophic drug program highlights the growing burden of high drug prices for Canadians. With a growing number of expensive drugs being approved in Canada, we anticipate that spending and use of the catastrophic drug program will continue to expand.

Do reimbursement recommendation processes used by government drug plans in Canada adhere to good governance principles?

In democratic societies, good governance is the key to assuring the confidence of stakeholders and other citizens in how governments and organizations interact with and relate to them and how decisions are taken. Although defining good governance can be debatable, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) set of principles is commonly used. The reimbursement recommendation processes of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), which carries out assessments for all public drug plans outside Quebec, are examined in the light of the UNDP governance principles and compared with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence system in England. The adherence of CADTH’s processes to the principles of accountability, transparency, participatory, equity, responsiveness and consensus is poor, especially when compared with the English system, due in part to CADTH’s lack of genuine independence. CADTH’s overriding responsibility is toward the governments that “own,” fund and manage it, while the agency’s status as a not-for-profit corporation under federal law protects it from standard government forms of accountability. The recent integration of CADTH’s reimbursement recommendation processes with the provincial public drug plans’ collective system for price negotiation with pharmaceutical companies reinforces CADTH’s role as a nonindependent partner in the pursuit of governments’ cost-containment objectives, which should not be part of its function. Canadians need a national organization for evaluating drugs for reimbursement in the public interest that fully embraces the principles of good governance – one that is publicly accountable, transparent and fair and includes all stakeholders throughout its processes.

Comparison of Canadian public medication insurance plans and the impact on out-of-pocket costs

BACKGROUND

Research from 2006 documented substantial variation in medication coverage for residents across Canada. Since then, some provinces have implemented major medication plan reforms. We aimed to update the information on publicly funded medication insurance plans available across Canada and to compare out-of-pocket costs across the country.

METHODS

We compared provincial medication insurance plans using data from public websites and other public source documents. Using 2 hypothetical clinical examples, we determined the amount and type of a patient's out-of-pocket costs for 5 different patient subtypes that varied based on medication burden, age and income.

RESULTS

Each province offers a plan to all residents. Cost-sharing is employed across all provinces. Some residents must pay a premium to receive insurance or must pay 100% of their medication costs until they reach a deductible amount, above which government funding covers a portion of medication costs. With the scenario of low medication burden (medication cost about $500), out-of-pocket costs ranged from $250 to $2100 for higher-income residents and from $0 to $700 for lower-income residents. With the scenario of high medication burden (medication cost about $1800), the corresponding ranges were $250-$2500 and $0-$1100. The variation was due to province of residence, age and income.

INTERPRETATION

Variations in out-of-pocket payments continue to exist across the provinces, with some groups facing high expenses. Further work is required to understand the impact of different cost-sharing mechanisms, develop policies to limit out-of-pocket expenses and improve provincial drug plans.

Out-of-pocket costs and adherence to antihypertensive agents among older adults covered by the public drug insurance plan in Quebec

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of patient out-of-pocket costs on adherence to antihypertensive agents (AHA) in community-dwelling older adults covered by the public drug insurance plan in Quebec.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of data from the "Étude sur la santé des aînés" study (2005-2008) on community-dwelling older adults in Quebec aged 65 years and older (N=2,811). The final sample included 881 participants diagnosed with arterial hypertension and treated with AHA. Medication adherence was measured with the proportion of days covered over a 2-year follow-up period (<80% and ≥80%). Out-of-pocket costs for AHA, in Canadian dollars (CAD), at cohort entry were categorized as follows: $0, $0.01-$5.00, $5.01-$10.00, $10.01-$15.00 and $15.01-$36.00. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to study adherence to AHA as a function of out-of-pocket costs while controlling for several confounders. Models were also stratified by annual household income (<$15,000 CAD and ≥$15,000 CAD).

RESULTS

In this study, 80.8% of participants were adherent to their AHA. Among participants reporting an annual household income <$15,000 CAD, those with an out-of-pocket cost of $10.01-$15.00 CAD were significantly less adherent to their AHA than those with no contribution (OR =0.175, 95% CI: 0.042-0.740). Among participants reporting an income of ≥$15,000 CAD, those with out-of-pocket costs of $0.01-$5.00 CAD (OR =0.194; 95% CI: 0.048-0.787), $5.01-$10.00 CAD (OR =0.146; 95% CI: 0.036-0.589), $10.01-$15.00 CAD (OR =0.192; 95% CI: 0.047-0.777) and $15.01-$36.00 CAD (OR =0.160, 95% CI: 0.039-0.655) were significantly less adherent to their AHA than participants with no contribution.

CONCLUSION

Increased out-of-pocket costs are associated with non-adherence to AHA in older adults covered by a public drug insurance plan, more importantly in those reporting an annual household income ≥$15,000 CAD. A reduction in the amount of out-of-pocket costs and yearly maximum contribution for drugs may improve adherence to treatment.

Development of a preliminary essential medicines list for Canada

BACKGROUND

Some evidence supports the use of a short list of essential medicines to improve prescribing. We aimed to create a preliminary essential medicines list for use in Canada.

METHODS

The 2013 World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines was initially adapted by the research team. Fourteen Canadian clinicians gave suggestions for changes to the list. Literature relevant to each unique suggestion was gathered and presented to 3 clinician-scientists who used a modified nominal group technique to make recommendations on the suggested changes. Audits of prescriptions of 2 Toronto-based family health teams (an inner city clinic and a suburban site) between Aug. 1, 2013, and July 30, 2014, were performed to identify common prescriptions that were not on the draft list. Literature relevant to these additional medications was gathered and shared with the clinician-scientist review panel to determine whether each should be added to the list, and a list was developed. The audits were repeated based on the final list to provide a preliminary assessment of the coverage of the list.

RESULTS

The multistep process produced a list of 125 medications. The medications included on this list covered 90.8% and 92.6% of prescriptions at the inner city clinic and the suburban site, respectively. In total, 93% of the patients seen at the inner city clinic and 96% of the patients seen at the suburban clinic had all or all but 1 of their medications covered by the list.

INTERPRETATION

A preliminary list of essential medicines was developed that covered most, but not all, prescriptions at 2 primary care sites. The list should be further refined based on wider input.