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

Health Canada advisory impacts on the prevalence of oral codeine use in the Pediatric Canadian population: comparative study across provinces

Health Canada (HC) has, since 2013, issued safety alerts restricting the use of codeine-containing drugs among breastfeeding women and children/adolescents under 18 years of age. These products are linked to breathing problems among ultra-rapid CYP2D6 metabolizers and early use of opioid can lead to future opioid misuse. Using a multi-province population-based cohort study, we estimate the impact of federal safety alerts on annual rates of codeine use in the Canadian pediatric population. We analyzed data from 8,156,948 children/adolescents in five Canadian provinces between 1996 and 2021, using a common protocol. Children/adolescents were categorized as: ≤ 12 years (children) or > 12 years (adolescents). We defined codeine exposure by ≥ 1 prescription filled for codeine alone or combined with other medications. For both age categories, we obtained province-specific codeine prescription filling rates per calendar year by dividing the number of children/adolescents with ≥ 1 codeine prescription filled by the number of person-time. Annual rates of codeine use per 1000 persons vary by province from 3.0 (Quebec) to 10.1 (Manitoba) in children, and from 5.5 to 51.3 in adolescents. After the 2013 HC advisory, exposure decreased in all provinces (adjusted level change from - 0.6 to - 18.4%) in children and from - 2.1 to - 17.9% in adolescents after the 2016 advisory. Annual rates declined over time in all provinces, following HC safety alerts specific to each of the two age categories.

Factors Associated With Attainment of Glycemic Targets Among Adults With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in Canada: A Cross-sectional Study Using Primary and Specialty Care Electronic Medical Record Data

OBJECTIVE

Using a new database combining primary and specialty care electronic medical record (EMR) data in Canada, we determined attainment of glycemic targets and associated predictors among adults with diabetes.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional observational study combining primary and specialty care EMR data in Canada. Adults with diabetes whose primary care provider contributed to the National Diabetes Repository or who were assessed at a diabetes specialty clinic (LMC Diabetes and Endocrinology) between July 3, 2015, and June 30, 2019, were included. Diabetes type was categorized as type 2 diabetes (T2D) not prescribed insulin, T2D prescribed insulin, and type 1 diabetes (T1D). Covariates were age, sex, income quintile, province, rural/urban location, estimated glomerular filtration rate, medications, and insulin pump use. Associations between predictors and the outcome (glycated hemoglobin [A1C] of ≤7.0%) were assessed by multivariable logistic regressions.

RESULTS

Among 122,106 adults, consisting of 91,366 with T2D not prescribed insulin, 25,131 with T2D prescribed insulin, and 5,609 with T1D, attainment of an A1C of ≤7.0% was 60%, 25%, and 23%, respectively. Proportions with an A1C of ≤7.5% and ≤8.0% were 75% and 84% for those with T2D not prescribed insulin, 41% and 57% for those with T2D prescribed insulin, and 37% and 53% for those with T1D. Highest vs lowest income quintile was associated with greater odds of meeting the A1C target (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval] for each diabetes category: 1.15 [1.10 to 1.21], 1.21 [1.10 to 1.33], and 1.29 [1.04 to 1.60], respectively). Individuals in Alberta and Manitoba had less antihyperglycemic medication use and attainment of A1C target than other provinces.

CONCLUSIONS

Attainment of glycemic targets among adults with diabetes was poor and differed by income and geographic location, which must be addressed in national diabetes strategies.

Relationship Between Diet Quality and Statin Use Among Adults With Metabolic Syndrome From the CARTaGENE Cohort

Background

In metabolic syndrome (MetS), cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction relies on the complementary use of diet and lipid-lowering medication. Evidence suggests that initiating such medication may impede diet quality. The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between diet quality and statin use among adults with MetS and free of CVD from the Province of Québec.

Methods

This cross-sectional study included 2481 adults with MetS (40-69 years of age) from the CARTaGENE Québec population-based cohort, of whom 463 self-reported using statin monotherapy. Diet was assessed using the Canadian Dietary History Questionnaire II, a food- frequency questionnaire, and diet quality was assessed using the Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI).

Results

In multivariable-adjusted linear regression models, statin users had lower AHEI (%) compared with nonusers (users: 40.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 38.9, 41.2 vs nonusers: 41.2; 95% CI, 40.4, 42.0; P = 0.03] because of a lower consumption of vegetables and whole grains. Stratified interaction analyses showed that the lower diet quality among statin users was mostly prevalent among men aged ≥ 50 years and women aged ≥ 60 years, among individuals with annual household incomes of < $50,000 and persons who self-reported history of high blood pressure.

Conclusions

In this cohort of adults with MetS from Quebéc, the use of statin monotherapy in primary prevention of CVD was associated with a slightly lower diet quality. These data suggest suboptimal complementarity between diet quality and use of cholesterol-lowering medication in primary prevention of CVD in MetS.

The diabetes health plan and medication adherence among individuals with low incomes

OBJECTIVE

To test the impact of the Diabetes Health Plan (DHP), a diabetes-specific insurance plan that lowers out-of-pocket costs for diabetes-related medications and clinical visits, on adherence to oral hypoglycemic medications among low-income adults with Type 2 Diabetes (T2DM).

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

Cohort of adults (18-64) with T2DM, an annual household income

STUDY DESIGN

We employed a linear regression Difference-In-Differences (DID) approach with a matched comparison group. To assess for differential DHP effects across adherent versus non-adherent patients, we ran a Difference-in-Difference-in-Differences (DDD) analysis by including an interaction term that included indicators for DHP exposure status and time, and low versus high baseline medication adherence.

DATA COLLECTION

The analytic data set is limited to employer groups that purchased the DHP and standard benefit plans from UnitedHealthcare, had internal pharmacy contracts; complete pharmacy claims data, and sufficient medical claims and lab data to identify employees and their dependents with T2DM.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Our DID analysis did not show improved medication adherence associated with employer DHP adoption. However, the DDD model suggested a difference between DHP-exposed and comparison beneficiaries when comparing the relative effect on individuals who were adherent versus non-adherent at baseline, as suggested by the significant three-way interaction term (10.2,p = 0.028). This effect was driven by the 8.2 percentage point increase in medication adherence for the DHP subsample that was non-adherent at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

The DHP may benefit low-income patients with low baseline medication adherence. Value-based insurance design may be an important strategy for mitigating income disparities in T2DM outcomes.

Collapse

Key Words

• diabetes
• health disparities
• health equity
• low-income
• medication non-adherence
• value based insurance design

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Adult
• Humans
• Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/drug therapy
• Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use
• Medication Adherence
• Pharmaceutical Services
• Cohort Studies
• Retrospective Studies

Collapse

Grants

• P30 AG021684 NIA NIH HHS
• U58 DP002722 NCCDPHP CDC HHS
• K08 AG068372 NIA NIH HHS
• U18 DP006128 NCCDPHP CDC HHS
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
• National Institute on Aging

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Kimberly Danae Cauley Narain Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesCaliforniaUSA Center for Health AdvancementFielding School of Public Health, University of California Los AngelesLos AngelesCaliforniaUSA Center for the Study of RacismSocial Justice, and Health Los AngelesLos AngelesCaliforniaUSA
Norman Turk Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesCaliforniaUSA
O. Kenrik Duru Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesCaliforniaUSA
Tannaz Moin Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesCaliforniaUSA HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation & PolicyVA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare SystemLos AngelesCaliforniaUSA
Sam Ho UnitedHealthcareMinnetonkaMinnesotaUSA
Carol M. Mangione Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesCaliforniaUSA Fielding School of Public HealthUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesCaliforniaUSA

Collapse

Variation in Patient-Described Barriers to and Facilitators of Diabetes Management by Individual-Level Characteristics: A Cross-Sectional, Open-Ended Survey

This study analyzed patient-described barriers and facilitators related to diabetes management, focusing on how these differ by glycemia and across individual characteristics. A cross-sectional telephone survey was conducted with adult patients with diabetes in Alberta, Canada, asking two open-ended questions to describe the most helpful and difficult components of their diabetes management. Responses were analyzed using directed content analysis using the Theoretical Domains Framework as a template. The most frequently cited facilitator was care context and information, and the most frequently cited barriers were cognitive challenges and structural barriers, with patient-perceived barriers and facilitators varying by individual-level factors.

Interpreting forty-three-year trends of expenditures on public health in Canada: Long-run trends, temporal periods, and data differences

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised concerns around public health (PH) investments. Among OECD countries, Canada devotes one of the largest shares of total health expenditures to PH. Examining retrospectively PH spending growth over a very long period may hold lessons on how to reach this high share. Further, different historical periods can be used to understand how macroeconomic conditions affect PH spending growth. Using forty-three years of data, we examine real PH spending growth per capita, comparatively between thirteen Canadian jurisdictions and with other key publicly funded healthcare sectors (physicians, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals), as well as by four periods defined by macroeconomic conditions. We find a five-fold increase on average in PH spending since 1975, a growth above physicians and hospitals, but below pharmaceuticals. However, there is substantial variation in PH growth between periods and across the country. Because concerns have been raised over PH spending data in other OECD countries, we explore differences between spending estimates reported by the national agency and ten provincial budgetary estimates, and find the former is larger. The magnitude of the difference varies between jurisdictions but not much over time. Although these differences do not challenge the presence of growth in PH spending, they show that the growth may be below that of hospitals. A better categorization of PH financing data is warranted.

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.

Projected impact of biosimilar substitution policies on drug use and costs in Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional time series analysis

BACKGROUND

Several Canadian provinces have introduced reimbursement policies mandating substitution of innovator biologics with lower-cost biosimilars. We estimated the number of patients affected and cost implications if such policy changes were to be implemented in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional time series analysis of Ontarians dispensed publicly funded biologics indicated for inflammatory diseases (rheumatic conditions, inflammatory bowel disease: infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab) between January 2018 and December 2019, and forecasted trends to Dec. 31, 2020. The primary source of data was pharmacy claims data for all biologics reimbursed by the public drug program. We modelled the number of patients affected and government expenditures (in nominal Canadian dollars) of several biosimilar policy options, including mandatory nonmedical biosimilar substitution, substitution in new users, introduction of a biosimilar for adalimumab, and price negotiations. In a secondary analysis, we included insulin glargine.

RESULTS

In 2018, 14 089 individuals were prescribed a publicly funded biologic for inflammatory diseases. A mandatory nonmedical biosimilar substitution would potentially have affected 7209 patients and saved $238.6 million from 2018 to 2020. A new-user substitution would have affected 757 patients and saved $34.2 million. If an adalimumab biosimilar were to become available, 12 928 patients would be affected by a mandatory nonmedical substitution and the 3-year savings would increase to $645.9 million (all biosimilars priced at 25% of innovator biologics). Finally, an expanded nonmedical substitution policy including insulin glargine would affect 115 895 patients and save $288.7 million (not including adalimumab).

INTERPRETATION

Policies designed to curb rising costs of biologics can have substantially different effects on patients and government expenditures. Such analyses warrant careful consideration of the balance between cost savings and effects on patients.

Resident-Level Predictors of Dementia Pharmacotherapy at Long-Term Care Admission: The Impact of Different Drug Reimbursement Policies in Ontario and Saskatchewan: Prédicteurs de la pharmacothérapie de la démence au niveau des résidents lors de l'hospitalisation dans des soins de longue durée : l'impact de différentes politiques de remboursement des médicaments en Ontario et en Saskatchewan

OBJECTIVES

Cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) and memantine are approved for Alzheimer disease in Canada. Regional drug reimbursement policies are associated with cross-provincial variation in ChEI use, but it is unclear how these policies influence predictors of use. Using standardized data from two provinces with differing policies, we compared resident-level characteristics associated with dementia pharmacotherapy at long-term care (LTC) admission.

METHODS

Using linked clinical and administrative databases, we examined characteristics associated with dementia pharmacotherapy use among residents with dementia and/or significant cognitive impairment admitted to LTC facilities in Saskatchewan (more restrictive reimbursement policies; n = 10,599) and Ontario (less restrictive; n = 93,331) between April 1, 2009, and March 31, 2015. Multivariable logistic regression models were utilized to assess resident demographic, functional, and clinical characteristics associated with dementia pharmacotherapy.

RESULTS

On admission, 8.1% of Saskatchewan residents were receiving dementia pharmacotherapy compared to 33.2% in Ontario. In both provinces, residents with severe cognitive impairment, aggressive behaviors, and recent antipsychotic use were more likely to receive dementia pharmacotherapy; while those who were unmarried, admitted in later years, had a greater degree of frailty, and recent hospitalizations were less likely. The direction of the association for older age, rural residency, medication number, and anticholinergic therapy differed between provinces.

CONCLUSIONS

While more restrictive criteria for dementia pharmacotherapy coverage in Saskatchewan resulted in fewer residents entering LTC on dementia pharmacotherapy, there were relatively few differences in the factors associated with use across provinces. Longitudinal studies are needed to assess how differences in prevalence and characteristics associated with use impact patient outcomes.

Barriers and Facilitators to Using Statins: A Qualitative Study With Patients and Family Physicians

BACKGROUND

Despite their proven efficacy to reduce cardiovascular disease, statin medication use remains low in individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease considering their widespread availability and safety. Our objective was to explore the perspectives of patients and family physicians with regard to the barriers and facilitators of statin use in primary care.

METHODS

In this qualitative descriptive study, we conducted 2 focus groups with patients (number, n = 8/6) and individual semistructured interviews with family physicians (n = 17) from community settings. Interviewers asked participants about barriers to and facilitators of statin use. Focus groups and interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in duplicate using conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

Patients were averse to taking statins for a variety of reasons: medication avoidance and burden; inadequate buy-in for statin therapy; and difficulty remembering to take statins regularly. Family physicians perceived similar barriers and reported other barriers: lack of resources such as inadequate tracking systems; specialist-primary care provider guideline discordance; and lack of continuity and relationship. Patients expressed that key facilitators were patient education and support; splitting tablets to increase cost-effectiveness; and changing to a different statin or lower dose in those with side effects. Family physicians described several similar strategies to facilitate therapy as well as shared decision making and clinical decision support tools as enablers for improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified several important barriers to and facilitators of statin use at the patient and prescriber level. This information offers insight into strategies to improve statin use and the development of innovative programs and interventions.

Pharmacist and patient perspectives on recruitment strategies for randomized controlled trials: a qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Although recruitment is a major challenge for most randomized controlled trials, few report on the difficulties of recruitment, or how it might be enhanced. The objective of our study was to qualitatively explore the experiences of both patients and pharmacists related to recruitment for ACCESS, a large trial involving low-income seniors, given that two of our most successful recruitment strategies were direct patient recruitment materials and use of community pharmacists.

METHODS

Using qualitative descriptive methods, we collected data from pharmacists and study participants. Pharmacists were asked about their impressions of the study, as well as challenges they faced and methods they used to recruit potential participants. Focus groups with trial participants centered on the patient recruitment materials. Interviews and focus groups were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Pharmacists noted that their first impressions of the study were positive as they described being enticed to help the study team by the potential benefit of copayment elimination for their patients and the low time commitment. Pharmacists noted they were more likely to recruit if they were well informed on the study, as they could answer their patients' questions. Participants noted that their primary motivations for participating were the tangible benefits of free medications and the intrinsic value of participating in research.

CONCLUSIONS

We noted that recruitment through pharmacies was an effective method as most patients have trusting relationships with their pharmacist. To optimize recruitment through pharmacies, study procedures should be straightforward, and pharmacists need to be equipped with good knowledge of the study. When promoting a study to potential participants, messaging should ensure the individuals are aware of the tangible benefits of participation while still presenting a full overview of the trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial Registration Number: NCT02579655 - initially registered Oct 19, 2015.

Exploring patient and pharmacist perspectives on complex interventions for cardiovascular prevention: A qualitative descriptive process evaluation

BACKGROUND

The Assessing outcomes of enhanced Chronic disease Care through patient Education and a value-baSed formulary Study (ACCESS) is a randomized controlled trial evaluating two interventions targeting barriers to care among those at high risk of cardiovascular disease: copayment elimination for cardioprotective medications, and a tailored self-management support programme. We designed a process evaluation to better understand participant perspectives on the interventions.

DESIGN

We used a qualitative descriptive study design, collecting patient and pharmacist feedback via individual semi-structured telephone interviews and in-person focus groups. Data were analysed inductively using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients (39 interviews and 14 in two focus groups) and 20 pharmacists participated. Copayment elimination provided quality of life benefits: minimizing the need to 'cut-back', allowing 'peace of mind' and providing emotional support. Health-related benefits included: improving adherence to covered medications, and helping to afford non-covered goods. The only criticism was that not all medications and testing supplies were covered. Patients reported that the educational materials provided helpful information, acted as a reminder, improved confidence, improved adherence to medication, and helped initiate conversations with providers about indicated medication. Some participants felt that the educational materials were repetitive, overly medication-focused and not tailored enough. Pharmacists felt that their patients benefitted from both interventions, which improved patient adherence and communication with their patients.

CONCLUSION

The success of interventions intended to change behaviour is largely dependent upon participant's feelings that the intervention is helpful. This process evaluation provided insights into participants' perceptions on these interventions. Reception of both was largely positive with a few criticisms noted.

Patient-provider communication about medication cost in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the perceived importance and frequency with which out-of-pocket medication costs are discussed between rheumatologists and patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Canada.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was distributed to patients with RA and rheumatologists; both were asked to rate their perceived importance of discussing medication costs, and how often these discussions occurred. Predictors of (1) patients discussing costs with their rheumatologist and (2) the perceived importance of discussing medication cost for patients were explored.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight patients and 64 rheumatologists completed the survey; 68% patients and 75% of physicians rated the perceived importance of discussing medication costs as "quite" or "very important"; 22% of patients reported never talking about medication cost, but no physicians reported never discussing costs with patients. The only predictor of talking about cost among patients (at 10% level) was whether they perceived it as highly important (p = 0.058). Higher perceived importance of discussing out-of-pocket costs was associated with a more positive attitude to shared decision-making (p = 0.044).

CONCLUSION

Discussions about cost do not always happen, even with diseases with potentially high medication costs like RA. Cost was more likely to be discussed by patients who perceived it as "very important," suggesting the onus might be on patients to initiate these conversations. Without any significant predictors regarding what may make physicians more likely to think it was important to discuss medication costs, there is a need to reinforce recommendations that all physicians seek to discuss costs with all of their patients when suggesting medications. Key Points • There is a need for patients and physicians to discuss costs in the treatment decision-making process. Our findings suggest this does not always happen. • Among patients, medication cost was more likely to be discussed by those who perceived it as "very important" and higher perceived importance of discussing out-of-pocket costs was associated with a more positive attitude to shared decision-making. • Our results did not reveal any significant predictors regarding what may make physicians more likely to think it was important to discuss medication costs, suggesting that there is a need to reinforce recommendations that all physicians seek to discuss medication costs with all of their patients when suggesting medications.

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.

Impact of brand drug discount cards on private insurer, government and patient expenditures

BACKGROUND

Brand discount cards have become a popular way for patients to reduce out-of-pocket spending on drugs; however, controversy exists over their potential to increase insurers' costs. We estimated the impact of brand discount cards on Canadian drug expenditures.

METHODS

Using national claims-level pharmacy adjudication data, we performed a retrospective comparison of prescriptions filled using a brand discount card matched to equivalent generic prescriptions between September 2014 and September 2017. We investigated the impact on expenditures for 3 groups of prescriptions: those paid only through private insurance, those paid only through public insurance and those paid only out of pocket.

RESULTS

We studied 2.82 million prescriptions for 89 different medications for which brand discount cards were used. Use of discount cards resulted in 46% higher private insurance expenditures than comparable generic prescriptions (+$23.09 per prescription, 95% confidence interval [CI] $22.97 to $23.21). Public insurance expenditures were only slightly higher with cards: an increase of 1.3% or $0.37 per prescription (95% CI $0.33 to $0.41). Finally, out-of-pocket transactions using a card resulted in mean patient savings of 7% or $3.49 per prescription (95% CI -$3.55 to -$3.43). The impact varied widely among medicines across all 3 analyses.

INTERPRETATION

The use of brand discount cards increased costs to private insurers, had little impact on public insurers and resulted in mixed impacts for patients. These effects likely resulted from private insurers reimbursing brand drug prices even when generics were available and from discount cards being adjudicated after claims were sent to other insurers in most cases. Patients and their clinicians should recognize that discount cards have mixed impacts on out-of-pocket costs.

Provincial Differences in the Diagnosis and Care of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a progressive motor neuron disease resulting in muscle weakness, dysarthria and dysphagia, and ultimately respiratory failure leading to death. Half of the ALS patients survive less than 3 years, and 80% of the patients survive less than 5 years. Riluzole is the only approved medication in Canada with randomized controlled clinical trial evidence to slow the progression of ALS, albeit only to a modest degree. The Canadian Neuromuscular Disease Registry (CNDR) collects data on over 140 different neuromuscular diseases including ALS across ten academic institutions and 28 clinics including ten multidisciplinary ALS clinics.

METHODS

In this study, CNDR registry data were analyzed to examine potential differences in ALS care among provinces in time to diagnosis, riluzole and feeding tube use.

RESULTS

Significant differences were found among provinces, in time to diagnosis from symptom onset, in the use of riluzole and in feeding tube use.

CONCLUSIONS

Future investigations should be undertaken to identify factors contributing to such differences, and to propose potential interventions to address the provincial differences reported.

O acesso a medicamentos em sistemas universais de saúde – perspectivas e desafios

RESUMO Este estudo objetivou analisar os desafios do acesso a medicamentos em quatro sistemas universais de saúde da Austrália, do Brasil, do Canadá e do Reino Unido. Estudo qualitativo crítico-reflexivo por meio de revisão integrativa da literatura. Um dos grandes desafios dos sistemas estudados é o da incorporação de medicamentos de alto custo, via análises de custo-efetividade para cumprir a difícil tarefa de conciliar a justiça social e a equidade no acesso com sustentabilidade econômica. Particularmente o Canadá, mesmo sendo um país desenvolvido, ainda vive o dilema de como financiar um sistema de saúde no qual o acesso a medicamentos também seja universal. O Brasil convive com duas realidades problemáticas: primeiro, dar acesso a medicamentos, já padronizados pelo Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), diante de um financiamento diminuto, segundo, de maneira semelhante aos sistemas australiano, canadense e inglês, vive o dilema de como incorporar novos medicamentos eficazes e com viabilidade econômica, além da questão da judicialização da saúde, um fenômeno complexo resultante da fragilidade pública na organização, financiamento, consolidação do SUS.

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.