Dataset Information

Patented drug extension strategies on healthcare spending: a cost-evaluation analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Drug manufacturers have developed "evergreening" strategies to compete with generic medication after patent termination. These include marketing of slightly modified follow-on drugs. We aimed to estimate the financial impact of these drugs on overall healthcare costs and also to examine the impact of listing these drugs in hospital restrictive drug formularies (RDFs) on the healthcare system as a whole ("spillover effect").

Methods and findings

We used hospital and community pharmacy invoice office data in the Swiss canton of Geneva to calculate utilisation of eight follow-on drugs in defined daily doses between 2000 and 2008. "Extra costs" were calculated for three different scenarios assuming replacement with the corresponding generic equivalent for prescriptions of (1) all brand (i.e., initially patented) drugs, (2) all follow-on drugs, or (3) brand and follow-on drugs. To examine the financial spillover effect we calculated a monthly follow-on drug market share in defined daily doses for medications prescribed by hospital physicians but dispensed in community pharmacies, in comparison to drugs prescribed by non-hospital physicians in the community. Estimated "extra costs" over the study period were €15.9 (95% CI 15.5; 16.2) million for scenario 1, €14.4 (95% CI 14.1; 14.7) million for scenario 2, and €30.3 (95% CI 29.8; 30.8) million for scenario 3. The impact of strictly switching all patients using proton-pump inhibitors to esomeprazole at admission resulted in a spillover "extra cost" of €330,300 (95% CI 276,100; 383,800), whereas strictly switching to generic cetirizine resulted in savings of €7,700 (95% CI 4,100; 11,100). Overall we estimated that the RDF resulted in "extra costs" of €503,600 (95% CI 444,500; 563,100).

Conclusions

Evergreening strategies have been successful in maintaining market share in Geneva, offsetting competition by generics and cost containment policies. Hospitals may be contributing to increased overall healthcare costs by listing follow-on drugs in their RDF. Therefore, healthcare providers and policy makers should be aware of the impact of evergreening strategies.

SUBMITTER: Vernaz N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3672218 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patented drug extension strategies on healthcare spending: a cost-evaluation analysis.

Vernaz Nathalie N Haller Guy G Girardin François F Huttner Benedikt B Combescure Christophe C Dayer Pierre P Muscionico Daniel D Salomon Jean-Luc JL Bonnabry Pascal P

PLoS medicine 20130604 6

<h4>Background</h4>Drug manufacturers have developed "evergreening" strategies to compete with generic medication after patent termination. These include marketing of slightly modified follow-on drugs. We aimed to estimate the financial impact of these drugs on overall healthcare costs and also to examine the impact of listing these drugs in hospital restrictive drug formularies (RDFs) on the healthcare system as a whole ("spillover effect").<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We used hospital and comm ...[more]

PMID: 23750120

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHigh-cost patients account for a disproportionate share of healthcare spending. The proportion and distribution of potentially preventable spending among subgroups of high-cost patients are largely unknown.ObjectiveTo examine the distribution of potentially preventable spending among high-cost Medicare patients overall and potentially preventable spending associated with each high-cost category.DesignA cross-sectional study. We merged Medicare claims and social determinants of health data to group patients into high-cost categories and quantify potentially preventable spending.PatientsA total of 556,053 Medicare fee-for-service and dual-eligible beneficiaries with at least one healthcare encounter in the New York metropolitan area in 2014.Main measuresHigh-cost patients were mapped into 10 non-mutually exclusive categories. The primary outcome was episodic spending associated with preventable ED visits, preventable hospitalizations, and unplanned 30-day readmissions.Key resultsOverall, potentially preventable spending accounted for 10.4% of overall spending in 2014. Preventable spending accounted for 13.3% of total spending among high-cost patients and 4.9% among non-high-cost patients (P < 0.001). Among high-cost patients, 44.0% experienced at least one potentially preventable encounter compared with 11.4% of non-high-cost patients (P < 0.001), and high-cost patients accounted for 71.5% of total preventable spending. High-cost patients had on average $11,502 in potentially preventable spending-more than 20 times more than non-high-cost patients ($510). High-cost patients in the seriously ill, frail, or serious mental illness categories accounted for the highest proportion of potentially preventable spending overall, while end-stage renal disease, serious illness, and opioid use disorder were associated with the highest preventable spending per patient.ConclusionPotentially preventable spending was concentrated among high-cost patients who were seriously ill, frail, or had a serious mental illness. Interventions targeting these subgroups may be helpful for reducing preventable utilization.

Project description:BackgroundSenior high cost health care users (HCU) are a priority for many governments. Little research has addressed regional variation of HCU incidence and outcomes, especially among incident HCU. This study describes the regional variation in healthcare costs and mortality across Ontario's health planning districts [Local Health Integration Networks (LHIN)] among senior incident HCU and non-HCU and explores the relationship between healthcare spending and mortality.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective population-based matched cohort study of incident senior HCU defined as Ontarians aged ?66 years in the top 5% most costly healthcare users in fiscal year (FY) 2013. We matched HCU to non-HCU (1:3) based on age, sex and LHIN. Primary outcomes were LHIN-based variation in costs (total and 12 cost components) and mortality during FY2013 as measured by variance estimates derived from multi-level models. Outcomes were risk-adjusted for age, sex, ADGs, and low-income status. In a cost-mortality analysis by LHIN, risk-adjusted random effects for total costs and mortality were graphically presented together in a cost-mortality plane to identify low and high performers.ResultsWe studied 175,847 incident HCU and 527,541 matched non-HCU. On average, 94 out of 1000 seniors per LHIN were HCU (CV?=?4.6%). The mean total costs for HCU in FY2013 were 12 times higher that of non-HCU ($29,779 vs. $2472 respectively), whereas all-cause mortality was 13.6 times greater (103.9 vs. 7.5 per 1000 seniors). Regional variation in costs and mortality was lower in senior HCU compared with non-HCU. We identified greater variability in accessing the healthcare system, but, once the patient entered the system, variation in costs was low. The traditional drivers of costs and mortality that we adjusted for played little role in driving the observed variation in HCUs' outcomes. We identified LHINs that had high mortality rates despite elevated healthcare expenditures and those that achieved lower mortality at lower costs. Some LHINs achieved low mortality at excessively high costs.ConclusionsRisk-adjusted allocation of healthcare resources to seniors in Ontario is overall similar across health districts, more so for HCU than non-HCU. Identified important variation in the cost-mortality relationship across LHINs needs to be further explored.

Project description:BackgroundOut-of-pocket spending (OOPS) is the major payment strategy for healthcare in Nigeria. Hence, the paper assessed the determinants socio-economic status (SES) of OOPS and strategies for coping with payments for healthcare in urban, semi-urban and rural areas of southeast Nigeria. This paper provides information that would be required to improve financial accessibility and equity in financing within the public health care system.MethodsThe study areas were three rural and three urban areas from Ebonyi and Enugu states in South-east Nigeria. Cross-sectional survey using interviewer-administered questionnaires to randomly selected householders was the study tool. A socio-economic status (SES) index that was developed using principal components analysis was used to examine levels of inequity in OOPS and regression analysis was used to examine the determinants of use of OOPS.ResultsAll the SES groups equally sought healthcare when they needed to. However, the poorest households were most likely to use low level and informal providers such as traditional healers, whilst the least poor households were more likely to use the services of higher level and formal providers such as health centres and hospitals. The better-off SES more than worse-off SES groups used OOPS to pay for healthcare. The use of own money was the commonest payment-coping mechanism in the three communities. The sales of movable household assets or land were not commonly used as payment-coping mechanisms. Decreasing SES was associated with increased sale of household assets to cope with payment for healthcare in one of the communities. Fee exemptions and subsidies were almost non-existent as coping mechanisms in this studyConclusionsThere is the need to reduce OOPS and channel and improve equity in healthcare financing by designing and implementing payment strategies that will assure financial risk protection of the poor such pre-payment mechanisms with government paying for the poor.

Project description:BackgroundHospital boards have statutory responsibility for upholding the quality of care in their organisations. International research on quality in hospitals resulted in a research-based guide to help senior hospital leaders develop and implement quality improvement (QI) strategies, the QUASER Guide. Previous research has established a link between board practices and quality of care; however, to our knowledge, no board-level intervention has been evaluated in relation to its costs and consequences. The aim of this research was to evaluate these impacts when the QUASER Guide was implemented in an organisational development intervention (iQUASER).MethodsWe conducted a 'before and after' cost-consequences analysis (CCA), as part of a mixed methods evaluation. The analysis combined qualitative data collected from 66 interviews, 60 hours of board meeting observations and documents from 15 healthcare organisations, of which 6 took part on iQUASER, and included direct and opportunity costs associated with the intervention. The consequences focused on the development of an organisation-wide QI strategy, progress on addressing 8 dimensions of QI (the QUASER challenges), how organisations compared to benchmarks, engagement with the intervention and progress in the implementation of a QI project.ResultsWe found that participating organisations made greater progress in developing an organisation-wide QI strategy and became more similar to the high-performing benchmark than the comparators. However, progress in addressing all 8 QUASER challenges was only observed in one organisation. Stronger engagement with the intervention was associated with the implementation of a QI project. On average, iQUASER costed £23 496 per participating organisation, of which approximately 44% were staff time costs. Organisations that engaged less with the intervention had lower than average costs (£21 267 per organisation), but also failed to implement an organisation-wide QI project.ConclusionWe found a positive association between level of engagement with the intervention, development of an organisation-wide QI strategy and the implementation of an organisation-wide QI project. Support from the board, particularly the chair and chief executive, for participation in the intervention, is important for organisations to accrue most benefit. A board-level intervention for QI, such as iQUASER, is relatively inexpensive as a proportion of an organisation's budget.

Dataset Information

Patented drug extension strategies on healthcare spending: a cost-evaluation analysis.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

Patented drug extension strategies on healthcare spending: a cost-evaluation analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets