Dataset Information

Prescription patterns and costs of acne/rosacea medications in Medicare patients vary by prescriber specialty.

ABSTRACT: Prescription patterns for acne/rosacea medications have not been described in the Medicare population, and comparisons across specialties are lacking.To describe the medications used for treating acne/rosacea in the Medicare population and evaluate differences in costs between specialties.A cross-sectional study was performed of the 2008 and 2010 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Prescription Drug Profiles, which contains 100% of Medicare part D claims.Topical antibiotics accounted for 63% of all prescriptions. Patients ?65 years utilized more oral tetracycline-class antibiotics and less topical retinoids. Specialists prescribed brand name drugs for the most common topical retinoids and most common topical antibiotics more frequently than family medicine/internal medicine (FM/IM) physicians by 6%-7%. Topical retinoids prescribed by specialists were, on average, $18-$20 more in total cost and $2-$3 more in patient cost than the same types of prescriptions from FM/IM physicians per 30-day supply. Specialists (60%) and IM physicians (56%) prescribed over twice the rate of branded doxycycline than FM doctors did (27%). The total and patient costs for tetracycline-class antibiotics were higher from specialists ($18 and $4 more, respectively) and IM physicians ($3 and $1 more, respectively) than they were from FM physicians.The data might contain rare prescriptions used for conditions other than acne/rosacea, and suppression algorithms might underestimate the number of specialist brand name prescriptions.Costs of prescriptions for acne/rosacea from specialists are higher than those from primary care physicians and could be reduced by choosing generic and less expensive options.

SUBMITTER: Zhang M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5557700 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prescription patterns and costs of acne/rosacea medications in Medicare patients vary by prescriber specialty.

Zhang Myron M Silverberg Jonathan I JI Kaffenberger Benjamin H BH

Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 20170623 3

<h4>Background</h4>Prescription patterns for acne/rosacea medications have not been described in the Medicare population, and comparisons across specialties are lacking.<h4>Objective</h4>To describe the medications used for treating acne/rosacea in the Medicare population and evaluate differences in costs between specialties.<h4>Methods</h4>A cross-sectional study was performed of the 2008 and 2010 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Prescription Drug Profiles, which contains 100% of Medi ...[more]

PMID: 28651825

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:To quantify costs of eye care providers' Medicare Part D prescribing patterns for ophthalmic medications and to estimate the potential savings of generic or therapeutic drug substitutions and price negotiation. DESIGN:Retrospective cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS:Eye care providers prescribing medications through Medicare Part D in 2013. METHODS:Medicare Part D 2013 prescriber public use file and summary file were used to calculate medication costs by physician specialty and drug. Savings from generic or therapeutic drug substitutions were estimated for brand drugs. The potential savings from price negotiation was estimated using drug prices negotiated by the United States Veterans Administration (USVA). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Total cost of brand and generic medications prescribed by eye care providers. RESULTS:Eye care providers accounted for $2.4 billion in total Medicare part D prescription drug costs and generated the highest percentage of brand name medication claims compared with all other providers. Brand medications accounted for a significantly higher proportion of monthly supplies by volume, and therefore, also by total cost for eye care providers compared with all other providers (38% vs. 23% by volume, P < 0.001; 79% vs. 56% by total cost, P < 0.001). The total cost attributable to eye care providers is driven by glaucoma medications, accounting for $1.2 billion (54% of total cost; 72% of total volume). The second costliest category, dry eye medications, was attributable mostly to a single medication, cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion (Restasis, Allergan, Irvine, CA), which has no generic alternative, accounting for $371 million (17% of total cost; 4% of total volume). If generic medications were substituted for brand medications when available, $148 million would be saved (7% savings); if generic and therapeutic substitutions were made, $882 million would be saved (42% savings). If Medicare negotiated the prices for ophthalmic medications at USVA rates, $1.09 billion would be saved (53% savings). CONCLUSIONS:Eye care providers prescribe more brand medications by volume than any other provider group. Efforts to reduce prescription expenditures by eye care providers should focus on increasing the use of generic medications, primarily through therapeutic substitutions. Policy changes enabling Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices could decrease costs to Medicare.

Project description:Multiple payment reform efforts are under way to improve the value of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries, yet few directly address the interface between primary and specialty care.To describe regional variation in outpatient visits for individual specialties and the association between specialty physician-specific payments and patient-reported satisfaction with care and health status.Retrospective cross-sectional study.A 20 % random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in 2012.Regions were grouped into quartiles of specialist index, defined as the observed/expected regional likelihood of having an outpatient visit to a specialist, for ten common specialties, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Outcomes were per capita specialty-specific physician payments and Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey responses.The proportion of beneficiaries seeing a specialist varied the most for endocrinology and gastroenterology (3.7- and 3.9-fold difference between the highest and lowest quartiles, respectively) and least for orthopedics and urology (1.5- and 1.7-fold difference, respectively). Multiple analyses suggested that this variation was not explained by prevalence of disease. Average specialty-specific payments were strongly associated with the likelihood of visiting a specialist. Differences in per capita payments from lowest (Q1) to highest quartiles (Q4) were greatest for cardiology ($89, $135, $172, $251) and dermatology ($46, $64, $82, $124). Satisfaction with overall care (median [interquartile range] across specialties: Q1, 93.3 % [92.6-93.7 %]; Q4, 93.1 % [92.9-93.2 %]) and self-reported health status (Q1, 37.1 % [36.9-37.7 %]; Q4, 38.2 % [37.2-38.4 %]) was similar across quartiles. Satisfaction with access to specialty care was consistently lower in the lowest quartile of specialty index (Q1, 89.7 % [89.2-91.1 %]; Q4, 94.5 % [94.4-94.8 %]).Substantial regional variability in outpatient specialist visits is associated with greater payments with limited benefits in terms of patient-reported satisfaction with care or reported health status. Reducing outpatient physician visits may represent an important opportunity to improve the efficiency of care.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Effective smoking cessation medications are readily available but may be underutilized in hospital settings. In our large, tertiary care hospital, we aimed to (1) characterize patient tobacco use prevalence across medical specialties, (2) determine smoking cessation pharmacotherapy prescription variation across specialties, and (3) identify opportunities for improvement in practice. METHODS:Using electronic health records at Barnes Jewish Hospital, we gathered demographic data, admitting service, admission route, length of stay, self-reported tobacco use, and smoking cessation prescriptions over a 6-year period, from 2010 to 2016. We then compared tobacco use prevalence and smoking cessation prescriptions across medical specialties using a cross-sectional, retrospective design. RESULTS:Past 12-month tobacco use was reported by patients in 27.9% of inpatient admissions; prescriptions for smoking cessation pharmacotherapy were provided during 21.5% of these hospitalizations. The proportion of patients reporting tobacco use was highest in psychiatry (55.3%) and lowest in orthopedic surgery (17.1%). Psychiatric patients who reported tobacco use were most likely to receive pharmacotherapy (71.8% of admissions), and plastic surgery patients were least likely (4.7% of admissions). Compared with Caucasian tobacco users, African American patients who used tobacco products were less likely to receive smoking cessation medications (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62 to 0.68). CONCLUSIONS:Among hospitalized tobacco users, safe and cost-effective pharmacotherapies are under-prescribed. We identified substantial variation in prescribing practices across different medical specialties and demographic groups, suggesting the need for an electronic medical record protocol that facilitates consistent tobacco use cessation pharmacotherapy treatment. IMPLICATIONS:Tobacco use cessation pharmacotherapy is underutilized during hospitalization, and prescription rates vary greatly across medical specialties and patient characteristics. Hospitals may benefit from implementing policies and practices that standardize and automate the offer of smoking pharmacotherapy for all hospitalized patients who use tobacco.

Project description:BackgroundMedicare Part D prescription drug plans (PDPs) implemented in January 2006 are designed to improve beneficiaries' access to pharmaceuticals and use market competition to yield affordable drug costs. Variations in estimated PDP costs for beneficiaries living in different states have not previously been characterized.ObjectiveTo describe variations in the estimated costs of PDPs (plan premium, copays, and coinsurance) within and across states.DesignTo estimate PDP costs based on 4 actual patient cases that exemplify common conditions and prescription drug combinations for Medicare beneficiaries, we used the online tool provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.MeasurementsPrincipal study outcomes included (a) variation across states in the estimated annual cost of the lowest-cost PDP for each case and (b) variation in the estimated affordability of the lowest-cost PDPs across states, based on cost-of-living-adjusted median income for zero-earner households.ResultsFor all 4 patient cases, we found substantive within-state and between-state differences in the estimated costs of Medicare PDPs incurred by beneficiaries. The estimated annual costs to beneficiaries of the lowest-cost PDPs varied across states by as much as $320 for medications in the least expensive scenario, and by as much as $13,000 for the most expensive scenario. On average across states, a beneficiary with cost-of-living-adjusted median income would expect to spend 3%-28% of annual income to pay for medications in the lowest-cost PDPs in the 4 patient cases. The affordability of the lowest-cost plans varied across states, and for 2 of the 4 cases the lowest-cost PDP estimates were negatively correlated with cost-of-living-adjusted median income.ConclusionsSubstantive differences in estimated PDP costs are evident across states for patients with common Medicare conditions. Importantly, the lowest-cost plans were not proportionally affordable with respect to state-specific cost-of-living-adjusted median income. Refinement of the Medicare drug program may be needed to improve national balance in PDP affordability for beneficiaries living in different states.

Dataset Information

Prescription patterns and costs of acne/rosacea medications in Medicare patients vary by prescriber specialty.

Publications

Prescription patterns and costs of acne/rosacea medications in Medicare patients vary by prescriber specialty.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure