Dataset Information

Antihypertensive Prescribing for Uncomplicated, Incident Hypertension: Opportunities for Cost Savings.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A range of first-line similarly effective medications ranging in price are recommended for treating uncomplicated hypertension. Considering drug costs alone, thiazides and thiazide-like diuretics are the most cost-efficient option. We determined incident prescribing of thiazides for newly diagnosed hypertension as first-line treatment in Alberta, factors that predicted receiving thiazides vs more costly medications, and how much could be saved if more patients were prescribed thiazides.

Methods

Using a retrospective cohort design, factors predicting receiving thiazides vs other agents were determined using mixed effects logistic regression. Cost savings were simulated by shifting patients from other antihypertensive medications to thiazides and calculating the difference.

Results

Within our cohort of 89,548 adults, only 12% received thiazides as first-line treatment whereas 44% received angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, 17% received angiotensin receptor blockers, 16% received calcium channel blockers, and 10% received β-blockers. Antihypertensive medications were typically prescribed by office-based, general practitioners (88%). Being male and receiving a prescription from a physician with ≥ 20 years of practice and a high clinical workload were associated with increased odds of receiving nonthiazides. In the extreme case that all patients received thiazides as their first prescription, spending would have been reduced by a maximum of 95% (CAD$1.8 million).

Conclusions

Only 12% of Albertan adults with incident, uncomplicated hypertension were prescribed thiazides as first-line treatment. With the opportunity for drug cost savings, future research should evaluate the risk of adverse events and side effects across the drug classes and whether the costs associated with managing those risks could offset the savings achieved through increased thiazide use.

SUBMITTER: Quinn AE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8209399 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In the United States (US), the lifetime incidence of incarceration is 6.6%, exceeding that of any other nation. Compared to the general US population, incarcerated individuals are disproportionally affected by chronic health conditions, mental illness, and substance use disorders. Barriers to accessing medical care are common in correctional facilities. We sought to characterize the local incarcerated patient population and explore barriers to medical care in these patients. We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study by reviewing the medical records of incarcerated patients presenting to the adult emergency department (ED) of a single academic, tertiary care facility with medical or psychiatric (med/psych) and trauma-related emergencies between January 2012 and December 2014. Data on demographics, medical complexity, trauma intentionality, and barriers to medical care were analyzed using descriptive statistics, unpaired student's t-test or one-way analysis of variance for continuous variables, and chi-square analysis or Fisher's exact test as appropriate. Trauma patients were younger with fewer medical comorbidities and were less likely to be admitted to the hospital than med/psych patients. 47.8% of injuries resulted from violence or were self-inflicted. Most trauma-related complaints were managed by the emergency medicine physician in the ED. While barriers to medical care were not correlated with hospital admission, 5.4% of med/psych and 2.9% of trauma patients reported barriers as a contributing factor to the ED encounter. Med/psych patients commonly reported a lack of access to medications, while trauma patients reported a delay in medical care. Trauma-related presentations were less medically complex than med/psych-related complaints. Medical management of most injuries required no hospital resources outside of the ED, indicating a potential role for outpatient management of trauma-related complaints. Additional opportunities for health care improvement and cost savings include the implementation of programs that target violence, prevent injuries, and promote the continuity of medical care while incarcerated.

Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of our study was to evaluate the effects of a new reimbursement rule for antihypertensive medication that made thiazides mandatory first-line drugs for newly treated, uncomplicated hypertension. The objective of the new regulation was to reduce drug expenditures.Methods and findingsWe conducted an interrupted time-series analysis on prescribing data before and after the new reimbursement rule for antihypertensive medication was put into effect. All patients started on antihypertensive medication in 61 general practices in Norway were included in the analysis. The new rule was put forward by the Ministry of Health and was approved by parliament. Adherence to the rule was monitored only minimally, and there were no penalties for non-adherence. Our primary outcome was the proportion of thiazide prescriptions among all prescriptions made for persons started on antihypertensive medication. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who, within 4 mo, reached recommended blood-pressure goals and the proportion of patients who, within 4 mo, were not started on a second antihypertensive drug. We also compared drug costs before and after the intervention. During the baseline period, 10% of patients started on antihypertensive medication were given a thiazide prescription. This proportion rose steadily during the transition period, after which it remained stable at 25%. For other outcomes, no statistically significant differences were demonstrated. Achievement of treatment goals was slightly higher (56.6% versus 58.4%) after the new rule was introduced, and the prescribing of a second drug was slightly lower (24.0% versus 21.8%). Drug costs were reduced by an estimated Norwegian kroner 4.8 million (0.58 million Euros, US$0.72 million) in the first year, which is equivalent to Norwegian kroner 1.06 per inhabitant (0.13 Euros, US$0.16).ConclusionsPrescribing of thiazides in Norway for uncomplicated hypertension more than doubled after a reimbursement rule requiring the use of thiazides as the first-choice therapy was put into effect. However, the resulting savings on drug expenditures were modest. There were no significant changes in the achievement of treatment goals or in the prescribing of a second antihypertensive drug.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Minimising prescription costs while maintaining quality is a core element of delivering high-value healthcare. There are various strategies to achieve savings, but almost no research to date on determining the most effective approach. We describe a new method of identifying potential savings due to large national variations in drug cost, including variation in generic drug cost, and compare these with potential savings from an established method (generic prescribing). METHODS:We used English National Health Service (NHS) Digital prescribing data, from October 2015 to September 2016. Potential cost savings were calculated by determining the price per unit (eg, pill, millilitre) for each drug and dose within each general practice. This was compared against the same cost for the practice at the lowest cost decile to determine achievable savings. We compared these price-per-unit savings to the savings possible from generic switching and determined the chemicals with the highest savings nationally. A senior pharmacist manually assessed whether a random sample of savings were practically achievable. RESULTS:We identified a theoretical maximum of £410 million of savings over 12 months. £273 million of these savings were for individual prescribing changes worth over £50 per practice per month (mean annual saving £33?433 per practice); this compares favourably with generic switching, where only £35 million of achievable savings were identified. The biggest savings nationally were on glucose blood testing reagents (£12 million), fluticasone propionate (£9 million) and venlafaxine (£8 million). Approximately half of all savings were deemed practically achievable. DISCUSSION:We have developed a new method to identify and enable large potential cost savings within NHS community prescribing. Given the current pressures on the NHS, it is vital that these potential savings are realised. Our tool enabling doctors to achieve these savings is now launched in pilot form at OpenPrescribing.net. However, savings could potentially be achieved more simply through national policy change.

Project description:BackgroundHypertension is China's leading cardiovascular disease risk factor. Improved hypertension control in China would result in result in enormous health gains in the world's largest population. A computer simulation model projected the cost-effectiveness of hypertension treatment in Chinese adults, assuming a range of essential medicines list drug costs.Methods and findingsThe Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model-China, a Markov-style computer simulation model, simulated hypertension screening, essential medicines program implementation, hypertension control program administration, drug treatment and monitoring costs, disease-related costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained by preventing cardiovascular disease or lost because of drug side effects in untreated hypertensive adults aged 35-84 y over 2015-2025. Cost-effectiveness was assessed in cardiovascular disease patients (secondary prevention) and for two blood pressure ranges in primary prevention (stage one, 140-159/90-99 mm Hg; stage two, ≥160/≥100 mm Hg). Treatment of isolated systolic hypertension and combined systolic and diastolic hypertension were modeled as a reduction in systolic blood pressure; treatment of isolated diastolic hypertension was modeled as a reduction in diastolic blood pressure. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored ranges of antihypertensive drug effectiveness and costs, monitoring frequency, medication adherence, side effect severity, background hypertension prevalence, antihypertensive medication treatment, case fatality, incidence and prevalence, and cardiovascular disease treatment costs. Median antihypertensive costs from Shanghai and Yunnan province were entered into the model in order to estimate the effects of very low and high drug prices. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios less than the per capita gross domestic product of China (11,900 international dollars [Int$] in 2015) were considered cost-effective. Treating hypertensive adults with prior cardiovascular disease for secondary prevention was projected to be cost saving in the main simulation and 100% of probabilistic simulation results. Treating all hypertension for primary and secondary prevention would prevent about 800,000 cardiovascular disease events annually (95% uncertainty interval, 0.6 to 1.0 million) and was borderline cost-effective incremental to treating only cardiovascular disease and stage two patients (2015 Int$13,000 per QALY gained [95% uncertainty interval, Int$10,000 to Int$18,000]). Of all one-way sensitivity analyses, assuming adherence to taking medications as low as 25%, high Shanghai drug costs, or low medication efficacy led to the most unfavorable results (treating all hypertension, about Int$47,000, Int$37,000, and Int$27,000 per QALY were gained, respectively). The strengths of this study were the use of a recent Chinese national health survey, vital statistics, health care costs, and cohort study outcomes data as model inputs and reliance on clinical-trial-based estimates of coronary heart disease and stroke risk reduction due to antihypertensive medication treatment. The limitations of the study were the use of several sources of data, limited clinical trial evidence for medication effectiveness and harms in the youngest and oldest age groups, lack of information about geographic and ethnic subgroups, lack of specific information about indirect costs borne by patients, and uncertainty about the future epidemiology of cardiovascular diseases in China.ConclusionsExpanded hypertension treatment has the potential to prevent about 800,000 cardiovascular disease events annually and be borderline cost-effective in China, provided low-cost essential antihypertensive medicines programs can be implemented.

Project description:BackgroundForty-five percent of births in the United States are unintended, and the costs of unintended pregnancy and birth are substantial. Clinical and policy interventions that increase access to the most effective reversible contraceptive methods (intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants) have potential to generate significant cost savings. Evidence of cost savings for these interventions is needed.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-savings analysis of the Contraceptive CHOICE Project, which provided counseling and no-cost contraception, to demonstrate the value of investment in enhanced contraceptive care to the Missouri Medicaid program.Study designThe Contraceptive CHOICE Project was a prospective cohort study of 9256 reproductive-age women who were enrolled between 2007 and 2011. Study follow-up was completed October 2013. This analysis includes 5061 Contraceptive CHOICE Project participants who were current Missouri Medicaid beneficiaries or were uninsured and reported household incomes <201% of the federal poverty line. We created a simulated comparison group of women who were receiving care through the Missouri Title X program and modeled the contraception and pregnancy outcomes that would have occurred in the absence of the Contraceptive CHOICE Project. Data about contraceptive use for the comparison group (N=5061) were obtained from the Missouri Title X program and adjusted based on age, race, ethnicity, and income. To make an accurate comparison that would account for the difference in the 2 populations, we used our simulation model to estimate total Contraceptive CHOICE Project costs and total comparison group costs. We reported all costs in 2013 dollars to account for inflation.ResultsAmong the Contraceptive CHOICE Project participants who were included, the uptake of intrauterine devices and implants was 76.1% compared with 4.8% among the comparison group. The estimated contraceptive cost for the simulated Contraceptive CHOICE Project group was $4.0 million vs $2.3 million for the comparison group. The estimated numbers of unintended pregnancies and births averted among the simulated Contraceptive CHOICE Project group compared with the comparison group were 927 and 483, respectively, which represented a savings in pregnancy and maternity care of $6.7 million. We estimated that the total cost savings for the state of Missouri attributable to the Contraceptive CHOICE Project was $5.0 million (40.7%) over the project duration.ConclusionA program providing counseling and no-cost contraception yields substantial cost savings because of the increased uptake of highly effective contraception and consequent averted unintended pregnancy and birth.

Project description:ImportanceAllowing the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to negotiate prescription drug prices for Medicare may improve drug affordability.ObjectiveTo estimate savings from Medicare price negotiation under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and examine opportunities to increase savings.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional, population-based study used data from 2020 Medicare prescription drug claims. The study was conducted and data were analyzed in 2022.ExposuresEligibility for Medicare price negotiation under the IRA and alternative criteria.Main outcomes and measuresMinimum savings under the IRA's eligibility criteria were estimated and compared with savings within alternative scenarios, including (1) selecting drugs for negotiation based on net spending after rebates rather than gross spending; (2) extending eligibility to drugs with biosimilar or generic competitors; (3) reducing the minimum years since US Food and Drug Administration approval for eligibility; and (4) changing 2 or 3 of these factors. Estimated savings were calculated at different levels of scale-up of price negotiation under the IRA, from 10 Part D drugs in 2026 to 60 Part B and D drugs in 2029. Gross spending was calculated using the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2020 Medicare drug spending dashboard. Rebates were estimated using SSR Health data. Information on FDA approvals, generics, and biosimilars was obtained from FDA websites.ResultsUnder IRA rules, estimated minimum savings from price negotiation in 2026 for 10 Part D drugs would be $3.2 billion. For 2029 for 60 Part D and B drugs, estimated savings were $16.0 billion. Selecting drugs for negotiation based on net rather than gross spending would be associated with estimated savings of $4.6 billion (a 45% increase) in 2026 and $18.9 billion (an 18% increase) in 2029. Including drugs with generic competitors or biosimilars would be associated with an estimated savings of $6.6 billion (a 109% increase) in 2026 and $24.9 billion (a 56% increase) in 2029. Making both changes would be associated with savings of $9.5 billion (a 200% increase) in 2026 and $28.3 billion (a 77% increase) in 2029. A sensitivity analysis suggested that reducing the required number of years since marketing approval by 2 years would be associated with increased estimated savings of 4% when 10 Part D drugs are negotiated and 12% when 60 Part D and B drugs are negotiated. Changing all 3 criteria would be associated with the greatest increase in estimated savings in 2029 (119% increase when 10 Part D drugs are negotiated and 93% increase for 60 Part D and B drugs).Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this cross-sectional study suggest that adjusting the eligibility criteria for Medicare prescription drug price negotiation to permit inclusion of drugs with biosimilar or generic competitors and selecting drugs based on net rather than gross spending may be a promising approach to substantially increase estimated savings.

Project description:ImportanceAs the US accelerates adoption of alternative payment through global payment models such as Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) or Medicare Advantage (MA), high spending for cancer care is a potential target for savings.ObjectiveTo quantify the extent to which ACOs and other risk-bearing organizations operating in a specific geographic area (hospital referral region [HRR]) could achieve savings by steering patients to efficient medical oncology practices.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational study included serial cross-sections of Medicare beneficiaries with cancer from 2010 to 2018. Data were analyzed from August 2021 to March 2023.Main outcomes and measuresTotal spending and spending by category in the 1-year period following an index visit for a patient with newly diagnosed (incident) or poor-prognosis cancer.ResultsThe incident cohort included 1 309 825 patients with a mean age of 74.0 years; the most common cancer types were breast (21.4%), lung (16.7%), and colorectal cancer (10.0%). The poor prognosis cohort included 1 429 973 (mean age, 72.7 years); the most common cancer types were lung (26.6%), lymphoma (11.7%), and leukemia (7.3%). Options for steering varied across markets; the top quartile market had 10 or more oncology practices, but the bottom quartile had 3 or fewer oncology practices. Total spending (including Medicare Part D) in the incident cohort increased from a mean of $57 314 in 2009 to 2010 to $66 028 in 2016 to 2017. Within markets, total spending for practices in the highest spending quartile was 19% higher than in the lowest quartile. Hospital spending was the single largest component of spending in both time periods ($20 390 and $19 718, respectively) followed by Part B (infused) chemotherapy ($8022 and $11 699). Correlations in practice-level spending between the first-year (2009) and second-year (2010) spending were high (>0.90 in all categories with most >0.98), but these attenuated over time.Conclusions and relevanceThese results suggest there may be opportunities for ACOs and other risk-bearing organizations to select or drive referrals to lower-spending oncology practices in many local markets.