Dataset Information

Differential Cost-Sharing Undermines Treatment Adherence to Combination Therapy: Evidence from Diabetes Treatment.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The objective of this study was to measure the influence of differences in out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for type 2 diabetes (T2D) medications on within-patient adherence behavior towards combination drug therapy regimens.

Methods

This was an observational, retrospective, paired sample study in patients with T2D using longitudinal pharmacy data from the 2009-2014 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) augmented with socio-demographic factors. We took a within-patient approach to minimize confounding effects by including patients who maintained the same number of diabetes drug classes over 2 years of MEPS. For each patient, we selected the most and least costly drug classes in the second year and examined their corresponding adherence behavior measured by medication possession ratio. The primary hypothesis tested the significance of the correlation between magnitude of the OOP cost difference and behavioral response in adherence.

Results

Analysis included 1189 patients representing over 4.2 million US residents with T2D. A significant negative correlation (p < 0.001) was observed between the differences of OOP costs and adherence to the most and least costly medications compared within patients. Reduction in adherence to the most costly medication was generally observed when the difference in OOP costs was greater than $33/month. A greater variability in adherence was observed when the cost difference exceeded $2.39/month as compared to other cost difference ranges (p < 0.001), indicative of choices being made.

Conclusions

As OOP costs increased, adherence variability increased initially until a cost threshold, beyond which the adherence to the more costly medication decreased. In addition to OOP cost, adherence was also influenced by type of medication and self-perception of health. Given the complex correlation between OOP costs and adherence to medication, we suggest a careful approach to cost-sharing in the current insurance drug design and relevant insurance policies.

SUBMITTER: Nelson DR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8342747 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing access to and targeting of artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) is a key component of malaria control programmes. To maximize efficacy of ACT and ensure adequate treatment outcomes, patient and caregiver adherence to treatment guidelines is essential. This review summarizes the current evidence base on ACT adherence, including definitions, measurement methods, and associated factors.MethodsA systematic search of the published literature was undertaken in November 2012 and updated in April 2013. Bibliographies of manuscripts were also searched and additional references identified. Studies were included if they involved at least one form of ACT and reported an adherence measurement.ResultsThe search yielded 1,412 records, 37 of which were found to measure adherence to ACT. Methods to measure adherence focused on self-report, pill counts and bioassays with varying definitions for adherence. Most studies only reported whether medication regimens were completed, but did not assess how the treatment was taken by the patient (i.e. timing, frequency and dose). Adherence data were available for four different ACT formulations: artemether-lumefantrine (AL) (range 39-100%), amodiaquine plus artesunate (AQ + AS) (range 48-94%), artesunate plus sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (AS + SP) (range 39-75%) and artesunate plus mefloquine (AS + MQ) (range 77-95%). Association between demographic factors, such as age, gender, education and socio-economic status and adherence to ACT regimens was not consistent. Some evidence of positive association between adherence and patient age, caregiver education levels, drug preferences, health worker instructions, patient/caregiver knowledge and drug packaging were also observed.ConclusionsThis review highlights the weak evidence base on ACT adherence. Results suggest that ACT adherence levels varied substantially between study populations, but comparison between studies was challenging due to differences in study design, definitions, and methods used to measure adherence. Standardising methodologies for both self-report and bioassays used for evaluating adherence of different formulations across diverse contexts would improve the evidence base on ACT adherence and effectiveness; namely, specific and measurable definitions for adherence are needed for both methodologies. Additionally, further studies of the individual factors and barriers associated with non-adherence to ACT are needed in order to make informed policy choices and to improve the delivery of effective malaria treatment.

Project description:BackgroundSuboptimal patient adherence to pharmacological therapy of type 2 diabetes may be due in part to pill burden. One way to reduce pill burden in patients who need multiple medications is to use fixed-dose combinations. Our study aimed to compare the effects of fixed-dose combination versus loose-dose combination therapy on medication adherence and persistence, health care utilization, therapeutic safety, morbidities, and treatment modification in patients with type 2 diabetes over three years.MethodsUsing administrative data, we conducted a retrospective controlled cohort study comparing type 2 diabetes patients who switched from monotherapy to either a fixed-dose combination or a loose-dose combination. Adherence was assessed as the primary endpoint and calculated as the proportion of days covered with medication. After using entropy balancing to eliminate differences in observable baseline characteristics between the two groups, we applied difference-in-difference estimators for each outcome to account for time-invariant unobservable heterogeneity.ResultsOf the 990 type 2 diabetes patients included in our analysis, 756 were taking a fixed-dose combination and 234 were taking a loose-dose combination. We observed a statistically significantly higher change in adherence (year one: 0.22, p<0.001, year two: 0.25, p<0.001, and year three: 0.29, p<0.001) as well as higher persistence and a smaller change in the number of drug prescriptions in each of the three years in the fixed-dose combination group compared to the loose-dose combination group. The differences were most pronounced in patients who were poorly adherent, had a high pill burden, or did not have a severe concomitant disease.ConclusionOur results indicate that taking a fixed-dose combination can lead to a significant improvement in adherence to pharmacological therapy of type 2 diabetes compared to a loose-dose combination. In particular, these findings suggest that reducing pill burden may improve disease management among patients with more complex medication demand and patients who have demonstrated poor medication adherence.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough the Medicare Part D coverage gap phase-out should reduce cost-related nonadherence (CRN) among seniors with diabetes, preferential generic prescribing may have already decreased CRN, while smaller numbers of patients using more costly branded oral anti-diabetic (OAD) medications remain vulnerable to CRN.ObjectiveTo estimate the effects of cost sharing in the Part D standard (non-LIS) benefit on adherence to different OAD classes, comparing two classes dominated by inexpensive generic medications and two by more costly branded medications.Design and patientsRetrospective cohort study using dispensed prescription data for elderly non-LIS (N=81,047) and LIS (low-income subsidy) (N=150,359) beneficiaries using same class OAD(s) in 2008 and 2009. Logistic regression modeled non-LIS likelihood; LIS and non-LIS patients matched using propensity outcome (N=38,054). Logistic regression, controlling for demographic and health status characteristics, modeled effects of non-LIS coverage on 2009 OAD class adherence.Main measuresMain outcome measures were within-class OAD coverage year adherence, with patients considered adherent when days supplied to calendar days ratio at least 0.8.Key resultsNon-LIS patients had 0.52 and 0.57 times the odds of branded-only DPP-4 Inhibitor (N=1,812; 95 % CI: 0.43, 0.63; P<0.001) and Thiazolidinedione (TZD) (N=6,290; 95 % CI: 0.52, 0.63; P<0.001) adherence. Most patients (N=32,510; 82 %) used OADs in primarily generic classes, where we found no significant (Biguanides; N=21,377) or small differences (Sulfonylureas/Glinides [N=19,240; OR: 0.91; 95 % CI: 0.86, 0.97; P=0.002]) in adherence odds. Crude adherence rates were sub-optimal when CRN was not a factor (Non-LIS/LIS: Biguanides: 65 %/65 %; Sulfonylureas/Glinides: 66 %/68 %; LIS: DPP-4 Inhibitors: 66 %; TZDs: 67 %).ConclusionsGap elimination would not affect generic, but should reduce branded OAD CRN. Branded copayments may continue to lead to CRN. Policy initiatives and benefit changes targeting both cost deterrents for patients with more complex disease and non-cost generic OAD underuse are recommended.

Project description:Importance:The 2019 federal Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative requires a vast expansion of access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) and preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV treatment and prevention. However, high prices for ART and PrEP can reduce their affordability and use. Medicare covers 1 in 4 persons living with HIV, and the Medicare Part D drug benefit imposes complicated cost-sharing between patients and other stakeholders. Objective:To determine how the Medicare Part D design distributes the cost burden for ART and PrEP between patients, insurance plans, manufacturers, and Medicare. Design and Setting:Nationwide cross-sectional analyses of first quarter 2019 Medicare formulary and pricing files for 3326 Part D plans were performed. These files contain drug benefit data, including prices and cost-sharing requirements. Main Outcomes and Measures:For 18 ART and 2 PrEP regimens, the out-of-pocket costs for patients and the cost borne by plans, manufacturers, and Medicare were projected for 1 year of treatment or prevention under a 2019 standard Medicare Part D insurance plan. Analyses assumed that patients used the ART or PrEP regimen and no other medications. Results:In 2019, ART prices ranged from $24?010 to $46?770 annually (median price, $35?780), with patients projected to pay 9% to 14% of the cost ($3270-$4350), insurance plans 18% to 24% ($5340-$8450), manufacturers 6% to 11% ($2370-$2750), and Medicare 53% to 67% ($12?770-$31?270). The price of PrEP was $20?570 annually, with patients contributing 15% ($2990), insurance plans 22% ($4570), manufacturers 13% ($2750), and Medicare 50% ($10?260). For beneficiaries with low-income subsidies that cover all patient cost-sharing, Medicare would assume 67% to 76% of ART costs and 65% of PrEP costs. Conclusions and Relevance:Medicare Part D mandates universal ART and PrEP coverage, but high prices (>$35?000 annually for ART and>$20?000 annually for PrEP) and the design of Part D can jeopardize affordability for patients and place most of the cost burden on taxpayers. Under a standard Medicare Part D benefit, patients pay $3000 to $4000 out-of-pocket yearly, unless they qualify for low-income subsidies, and half to two-thirds of the cost of ART and PrEP is borne by Medicare rather than insurance plans or manufacturers. To end the HIV epidemic by 2030, it appears that policies must address both high drug prices and revamp Medicare Part D cost-sharing.