Dataset Information

The Physician and Administrator-Reported Cost of Drug Utilization Management to Physician Practices: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The use of drug utilization management techniques such as formulary exclusions, prior authorizations, and step edits has risen sharply during the last decade, contributing to growing administrative costs for physician practices. However, limited data exist on the extent of these administrative costs, with previous studies relying on data from over a decade ago.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess physician and practice administrator experiences with drug utilization management.

Methods

A national survey was conducted between 9 February and 30 March 2021, targeting 925 physicians and administrators working at medical practices in the US. Time spent by physicians and their staff on tasks related to drug utilization management for prescription medications was collected and used to calculate the dollar value of that time.

Results

We estimated that physicians spent a median of 4.0 h per week on drug utilization management, while nurses spent 15.0 h and other staff spent between 3.6 and 10.0 h on drug utilization management per physician per week. This time was associated with a calculated median dollar value of $75,927 per physician per year. Extrapolating this estimate to a national scale suggests that time spent annually by physician practices on drug utilization management could be valued at more than $43 billion.

Conclusions

Drug utilization management results in significant time spent by US physician practices, which in turn, results in meaningful costs to these practices. As the prevalence of drug utilization management continues to grow, the impact on physician practices will remain an important topic.

SUBMITTER: Edwards ML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9308474 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrent international guidelines on dyslipidemia are not concordant on various aspects of management. Also, there are no uniformly accepted Indian guidelines. We, therefore, performed a physician survey to understand lipid management practices in India.MethodsAn anonymous survey questionnaire was administered to gauge physicians' self-reported behavior regarding lipid management aspects. Results were expressed in terms of percentages based on the number of responses obtained.ResultsA total of 404 physicians participated in the survey. Eighty-eight percent respondents ordered a lipid profile before starting statin therapy, and 80% preferred to set lipid targets, though the tools used for calculating cardiovascular risk varied. Atorvastatin was preferred over rosuvastatin in primary prevention (72.9 vs. 32.4%), secondary prevention (54.6 vs. 46.7%), diabetic patients (56.3 vs. 40.3%) and post-ACS (78.3 vs. 34%). High-intensity statins were preferred by 73.7% of respondents in post-ACS cases. Fifty percent doctors chose not to use a statin in diabetic patients, irrespective of their LDL-C levels. The most preferred drug option for managing atherogenic dyslipidemia and moderate hypertriglyceridemia was statin-fibrate combination (55.1%) and fibrates (35.4%), respectively. Sixty-three percent doctors preferred to prescribe statins in patients with moderately high LDL-C and normal triglycerides, without CHD or CHD risk equivalents. Around 28% of doctors preferred not to use pharmacotherapy for managing isolated low HDL. Of the participants, 73% used fibrates in ?20% of their dyslipidemic patients, with fenofibrate being the most preferred (90.5%). Ezetimibe was mainly used in patients with uncontrolled LDL-C despite statin therapy (52.4% respondents). Most preferred approaches to manage statin intolerance included reducing statin dose (39%) and stopping and restarting statins at a lower dose (34.5%). Fifty-two percent of doctors chose not to alter pre-existing therapy in patients who had LDL-C levels at goal but elevated non-HDL-C levels.ConclusionThis is the first survey in India that provides useful insights into Indian physicians' self-reported perspectives on managing dyslipidemia in routine clinical practice. Despite concordance with the currently available guidelines in certain aspects, there is incongruence in managing specific dyslipidemia problems. Further continuing medical education and the development of evidence-based, India-specific lipid guidelines can help reduce some of these differences.

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited understanding of severity rating of atopic dermatitis in clinical practice.ObjectivesTo evaluate the agreement between physician- and patient-rated severity of atopic dermatitis.MethodsData were collected from the 2014 Adelphi US Atopic Dermatitis Disease Specific Programme, a cross-sectional survey of physicians and their patients with a history of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis; patients voluntarily completed a questionnaire. Current disease severity (mild/moderate/severe), based on personal judgment, was rated independently by patients and their physicians. The weighted kappa statistic identified level of agreement between physicians and patients. Bivariate analyses characterized agreement; multi-nomial logistic regression identified factors associated with discordance.ResultsOverall, 678 patients were included (369 [54.4%] were women, 525 [77.4%] were White, mean age was 39.3 years). Agreement was moderate (weighted kappa = 0.52): compared with physician ratings, patient-rated severity was higher in 76 patients (11.2%), lower in 137 patients (20.2%), and matched in 465 patients (68.6%). There were no differences in the rates of agreement between physician and patient ratings based on physician specialty (p = 0.6781), objective severity measures [Eczema Area and Severity Index score (p = 0.5308), percent body surface area affected (p = 0.9872), and current systemic immunosuppressant use (p = 0.9197)]. Multivariate analysis showed patients with a worse quality of life (Dermatology Life Quality Index) were more likely to rate a higher severity (relative risk ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.08; p = 0.0460). Physicians were more likely to rate a higher severity with a greater physician-reported sleep disturbance (relative risk ratio 1.71, 95% confidence interval 1.01-2.89; p = 0.0440).ConclusionsAlmost one-third of patients rated atopic dermatitis severity differently from their physicians, supporting the importance of the patient perspective in the severity assessment of atopic dermatitis and the need for greater communication between patients and physicians.

Project description:BackgroundPharmaceutical costs are the fastest-growing health-care expense in most developed countries. Higher drug costs have been shown to negatively impact patient outcomes. Studies suggest that doctors have a poor understanding of pharmaceutical costs, but the data are variable and there is no consistent pattern in awareness. We designed this systematic review to investigate doctors' knowledge of the relative and absolute costs of medications and to determine the factors that influence awareness.Methods and findingsOur search strategy included The Cochrane Library, EconoLit, EMBASE, and MEDLINE as well as reference lists and contact with authors who had published two or more articles on the topic or who had published within 10 y of the commencement of our review. Studies were included if: either doctors, trainees (interns or residents), or medical students were surveyed; there were more than ten survey respondents; cost of pharmaceuticals was estimated; results were expressed quantitatively; there was a clear description of how authors defined "accurate estimates"; and there was a description of how the true cost was determined. Two authors reviewed each article for eligibility and extracted data independently. Cost accuracy outcomes were summarized, but data were not combined in meta-analysis because of extensive heterogeneity. Qualitative data related to physicians and drug costs were also extracted. The final analysis included 24 articles. Cost accuracy was low; 31% of estimates were within 20% or 25% of the true cost, and fewer than 50% were accurate by any definition of cost accuracy. Methodological weaknesses were common, and studies of low methodological quality showed better cost awareness. The most important factor influencing the pattern and accuracy of estimation was the true cost of therapy. High-cost drugs were estimated more accurately than inexpensive ones (74% versus 31%, Chi-square p < 0.001). Doctors consistently overestimated the cost of inexpensive products and underestimated the cost of expensive ones (binomial test, 89/101, p < 0.001). When asked, doctors indicated that they want cost information and feel it would improve their prescribing but that it is not accessible.ConclusionsDoctors' ignorance of costs, combined with their tendency to underestimate the price of expensive drugs and overestimate the price of inexpensive ones, demonstrate a lack of appreciation of the large difference in cost between inexpensive and expensive drugs. This discrepancy in turn could have profound implications for overall drug expenditures. Much more focus is required in the education of physicians about costs and the access to cost information. Future research should focus on the accessibility and reliability of medical cost information and whether the provision of this information is used by doctors and makes a difference to physician prescribing. Additionally, future work should strive for higher methodological standards to avoid the biases we found in the current literature, including attention to the method of assessing accuracy that allows larger absolute estimation ranges for expensive drugs.

Project description:BackgroundAssessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provides valuable information to inform patient-centered care, but may also reveal 'PRO alerts': psychological distress or physical symptoms that may require an immediate response. Ad-hoc management of PRO alerts in clinical trials may result in suboptimal patient care or potentially bias trial results. To gain greater understanding of current practice in PRO alert management we conducted a national survey of personnel involved in clinical trials with a PRO endpoint.Methods and findingsWe conducted a national cross-sectional survey of 767 UK-based research nurses, data managers/coordinators, trial managers and chief/principal investigators involved in clinical trials using PROs. Respondents were self-selected volunteers from a non-randomised sample of eligible individuals recruited via 55 UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units and 19 Comprehensive Local Research Networks. Questions centred on the proportion of trial personnel encountering alerts, how staff responded to PRO alerts and whether current guidance was deemed sufficient to support research personnel. We undertook descriptive analyses of the quantitative data and directed thematic analysis of free-text comments. 20% of research nurses did not view completed PRO questionnaires and were not in a position to discover alerts, 39-50% of the remaining respondent group participants reported encountering PRO alerts. Of these, 83% of research nurses and 54% of data managers/trial coordinators reported taking action to assist the trial participant, but less than half were able to record the intervention in the trial documentation. Research personnel reported current PRO alert guidance/training was insufficient.ConclusionsResearch personnel are intermittently exposed to PRO alerts. Some intervene to help trial participants, but are not able to record this intervention in the trial documentation, risking co-intervention bias. Other staff do not check PRO information during the trial, meaning alerts may remain undiscovered, or do not respond to alerts if they are inadvertently encountered; both of which may impact on patient safety. Guidance is needed to support PRO alert management that protects the interests of trial participants whilst avoiding potential bias.