John Hsu

To evaluate the effects of health insurance benefit designs that introduced or increased the price difference between prescription drugs representing potential clinical substitutes. Systematic review of peer-reviewed articles. Using English-language articles listed in PubMed between 1980 and 2012, we identified articles meeting our inclusion criteria and minimum methodological standards. We compared findings regarding the immediate patient response, total spending, and health outcomes after implementing the price change. Among the 31 articles identified, the mechanisms varied for creating the price differential between prescription drug substitutes, though they most frequently involved tiered formularies (19) or reference pricing (10). While nearly all studies (29 of 31) reported on patient responses to price changes, only 5 articles comprehensively assessed patient price responses, total spending, and health outcomes. Several studies found that some patients switched to cheaper drugs, but out-of-pocket spending increased on average, suggesting that other patients continued using the more expensive drug (ie, cost shifting to patients). Few studies examined the degree of heterogeneity in behavior responses, especially between patient cohorts for whom the substitute drugs had varying value. Some studies observed long-term effects, but most had limited post intervention observation periods. Differential cost-sharing designs influence drug use behavior, but there is limited evidence on how these designs affect the overall value of received care. The existing literature provides limited guidance for policy makers or organizational leaders to design benefits. We offer suggestions for future studies to inform policy and practice.

Objective: Medicare Part D provides formulary protections for antipsychotics but does not exempt these drugs from cost-sharing. We investigated the impact of Part D coverage on antipsychotic drug spending, adherence, and clinical outcomes among beneficiaries with varying indications for use. Methods: We conducted a historical cohort study of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who received antipsychotic drugs, with diagnoses of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder or with no mental health diagnoses (N=10,190). Half had a coverage gap; half had no gap because of low-income subsidies. Using fixed effects regression models, we examined changes in spending and adherence as beneficiaries experienced cost-sharing increases after reaching the gap. We examined changes in hospitalizations and emergency department visits using proportional hazard models. Results: Across all diagnostic groups, total monthly expenditure on antipsychotic drugs decreased with cost-sharing increases in the gap compared with those with no gap (eg, schizophrenia: −$123 95% confidence interval [−$138, −$108]), and out-of-pocket spending increased (eg, schizophrenia: $104 [$98, $110]). Adherence similarly decreased, with the largest declines among those with schizophrenia (−20.6 percentage points [−22.3, −18.9] in proportion of days covered). Among beneficiaries with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, hospitalizations and emergency department visit rates increased with cost-sharing increases (eg, schizophrenia: hazard ratio=1.32 [1.06, 1.65] for all hospitalizations), but did not among subjects without mental health diagnoses. Clinical event rates did not change among beneficiaries with low-income subsidies without gaps. Conclusions: There is evidence of interruptions in antipsychotic use attributable to Part D cost-sharing. Adverse events increased among beneficiaries with approved indications for use, but not among beneficiaries without such indications.

Background: Blood pressure, lipid, and glycemic control are essential for reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Many health care systems have successfully shifted aspects of chronic disease management, including population-based outreach programs designed to address CVD risk factor control, to non-physicians. The purpose of this study is to evaluate provision of new information to non-physician outreach teams on need for treatment intensification in patients with increased CVD risk. Methods: Cluster randomized trial (July 1-December 31, 2008) in Kaiser Permanente Northern California registry of members with diabetes mellitus, prior CVD diagnoses and/or chronic kidney disease who were high-priority for treatment intensification: blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg systolic, LDL-cholesterol ≥ 130 mg/dl, or hemoglobin A1c ≥ 9%; adherent to current medications; no recent treatment intensification). Randomization units were medical center-based outreach teams (4 intervention; 4 control). For intervention teams, priority flags for intensification were added monthly to the registry database with recommended next pharmacotherapeutic steps for each eligible patient. Control teams used the same database without this information. Outcomes included 3-month rates of treatment intensification and risk factor levels during follow-up. Results: Baseline risk factor control rates were high (82-90%). In eligible patients, the intervention was associated with significantly greater 3-month intensification rates for blood pressure (34.1 vs. 30.6%) and LDL-cholesterol (28.0 vs 22.7%), but not A1c. No effects on risk factors were observed at 3 months or 12 months follow-up. Intervention teams initiated outreach for only 45-47% of high-priority patients, but also for 27-30% of lower-priority patients. Teams reported difficulties adapting prior outreach strategies to incorporate the new information. Conclusions: Information enhancement did not improve risk factor control compared to existing outreach strategies at control centers. Familiarity with prior, relatively successful strategies likely reduced uptake of the innovation and its potential for success at intervention centers. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00517686

Self-management support is considered to be an essential part of diabetes care. However, the implementation of self-management support within healthcare settings has appeared to be challenging and there is increased interest in “real world” best practice examples to guide policy efforts. In order to explore how different approaches to diabetes care and differences in management structure influence the provision of SMS we selected two healthcare systems that have shown to be comparable in terms of budget, benefits and entitlements. We compared the extent of SMS provided and the self-management behaviors of people living with diabetes in Kaiser Permanente (KP) and the Danish Healthcare System (DHS).

As many other European healthcare systems the Danish healthcare system (DHS) has targeted chronic condition care in its reform efforts. Benchmarking is a valuable tool to identify areas for improvement. Prior work indicates that chronic care coordination is poor in the DHS, especially in comparison with care in Kaiser Permanente (KP), an integrated delivery system based in the United States. We investigated population rates of hospitalisation and readmission rates for ambulatory care sensitive, chronic medical conditions in the two systems.

Little is known about drug cost communications of Medicare Part D beneficiaries with chronic conditions such as diabetes. The purpose of this study is to assess Medicare Part D beneficiaries with diabetes' levels of communication with physicians regarding prescription drug costs; the perceived importance of these communications; levels of prescription drug switching due to cost; and self-reported cost-related medication non-adherence.