Medication adherence usually refers to whether patients take their medications as prescribed (eg, twice daily), as well as whether they continue to take a prescribed medication. Medication nonadherence is a growing concern to clinicians, healthcare systems, and other stakeholders (eg, payers) because of mounting evidence that it is prevalent and associated with adverse outcomes and higher costs of care. To date, measurement of patient medication adherence and use of interventions to improve adherence are rare in routine clinical practice. The goals of the present report are to address (1) different methods of measuring adherence, (2) the prevalence of medication nonadherence, (3) the association between nonadherence and outcomes, (4) the reasons for nonadherence, and finally, (5) interventions to improve medication adherence.

Medication Adherence: Its Importance in Cardiovascular Outcomes

America's health care system has become too complex and costly to continue business as usual. Best Care at Lower Cost explains that inefficiencies, an overwhelming amount of data, and other economic and quality barriers hinder progress in improving health and threaten the nation's economic stability and global competitiveness. According to this report, the knowledge and tools exist to put the health system on the right course to achieve continuous improvement and better quality care at a lower cost.The costs of the system's current inefficiency underscore the urgent need for a systemwide transformation. About 30 percent of health spending in 2009--roughly $750 billion--was wasted on unnecessary services, excessive administrative costs, fraud, and other problems. Moreover, inefficiencies cause needless suffering. By one estimate, roughly 75,000 deaths might have been averted in 2005 if every state had delivered care at the quality level of the best performing state. This report states that the way health care providers currently train, practice, and learn new information cannot keep pace with the flood of research discoveries and technological advances.About 75 million Americans have more than one chronic condition, requiring coordination among multiple specialists and therapies, which can increase the potential for miscommunication, misdiagnosis, potentially conflicting interventions, and dangerous drug interactions. Best Care at Lower Cost emphasizes that a better use of data is a critical element of a continuously improving health system, such as mobile technologies and electronic health records that offer significant potential to capture and share health data better. In order for this to occur, the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, IT developers, and standard-setting organizations should ensure that these systems are robust and interoperable. Clinicians and care organizations should fully adopt these technologies, and patients should be encouraged to use tools, such as personal health information portals, to actively engage in their care.This book is a call to action that will guide health care providers; administrators; caregivers; policy makers; health professionals; federal, state, and local government agencies; private and public health organizations; and educational institutions.

Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America

ContextPrescription drugs are instrumental to managing and preventing chronic disease. Recent changes in US prescription drug cost sharing could affect access to them.ObjectiveTo synthesize published evidence on the associations among cost-sharing features of prescription drug benefits and use of prescription drugs, use of nonpharmaceutical services, and health outcomes.Data SourcesWe searched PubMed for studies published in English between 1985 and 2006.Study Selection and Data ExtractionAmong 923 articles found in the search, we identified 132 articles examining the associations between prescription drug plan cost-containment measures, including co-payments, tiering, or coinsurance (n = 65), pharmacy benefit caps or monthly prescription limits (n = 11), formulary restrictions (n = 41), and reference pricing (n = 16), and salient outcomes, including pharmacy utilization and spending, medical care utilization and spending, and health outcomes.ResultsIncreased cost sharing is associated with lower rates of drug treatment, worse adherence among existing users, and more frequent discontinuation of therapy. For each 10% increase in cost sharing, prescription drug spending decreases by 2% to 6%, depending on class of drug and condition of the patient. The reduction in use associated with a benefit cap, which limits either the coverage amount or the number of covered prescriptions, is consistent with other cost-sharing features. For some chronic conditions, higher cost sharing is associated with increased use of medical services, at least for patients with congestive heart failure, lipid disorders, diabetes, and schizophrenia. While low-income groups may be more sensitive to increased cost sharing, there is little evidence to support this contention.ConclusionsPharmacy benefit design represents an important public health tool for improving patient treatment and adherence. While increased cost sharing is highly correlated with reductions in pharmacy use, the long-term consequences of benefit changes on health are still uncertain.

/pdf/prescription-drug-cost-sharing-associations-with-medication-3gkob0unzd.pdf

Prescription drug cost sharing: associations with medication and medical utilization and spending and health.

The burden of cancer is growing, and the disease is becoming a major economic expenditure for all developed countries. In 2008, the worldwide cost of cancer due to premature death and disability (not including direct medical costs) was estimated to be US$895 billion. This is not simply due to an increase in absolute numbers, but also the rate of increase of expenditure on cancer. What are the drivers and solutions to the so-called cancer-cost curve in developed countries? How are we going to afford to deliver high quality and equitable care? Here, expert opinion from health-care professionals, policy makers, and cancer survivors has been gathered to address the barriers and solutions to delivering affordable cancer care. Although many of the drivers and themes are specific to a particular field-eg, the huge development costs for cancer medicines-there is strong concordance running through each contribution. Several drivers of cost, such as over-use, rapid expansion, and shortening life cycles of cancer technologies (such as medicines and imaging modalities), and the lack of suitable clinical research and integrated health economic studies, have converged with more defensive medical practice, a less informed regulatory system, a lack of evidence-based sociopolitical debate, and a declining degree of fairness for all patients with cancer. Urgent solutions range from re-engineering of the macroeconomic basis of cancer costs (eg, value-based approaches to bend the cost curve and allow cost-saving technologies), greater education of policy makers, and an informed and transparent regulatory system. A radical shift in cancer policy is also required. Political toleration of unfairness in access to affordable cancer treatment is unacceptable. The cancer profession and industry should take responsibility and not accept a substandard evidence base and an ethos of very small benefit at whatever cost; rather, we need delivery of fair prices and real value from new technologies.

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanonc/PIIS1470204511701413.pdf

Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries

Importance The increasing cost of prescription drugs in the United States has become a source of concern for patients, prescribers, payers, and policy makers. Objectives To review the origins and effects of high drug prices in the US market and to consider policy options that could contain the cost of prescription drugs. Evidence We reviewed the peer-reviewed medical and health policy literature from January 2005 to July 2016 for articles addressing the sources of drug prices in the United States, the justifications and consequences of high prices, and possible solutions. Findings Per capita prescription drug spending in the United States exceeds that in all other countries, largely driven by brand-name drug prices that have been increasing in recent years at rates far beyond the consumer price index. In 2013, per capita spending on prescription drugs was $858 compared with an average of $400 for 19 other industrialized nations. In the United States, prescription medications now comprise an estimated 17% of overall personal health care services. The most important factor that allows manufacturers to set high drug prices is market exclusivity, protected by monopoly rights awarded upon Food and Drug Administration approval and by patents. The availability of generic drugs after this exclusivity period is the main means of reducing prices in the United States, but access to them may be delayed by numerous business and legal strategies. The primary counterweight against excessive pricing during market exclusivity is the negotiating power of the payer, which is currently constrained by several factors, including the requirement that most government drug payment plans cover nearly all products. Another key contributor to drug spending is physician prescribing choices when comparable alternatives are available at different costs. Although prices are often justified by the high cost of drug development, there is no evidence of an association between research and development costs and prices; rather, prescription drugs are priced in the United States primarily on the basis of what the market will bear. Conclusions and Relevance High drug prices are the result of the approach the United States has taken to granting government-protected monopolies to drug manufacturers, combined with coverage requirements imposed on government-funded drug benefits. The most realistic short-term strategies to address high prices include enforcing more stringent requirements for the award and extension of exclusivity rights; enhancing competition by ensuring timely generic drug availability; providing greater opportunities for meaningful price negotiation by governmental payers; generating more evidence about comparative cost-effectiveness of therapeutic alternatives; and more effectively educating patients, prescribers, payers, and policy makers about these choices.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/2545691/jsc160015.pdf

The High Cost of Prescription Drugs in the United States: Origins and Prospects for Reform

Background Little information exists about the consequences of limits on prescription-drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries. Methods We compared the clinical and economic outcomes in 2003 among 157,275 Medicare+Choice beneficiaries whose annual drug benefits were capped at $1,000 and 41,904 beneficiaries whose drug benefits were unlimited because of employer supplements. Results After adjusting for individual characteristics, we found that subjects whose benefits were capped had pharmacy costs for drugs applicable to the cap that were lower by 31 percent than subjects whose benefits were not capped (95 percent confidence interval, 29 to 33 percent) but had total medical costs that were only 1 percent lower (95 percent confidence interval, −4 to 6 percent). Subjects whose benefits were capped had higher relative rates of visits to the emergency department (relative rate, 1.09 [95 percent confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.14]), nonelective hospitalizations (relative rate, 1.13 [1.05 to 1.21]), and death (re...

Unintended Consequences of Caps on Medicare Drug Benefits

Context Medicare Part D drug benefits include substantial cost sharing. Objective To determine beneficiaries' knowledge of benefits and cost responses. Design, Setting, and Participants Telephone interviews were conducted in 2007 in a stratified random sample of community-dwelling Kaiser Permanente-Northern California Medicare Advantage beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, with a gap in coverage if they exceeded $2250 in drug costs (N = 1040; 74.9% response rate). Half were selected to have reached the gap in 2006. In the source population of Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plan beneficiaries, 8% entered the coverage gap in 2006. Models were adjusted for individual characteristics and weighted for sampling proportions. Main Outcome Measures Knowledge of cost sharing including awareness of the coverage gap, gap start and end amounts, and drug cost sharing before, during, and after the gap. Cost-related responses including cost-coping behaviors (eg, switching to lower-cost medications), reduced adherence (eg, not refilling prescriptions), and financial burden (eg, going without necessities). Results An estimated 40% (95% confidence interval [CI], 35%-45%) of beneficiaries were aware that their drug plan in 2006 included a coverage gap; knowledge of the gap was greater among individuals who reached the gap during the year. Approximately 36% (95% CI, 32%-41%) of beneficiaries reported at least 1 of the following responses to drug costs: cost-coping behavior (26%), reduced adherence (15%), or experiencing financial burden (7%). In multivariate analyses, beneficiaries with lower household income more frequently reported cost responses (difference of 14.5 percentage points for Conclusions Beneficiaries in this Medicare Advantage plan have limited knowledge of Part D cost sharing and often report behavioral responses to drug costs. Limited knowledge is associated with fewer reports of cost responses overall, but more reports of financial burden.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/181814/joc80031_1929_1936.pdf

Medicare beneficiaries' knowledge of Part D prescription drug program benefits and responses to drug costs.

The viability and stability of the Medicare Part D prescription drug program depend on accurate risk-adjusted payments. The current approach, prescription drug hierarchical condition categories (RxHCCs), uses diagnosis and demographic information to predict future drug costs. We evaluated the performance of multiple approaches for predicting 2006 Part D drug costs and plan liability. RxHCCs explain 12 percent of the variation in actual drug costs, overpredict costs for beneficiaries with low actual costs, and underpredict costs for beneficiaries with high actual costs. Combining RxHCCs with individual-level information on prior-year drug use greatly improves performance and decreases incentives for plans to select against bad risks.

/pdf/distributing-800-billion-an-early-assessment-of-medicare-53if0jh41r.pdf

Distributing $800 Billion: An Early Assessment Of Medicare Part D Risk Adjustment

Since 2006 numerous insurers have stopped serving the low-income segment of the Medicare Part D program, forcing millions of beneficiaries to change prescription drug plans. Using data from participating plans, we found that Medicare payments do not sufficiently reimburse insurers for the relatively high medication use among this population, creating perverse incentives for plans to avoid this part of the Part D market. Plans can accomplish this by increasing their premiums for all beneficiaries to an amount above regional benchmarks. We demonstrate that improving the accuracy of Medicare’s risk and subsidy adjustments could mitigate these perverse incentives.

/pdf/fixing-flaws-in-medicare-drug-coverage-that-prompt-insurers-agil2ps38b.pdf

Fixing Flaws In Medicare Drug Coverage That Prompt Insurers To Avoid Low-Income Patients

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.

Rita Hui

Papers

Unintended Consequences of Caps on Medicare Drug Benefits

Medicare beneficiaries' knowledge of Part D prescription drug program benefits and responses to drug costs.

Distributing $800 Billion: An Early Assessment Of Medicare Part D Risk Adjustment

Fixing Flaws In Medicare Drug Coverage That Prompt Insurers To Avoid Low-Income Patients

Adverse clinical events among medicare beneficiaries using antipsychotic drugs: linking health insurance benefits and clinical needs.