![Page 1: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Small copayments for prescription medicines: cents-ible policies?
Sarah-Jo Sinnott BPharm MPharm PhD MPSI
Friday 13th February, 2015
![Page 2: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Outline
• Setting context
• Overview of PhD research
• Selected chapter • Two copayments
• Greater reductions to less-essential medicines
• EXCEPTION – medicines used to treat depression
![Page 3: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
0
200,000,000
400,000,000
600,000,000
800,000,000
1,000,000,000
1,200,000,000
1,400,000,000
2000 2001 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
€
Expenditure for medicines and devices and the GMS scheme from the years 2000-2012. Data obtained from PCRS Financial and Statistical Analyses accessed from PCRS.ie
![Page 4: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
2008 2010 2013
Banking Collapse and Global Recession
EU-IMF Financial Bailout
Introduction of 50c prescription charge per item
Charge increased to €1.50 per item
Charge increased to €2.50 per item
![Page 5: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
What Risk?
![Page 6: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
The effects of copayment policies on adherence to prescription
medicines in publicly insured populations
Aim 1
To conduct systematic reviews of
the evidence in the area of cost-
sharing for medicines
Aim 2
To elicit the impact of two
consecutive prescription charges
on adherence to medicines on the
GMS scheme
Aim 4
To validate the WHO
DDD method used to
measure adherence in
Chapters 3 and 5
Updated
literature
reviews
Cross country comparison of
2 similar policy interventions
in the U.S. and in Ireland to
explore whether comparable
effects on adherence
behaviour occur
Methodological
validation using
international
pharmacy claims
data
Paper 1:
Published in
PlosOne
(2013)
Paper 2:
Under review
at Value in
Health
Paper 5:
Under review
at Medical
Care
Paper 6: Under
review at
Journal of
Clinical
Epidemiology
Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5
2 Systematic
Reviews and 1
meta-analysis
Quantitative paper
measuring changes
in adherence in
essential and less-
essential medicines
after policy changes
Qualitative study
to assess patient
attitudes to new
policy
Paper 3: Under
review at Journal
of Epidemiology
and Community
Health
Paper 4:
Published in
BMC HSR
(2013)
Chapter 7
Aim 3
To explore the
generalisability of country
specific evidence on cost-
sharing for medicines
Chapter 6
![Page 7: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
To assess the impact of the introduction of a 50c copayment and the subsequent increase to €1.50 on adherence to medicines in the Irish General Medical Services (GMS) population.
![Page 8: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Methods
Study Design A longitudinal repeated measures (pre-post)study design, with comparator
Data Sources Health Service Executive–Primary Care Reimbursement Services (HSE-PCRS)
Patients New users of oral medications for essential and less-essential medicines
Soumerai et al., 1993 Grimes et al., 2013, Ray 2002
![Page 9: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Essential medicines Less-essential medicines
Austvoll-Dahlgren et al., 2008. Cochrane Review
![Page 10: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
6 month baseline covariate
assessment
October 2009 – March 2010
Pre-period
6 months prior to copay
introduction
April 2010- September
2010
GMS – Introduction of 50c copayment in Oct 2010
Follow up period
12 month post the intervention
New user identification (marked by X) and
corresponding 6 month baseline covariate
assessment period
October 2009 September 2011
New user design
![Page 11: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Methods
Outcome Monthly adherence to medicines, measured using Proportion of Days Covered (PDC)
Analysis Segmented regression analysis
Generalised Estimating Equations • Correlations between measurements for each patient
Subgroup analyses • Age and gender
Benner et al., 2002
![Page 12: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Long Term Illness (LTI)
no copayment during study period
Soumerai et al., 1993
![Page 13: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
GMS n = 39,314 LTI n = 3,831
GMS n = 33,394 LTI n = 4,217
GMS n = 7,149 LTI n = 4,076
GMS n = 80,264
Results
GMS n = 7,654 GMS n = 39,432
GMS n = 136,111 GMS n = 64,462
![Page 14: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
GMS LTI
Approximate mean age 62 yrs 56 yrs
Approximate female 51% 32%
Baseline medication use
Oral hypoglycaemics Higher use
Insulin Higher Use
Anti-hypertensives Higher Use
Anti-hyperlipidaemics Higher Use
Aspirin Higher Use
Results
![Page 15: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
1:34
%C
ha
ng
e in
Ad
he
ren
ce
-14
-13
-12
-11
-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Policy
50c
€1.50
Anti-hypertensives Anti-hyperlipidaemics Oral diabetes Thyroid Anti-depressants PPIs and H2 NSAIDs Benzos
Results for short term effects of 50c and €1.50 policies plotted for each medication group. Results plotted for blood pressure lowering, lipid lowering and oral diabetes medicines are relative differences. Results plotted for remaining medicine groups are absolute differences in adherence observed in the GMS group. Adjusted for age and sex.
Results
Blood Pressure Lowering Lipid Lowering Anxiolytics/hypnotics Blood Pressure Lipid Diabetes Thyroid Depression PPIs NSAIDs Anxiolytics/Hypnotics
1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14
% c
han
ge in
PD
C
![Page 16: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Discussion
• Less-essential vs essential – Austvoll Dahlgren et al., 2008; Gemmil et al., 2008;
Goldman et al., 2007; Eaddy et al., 2013
• Exception – Reeder et al., 1985; Ong et al., 2003
• Subgroup analyses – Varying effects by age and gender
• Adherence fell only very slowly in the months following the changes in copayments – Schneeweiss et al., 2007
![Page 17: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
![Page 18: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
![Page 19: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Conclusion and Policy Implications
• Small copayments may be of value – Moral hazard – Essential medicine use
• Areas of concern – Anti-depressants
• Future research – €2.50 – Heterogeneity across population – Other agents
• Very, very careful price-titration
![Page 20: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Thank you [email protected]
![Page 21: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Back ups
![Page 22: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Paper 5 - Analysis of Copayment Policy in Ireland
![Page 23: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Qualitative and Quantitative Results
Quantitative • Disruption in status quo, sense of entitlement to free medicines
Qualitative “After working all my life as a xx. . ... I think I was after working for the medical card” 14MC.
Quantitative • Results clearly show difference in essential and less-essential medicines.
Qualitative “. . ...Like I was told I’d get now, since I got sick – if I was told to stand on my head three times a day I would do it. . .”
![Page 24: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Literature Review
Systematic Reviews • Powerful tools for policymakers (Lavis et al., 2004)
– Comprehensive overview – Precision – Time
Paper 1 • Copayments for prescription meds and adherence • Publicly insured populations Paper 2 • Removal/reduction of copayments for prescription medicines • General populations
![Page 25: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Paper 1
![Page 26: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
![Page 27: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
![Page 28: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
![Page 29: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Discussion
• Publicly insured populations had an 11% (95% CI 1.09-1.14) increased odds of non-adherence (>80%) to prescription medicines when copayments were required.
• Moderate improvement in adherence ranging from 2% to 17.9% when copayments removed or reduced.
• An improvement in OR 1.2 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.4) to OR 2.9 (95% CI, 1.8 to 4.7) when reported as a binary measure.
![Page 30: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Discussion
• Strengths – Transparent and comprehensive systematic searches -informed by a
Cochrane Review (2009)
– Quality appraisal – Cochrane EPOC methodology
– First meta-analysis in this area
– Potential publication biases
• Limitations – Adherence as a surrogate outcome
– Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)
• Evidence base for further policy development
• Applied in tandem with assessment of policies in Ireland
![Page 31: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Table 1 Results: Impact of 50c copayment introduction on adherence
Short term % change in adherence
(95% CI)
Long term % change in adherence (per month)
(95% CI)
GMS LTI DIFF GMS LTI DIFF
Chronic Disease Medicines
Blood pressure lowering
medicines
-5.0 (6.8 to -3.4) -0.2 (-1.1 to 0.6) -4.8 (-5.7 to -4.0) -0.5 (-0.9 to -0.1) -0.9 (-1.2 to -0.7) 0.5 (0.3 to 0.6)
Lipid lowering medicines -4.7 (-6.5 to -2.9) -1.7 (-2.6 to -0.8) -3.0 (-3.9 to -2.1) -1.2 (-1.5 to -0.7) -1.1 (-1.3 to -0.8) -0.1 (-0.2 to
0.1)
Oral diabetes medicines -4.0 (-6.0 to -1.9) -1.6 (-2.5 to -0.6) -2.4 (-3.5 to -1.3) -0.5 (-0.9 to 0.2) -0.9 (-1.3 to -0.5) 0.4 (0.3 to 0.75)
Thyroid hormone -2.1(-2.8 to -1.5) - - -0.4 (-0.8 to 3.0) - -
Anti-depressant medicines -8.3( -8.7 to -7.9) - - -0.8 (-1.1 to -0.5) - -
‘Less-essential medicines’
Proton pump inhibitors/H2
antagonists
-9.5 (-9.8 to -9.1) - - -0.5 (-0.9 to -0.3) - -
NSAIDs -5.7 ( -5.9 to - 5.5) - - 0.4 (0.1 to 0.7) - -
Anxiolytics/Hypnotics -2.0 (-2.3 to -1.7) - - -0.2 (-0.5 to 0.01) - -
![Page 32: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Table 2 Results: Impact of €1.50 copayment increase on adherence
Short term % change in adherence
(95% CI)
Long term % change in adherence (per month)
(95% CI)
GMS LTI DIFF GMS LTI DIFF
Chronic Disease
Medicines
Blood pressure lowering
medicines
-5.3 (-7.1 to -3.5) -0.9 (-1.8 to 0.01) -4.4 (-5.3 to -3.5) -1.2 (-1.6 to -0.6) -1.4 (-1.7 to -1.03) 0.2 (0.04 to 0.4)
Lipid lowering medicines -4.7 (-6.8 to -2.6) -3.5 (-4.5 to -2.5) -1.2 (-2.3 to -0.1) -1.6 (-2.1 to -1.03) -1.7 (-2.0 to -1.3) 0.1 (-0.1 to 0.3)
Oral diabetes medicines -4.9(-7.2 to -2.7) -5.2 (-6.3 to -4.2) 0.3 (-0.9 to 1.5) -1.8 (-2.3 to -1.6) -1.9 (-2.1 to -1.7) 0.1 (-0.2 to 0.1)
Thyroid hormone -0.7 (-1.4 to -0.1) - - -1.0 (-1.3 to -0.5) - -
Anti-depressant medicines -10.0 (-10.4 to -9.6) - - -1.5 (-1.8 to -1.2) - -
‘Less-essential medicines’
Proton pump inhibitors/H2
antagonists
-13.5 (-13.9 to -13.2) - - -1.2 (-1.5 to -0.9) - -
NSAIDs -8.9 (-9.2 to -8.7) - - -1.4 (-1.6 to -1.1) - -
Anxiolytics/Hypnotics -0.8 (-1.0 to -0.5) - - -0.2 (-0.6 to 0.1) - -
![Page 33: Small Copayments for Prescription Medicines · • Limitations –Adherence as a surrogate outcome –Linked to clinical outcomes in the cost-sharing setting (Tamblyn et al. 2001)](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022042212/5eb47f4ff0deae5750353e2d/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
50c €1.50
Income generated €27,000,000 a €81,000,000 b
Savings accumulated €28,874,085*+ €39,720,663
Total Gains €55,874,085 €120,720,663
*savings accumulated estimated using ingredient cost per year plus a dispensing fee of €3.50 + Savings accumulated – calculated only for 8 groups of medicines in this thesis a Health Service Executive. Annual Report and Financial Statements 2011. b Health Service Executive. National Service Plan 2014.