Literature DB >> 12785563

Chronic disease medication use in managed care and indemnity insurance plans.

Randall S Stafford1, Stephen M Davidson, Harriet Davidson, Heidi Miracle-McMahill, Sybil L Crawford, David Blumenthal.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of managed care on the use of chronic disease medications. DATA SOURCE: Claims data from 1997 from two indemnity and three independent practice association (IPA) model managed care insurance plans. RESEARCH
DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of claims data. DATA COLLECTION: Adult patients with diabetes mellitus (DM, n = 26,444), congestive heart failure (CHF, n = 7,978), and asthma (n = 9,850) were identified by ICD-9 codes. Chronic disease medication use was defined through pharmacy claims for patients receiving one or more prescriptions for drugs used in treating these conditions. Using multiple logistic regression we adjusted for patient case mix and the number of primary care visits. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: With few exceptions, managed care patients were more likely to use chronic disease medications than indemnity patients. In DM, managed care patients were more likely to use sulfonylureas (43 percent versus 39 percent for indemnity), metformin (26 percent versus 18 percent), and troglitazone (8.8 percent versus 6.4 percent), but not insulin. For CHF patients, managed care patients were more likely to use loop diuretics (45 percent versus 41 percent), ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (50 percent versus 41 percent), and beta-blockers (23 percent versus 16 percent), but we found no differences in digoxin use. In asthma, managed care patients were more likely to use inhaled corticosteroids (34 percent versus 30 percent), systemic corticosteroids (18 percent versus 16 percent), short-acting beta-agonists (42 percent versus 33 percent), long-acting beta-agonists (9.9 percent versus 8.6 percent), and leukotriene modifiers (5.4 percent versus 4.1 percent), but not cromolyn or methylxanthines. Statistically significant differences remained after multivariate analysis that controlled for age, gender, and severity.
CONCLUSIONS: Chronic disease patients in these managed care plans are more likely to receive both inexpensive and expensive medications. Exceptions included older medications partly supplanted by newer therapies. Differences may be explained by the fact that patients in indemnity plans face higher out-of-pocket costs and managed care plans promote more aggressive medication use. The relatively low likelihood of condition-specific medications in both plan types is a matter of concern, however.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12785563      PMCID: PMC1360905          DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.00135

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  17 in total

1.  Chronic illness and plan satisfaction under managed care.

Authors:  B G Druss; M Schlesinger; T Thomas; H Allen
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2000 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 2.  Lessons from the glitazones: a story of drug development.

Authors:  E A Gale
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-06-09       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 3.  HMO plan performance update: an analysis of the literature, 1997-2001.

Authors:  Robert H Miller; Harold S Luft
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 6.301

4.  Beta-blockers to reduce mortality in patients with systolic dysfunction: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  S Lee; A Spencer
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 0.493

5.  Managed care plan performance since 1980. A literature analysis.

Authors:  R H Miller; H S Luft
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-05-18       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Heart Failure in the Adult: Executive Summary A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1995 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure): Developed in Collaboration With the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation; Endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America.

Authors:  S A Hunt; D W Baker; M H Chin; M P Cinquegrani; A M Feldman; G S Francis; T G Ganiats; S Goldstein; G Gregoratos; M L Jessup; R J Noble; M Packer; M A Silver; L W Stevenson; R J Gibbons; E M Antman; J S Alpert; D P Faxon; V Fuster; G Gregoratos; A K Jacobs; L F Hiratzka; R O Russell; S C Smith
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2001-12-11       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 7.  Update on digoxin therapy in congestive heart failure.

Authors:  S A Haji; A Movahed
Journal:  Am Fam Physician       Date:  2000-07-15       Impact factor: 3.292

Review 8.  Treatment of congestive heart failure: guidelines for the primary care physician and the heart failure specialist.

Authors:  M Gomberg-Maitland; D A Baran; V Fuster
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2001-02-12

9.  Guidelines for the evaluation and management of heart failure. Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure).

Authors: 
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1995-11-01       Impact factor: 29.690

10.  Capitated Medicaid and the process of care of elderly hypertensives and diabetics: results from a randomized trial.

Authors:  E Coffey; I Moscovice; M Finch; J B Christianson; N Lurie
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 4.965

View more
  8 in total

1.  Does managed care reduce health care expenditure? Evidence from spatial panel data.

Authors:  Andree Ehlert; Dirk Oberschachtsiek
Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ       Date:  2014-04-02

2.  Association of Healthcare Plan with atrial fibrillation prescription patterns.

Authors:  Andrew Young Chang; Mariam Askari; Jun Fan; Paul A Heidenreich; P Michael Ho; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Aditya Jathin Ullal; Alexander Carroll Perino; Mintu P Turakhia
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2018-09-22       Impact factor: 2.882

3.  Effects of nurse management on the quality of heart failure care in minority communities: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Jane E Sisk; Paul L Hebert; Carol R Horowitz; Mary Ann McLaughlin; Jason J Wang; Mark R Chassin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2006-08-15       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Insurance disruption due to spousal Medicare transitions: implications for access to care and health care utilization for women approaching age 65.

Authors:  Jessica R Schumacher; Maureen A Smith; Jinn-Ing Liou; Nancy Pandhi
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-03-05       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Disparities in combination drug therapy use in older adults with coronary heart disease: a cross-sectional time-series in a nationally representative US sample.

Authors:  Jennifer Tjia; Becky Briesacher; Dawei Xie; Jason Fu; Robert J Goldberg
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 3.923

6.  Prevalence and socio-economic burden of heart failure in an aging society of South Korea.

Authors:  Hankil Lee; Sung-Hee Oh; Hyeonseok Cho; Hyun-Jai Cho; Hye-Young Kang
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2016-11-10       Impact factor: 2.298

7.  A multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool for purchasing off-patent oncology medicines in Egypt.

Authors:  Baher Elezbawy; Ahmad Nader Fasseeh; Amal Sedrak; Randa Eldessouki; Mary Gamal; Mariam Eldebeiky; Hanaa Amer; Shimaa Akeel; Ahmad Morsy; Amira Amin; Amr Shafik; Sherif Abaza; Zoltán Kaló
Journal:  J Pharm Policy Pract       Date:  2022-03-01

8.  Generic antiepileptic drug prescribing: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Jennifer Meyer; David Fardo; Steven T Fleming; Claudia Hopenhayn; Yevgeniya Gokun; Melody Ryan
Journal:  Epilepsy Behav       Date:  2012-11-23       Impact factor: 3.337

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.