Leslie Wilson1, Matthew Gitlin. 1. Department of Pharmacy and Medicine, Health Policy and Economics, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: California Workers' Compensation (WC) system costs are under review. With recently approved California State Assembly Bill (AB) 749 and Senate Bill (SB) 228, an assessment of proposed pharmaceutical cost savings is needed. METHODS: A large workers' compensation database provided by the California Workers' Compensation Institute (CWCI) and Medi-Cal pharmacy costs obtained from the State Drug Utilization Project are utilized to compare frequency, costs and savings to Workers' Compensation in 2002 with the new pharmacy legislation. RESULTS: Compared to the former California Workers' Compensation fee schedule, the newly implemented 100% Medi-Cal fee schedule will result in savings of 29.5% with a potential total pharmacy cost savings of $125 million. Further statistical analysis demonstrated that a large variability in savings across drugs could not be controlled with this drug pricing system. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the large savings in pharmaceuticals, inconsistencies between the two pharmaceutical payment systems could lead to negative incentives and uncertainty for long-term savings. Proposed alternative pricing systems could be considered. However, pain management implemented along with other cost containment strategies could more effectively reduce overall drug spending in the workers' compensation system.
BACKGROUND: California Workers' Compensation (WC) system costs are under review. With recently approved California State Assembly Bill (AB) 749 and Senate Bill (SB) 228, an assessment of proposed pharmaceutical cost savings is needed. METHODS: A large workers' compensation database provided by the California Workers' Compensation Institute (CWCI) and Medi-Cal pharmacy costs obtained from the State Drug Utilization Project are utilized to compare frequency, costs and savings to Workers' Compensation in 2002 with the new pharmacy legislation. RESULTS: Compared to the former California Workers' Compensation fee schedule, the newly implemented 100% Medi-Cal fee schedule will result in savings of 29.5% with a potential total pharmacy cost savings of $125 million. Further statistical analysis demonstrated that a large variability in savings across drugs could not be controlled with this drug pricing system. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the large savings in pharmaceuticals, inconsistencies between the two pharmaceutical payment systems could lead to negative incentives and uncertainty for long-term savings. Proposed alternative pricing systems could be considered. However, pain management implemented along with other cost containment strategies could more effectively reduce overall drug spending in the workers' compensation system.