Jean Yoon1, Susan L Ettner. 1. Health Economics Resource Ctr, Palo Alto VA Healthcare System, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA. jean.yoon@va.gov
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine how the influence of cost-sharing on adherence to antihypertensive drugs varies across adherence levels. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using medical and pharmacy claims and benefits data on 83,893 commercially insured patients with hypertension from the 2000-2001 Medstat MarketScan Database. METHODS: We measured drug adherence using the medication possession ratio (MPR) for antihypertensive drugs over 9 months. Drug cost-sharing was measured as either copayments or coinsurance. Other patient characteristics included age, sex, comorbidity, health plan type, and county-level sociodemographics. We compared adherence for different cost-sharing categories with a bivariate test of equal medians and simultaneous quantile regressions predicting different percentiles of drug adherence. RESULTS: Median MPR was high (>80%) across all cost-sharing categories. Among the poorest adherers, the regression-adjusted MPR was 8 to 9 points lower among patients with the highest drug cost-sharing compared with patients with the lowest cost-sharing (copayment $5 or less). The effects of cost-sharing were smaller at the median (2-3 points lower) and nonsignificant at higher levels of adherence. Other significant factors influencing adherence at low adherence levels were drug class and comorbidity. CONCLUSION: Cost-sharing had a substantial negative association with adherence among low adherers and little association at higher adherence levels. At a clinical level, physicians should closely monitor adherence to antihypertensive drugs, particularly for patients with multiple comorbidities and those taking multiple drugs. At a health system level, current benefit designs should encourage adherence while limiting the cost burden of drugs for patients with multiple chronic conditions taking multiple drugs.
OBJECTIVE: To examine how the influence of cost-sharing on adherence to antihypertensive drugs varies across adherence levels. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using medical and pharmacy claims and benefits data on 83,893 commercially insured patients with hypertension from the 2000-2001 Medstat MarketScan Database. METHODS: We measured drug adherence using the medication possession ratio (MPR) for antihypertensive drugs over 9 months. Drug cost-sharing was measured as either copayments or coinsurance. Other patient characteristics included age, sex, comorbidity, health plan type, and county-level sociodemographics. We compared adherence for different cost-sharing categories with a bivariate test of equal medians and simultaneous quantile regressions predicting different percentiles of drug adherence. RESULTS: Median MPR was high (>80%) across all cost-sharing categories. Among the poorest adherers, the regression-adjusted MPR was 8 to 9 points lower among patients with the highest drug cost-sharing compared with patients with the lowest cost-sharing (copayment $5 or less). The effects of cost-sharing were smaller at the median (2-3 points lower) and nonsignificant at higher levels of adherence. Other significant factors influencing adherence at low adherence levels were drug class and comorbidity. CONCLUSION: Cost-sharing had a substantial negative association with adherence among low adherers and little association at higher adherence levels. At a clinical level, physicians should closely monitor adherence to antihypertensive drugs, particularly for patients with multiple comorbidities and those taking multiple drugs. At a health system level, current benefit designs should encourage adherence while limiting the cost burden of drugs for patients with multiple chronic conditions taking multiple drugs.
Authors: Dana Gelb Safran; Patricia Neuman; Cathy Schoen; Michelle S Kitchman; Ira B Wilson; Barbara Cooper; Angela Li; Hong Chang; William H Rogers Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2005 Jan-Jun Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Douglas W Roblin; Richard Platt; Michael J Goodman; John Hsu; Winnie W Nelson; David H Smith; Susan E Andrade; Stephen B Soumerai Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Teresa B Gibson; Tami L Mark; Kirsten Axelsen; Onur Baser; Dale A Rublee; Kimberly A McGuigan Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Stephen B Soumerai; Marsha Pierre-Jacques; Fang Zhang; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Alyce S Adams; Jerry Gurwitz; Gerald Adler; Dana Gelb Safran Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006-09-25
Authors: Anushka Patel; S MacMahon; J Chalmers; B Neal; M Woodward; L Billot; S Harrap; N Poulter; M Marre; M Cooper; P Glasziou; D E Grobbee; P Hamet; S Heller; L S Liu; G Mancia; C E Mogensen; C Y Pan; A Rodgers; B Williams Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-09-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jeffrey J Ellis; Steven R Erickson; James G Stevenson; Steven J Bernstein; Renee A Stiles; A Mark Fendrick Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Dana P Goldman; Geoffrey F Joyce; Jose J Escarce; Jennifer E Pace; Matthew D Solomon; Marianne Laouri; Pamela B Landsman; Steven M Teutsch Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-05-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Marsha A Raebel; Nikki M Carroll; Jennifer L Ellis; Emily B Schroeder; Elizabeth A Bayliss Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2011-08-18 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Jacqueline A Pesa; Jill Van Den Bos; Travis Gray; Colleen Hartsig; Robert Brett McQueen; Joseph J Saseen; Kavita V Nair Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2012-01-18 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Albert J Farias; Ryan N Hansen; Steven B Zeliadt; India J Ornelas; Christopher I Li; Beti Thompson Journal: J Manag Care Spec Pharm Date: 2016-08
Authors: Will Maimaris; Jared Paty; Pablo Perel; Helena Legido-Quigley; Dina Balabanova; Robby Nieuwlaat; Martin McKee Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2013-07-30 Impact factor: 11.069