Tracey-Lea Laba1,2, Helen K Reddel3, Nicholas J Zwar4,5, Guy B Marks3,6, Elizabeth Roughead7, Anthony Flynn8, Michele Goldman8, Aine Heaney9, Kirsty Lembke9, Stephen Jan10. 1. Menzies Centre for Health Policy, Sydney Medical School, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. tracey.laba@sydney.edu.au. 2. The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. tracey.laba@sydney.edu.au. 3. Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 4. School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Randwick, Sydney, Australia. 5. School of Medicine, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia. 6. South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 7. Quality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia. 8. Asthma Foundation Queensland and New South Wales, now part of Asthma Australia Limited, Sydney, Australia. 9. NPS MedicineWise, Sydney, Australia. 10. The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Australia, many patients who are initiated on asthma controller inhalers receive combination inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta2-agonist (ICS/LABA) despite having asthma of sufficiently low severity that ICS-alone would be equally effective and less costly for the government. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in a nationally representative sample of adults (n = 792) and parents of children (n = 609) with asthma. Mixed multinomial models were estimated and calibrated to reflect the estimated market shares of ICS-alone, ICS/LABA and no controller. We then simulated the impact of varying patient co-payment on demand and the financial impact on government pharmaceutical expenditure. RESULTS: Preference for inhaler decreased with increasing costs to the patient or government, increasing chance of a repeat visit to the doctor, and if fewer symptoms were present. Adults preferred high-strength controllers, but parents preferred low-strength inhalers for children (general beneficiaries only). The DCE predicted a higher proportion choosing controller treatment (89%) compared to current levels (57%) at the current co-payment level, with proportionately higher uptake of ICS-alone and a lower average cost per patient [32.73 Australian dollars (AU$) c.f. AU$38.54]. Reducing the co-payment on ICS-alone by 50% would increase its market share to 50%, whilst completely removing the co-payment would only have a small marginal impact on market share, but increased average cost of treatment to the government to AU$41.04 per person. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-directed financial incentives are unlikely to encourage much switching of medicines, and current levels of under-treatment are not explained by patient preferences. Interventions directed at prescribers are more likely to promote better use of asthma medicines.
BACKGROUND: In Australia, many patients who are initiated on asthma controller inhalers receive combination inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta2-agonist (ICS/LABA) despite having asthma of sufficiently low severity that ICS-alone would be equally effective and less costly for the government. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in a nationally representative sample of adults (n = 792) and parents of children (n = 609) with asthma. Mixed multinomial models were estimated and calibrated to reflect the estimated market shares of ICS-alone, ICS/LABA and no controller. We then simulated the impact of varying patient co-payment on demand and the financial impact on government pharmaceutical expenditure. RESULTS: Preference for inhaler decreased with increasing costs to the patient or government, increasing chance of a repeat visit to the doctor, and if fewer symptoms were present. Adults preferred high-strength controllers, but parents preferred low-strength inhalers for children (general beneficiaries only). The DCE predicted a higher proportion choosing controller treatment (89%) compared to current levels (57%) at the current co-payment level, with proportionately higher uptake of ICS-alone and a lower average cost per patient [32.73 Australian dollars (AU$) c.f. AU$38.54]. Reducing the co-payment on ICS-alone by 50% would increase its market share to 50%, whilst completely removing the co-payment would only have a small marginal impact on market share, but increased average cost of treatment to the government to AU$41.04 per person. CONCLUSIONS:Patient-directed financial incentives are unlikely to encourage much switching of medicines, and current levels of under-treatment are not explained by patient preferences. Interventions directed at prescribers are more likely to promote better use of asthma medicines.
Authors: John F P Bridges; A Brett Hauber; Deborah Marshall; Andrew Lloyd; Lisa A Prosser; Dean A Regier; F Reed Johnson; Josephine Mauskopf Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-04-22 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Shawn D Aaron; Katherine L Vandemheen; J Mark FitzGerald; Martha Ainslie; Samir Gupta; Catherine Lemière; Stephen K Field; R Andrew McIvor; Paul Hernandez; Irvin Mayers; Sunita Mulpuru; Gonzalo G Alvarez; Smita Pakhale; Ranjeeta Mallick; Louis-Philippe Boulet Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Stephen P Peters; Eugene R Bleecker; Giorgio W Canonica; Yong B Park; Ricardo Ramirez; Sally Hollis; Harald Fjallbrant; Carin Jorup; Ubaldo J Martin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anna Hynd; Elizabeth E Roughead; David B Preen; John Glover; Max Bulsara; James Semmens Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 2.890