Do Drug Plans Matter? Effects of Drug Plan Eligibility on Drug Use Among the Elderly, Social Assistance Recipients and the General Population

The 1984 Canada Health Act does not require that the provinces subsidize prescription drugs. Many provinces do, however, provide categorical coverage to the elderly, social assistance recipients and others, although the generosity of coverage is highly variable. A system of parallel private insurance covers the non-elderly ineligible for social assistance. In this study, we assessed the socio- economic, health and demographic determinants of private drug insurance. We also assessed the effect of inter-provincial variations in drug insurance coverage for the elderly and low income on variations in drug insurance coverage for the elderly and low income on their drug use. In addition, using instrumental variables methods, we considered the effect of prescription drug insurance coverage status on drug use in the non-elderly population ineligible for social assistance. Consistent with the previous literature, we find that for most seniors and non-indigent, drug coverage has only minor effects on drug use. The drug use of social assistance recipients was, however, sensitive to even relatively modest copayments of $0-$6.prescription drug utilization, copayments, user fees, pharmaceutical cost control

National Catastrophic Drug Insurance Revisited: Who Would Benefit from Senator Kirby's Recommendations?

The recent "Romanow" and "Kirby" inquiries into the Canadian health care system recommended a publicly funded catastrophic prescription drug insurance program to protect Canadians from potentially ruinous drug costs. While the Romanow commission was not specific about the nature of such a program, the Kirby commission recommended that household prescription drug expenses be capped at 3% of total household income, or $1,500 per household member, whichever is lower, with government picking up the remainder. Using recent survey data on household spending, we estimate how the program would assist households of different means and ages, residing in different regions of the country. We find that, despite the fact that senior and low income non-senior households are the primary beneficiaries of provincial government drug plans, average subsidies would be over 4 times higher for these households than for all other (non-senior, non-indigent) households. A small percentage of other households would be among the largest beneficiaries of the program. Program benefits are typically larger in provinces with less generous public coverage and tend to benefit lower income households. Program costs are estimated to be at least$461 million annually, although reductions in out of pocket drug spending will reduce medical tax credits and thereby increase tax revenues by at least $80 million. Program costs appeared to be very sensitive to increased household drug spending that might result from the program introduction.drug insurance; prescription drug expenses

National Catastrophic Drug Insurance Revisited: Who Would Benefit from Senator Kirby's Recommendations?

The recent "Romanow" and "Kirby" inquiries into the Canadian health care system recommended a publicly funded catastrophic prescription drug insurance program to protect Canadians from potentially ruinous drug costs. While the Romanow commission was not specific about the nature of such a program, the Kirby commission recommended that household prescription drug expenses be capped at 3% of total household income, or $1,500 per household member, whichever is lower, with government picking up the remainder. Using recent survey data on household spending, we estimate how the program would assist households of different means and ages, residing in different regions of the country. We find that, despite the fact that senior and low income non-senior households are the primary beneficiaries of provincial government drug plans, average subsidies would be over 4 times higher for these households than for all other (non-senior, non-indigent) households. A small percentage of other households would be among the largest beneficiaries of the program. Program benefits are typically larger in provinces with less generous public coverage and tend to benefit lower income households. Program costs are estimated to be at least$461 million annually, although reductions in out of pocket drug spending will reduce medical tax credits and thereby increase tax revenues by at least $80 million. Program costs appeared to be very sensitive to increased household drug spending that might result from the program introduction.drug insurance; prescription drug expenses

The Impact of Differential Cost Sharing of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Agents on the Use and Costs of Analgesic Drugs

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of differential cost sharing (DCS) schemes for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on drug subsidy program and beneficiary expenditures. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Monthly aggregate claims data from Pharmacare, the public drug subsidy program for seniors in British Columbia, Canada over the period 1989-11 to 2001-06. STUDY DESIGN: DCS limits insurance reimbursement of a group of therapeutically similar drugs to the cost of the lowest priced drugs, with beneficiaries responsible for costs above the reimbursement limit. Pharmacare introduced two different forms of DCS, generic substitution (GS) and reference pricing (RP), in April 1994 and November 1995, respectively, to the NSAIDs. Under GS, generic and brand versions of the same NSAID are considered interchangeable, whereas under RP different NSAIDs are. We extrapolated average reimbursement per day of NSAID therapy over the months before GS and RP to estimate what expenditures would have been without the policies. These counterfactual predictions were compared to actual values to estimate the impact of the policies; the estimated impacts on reimbursement rates were multiplied by the post-policy volume of NSAIDS dispensed, which appeared unaffected by the policies, to estimate expenditure changes. DATA COLLECTION: The cleaned NSAID claims data, obtained from Pharmacare’s databases, were aggregated by month and by their reimbursement status under the GS and RP policies. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: After RP, program expenditures declined by $22.7 million, or$4 million annually, cutting expenditure by half. Most savings accrued from the substitution of low cost NSAIDs for more costly alternatives. About 20% of savings represented expenditures by seniors who elected to pay for partially-reimbursed drugs. GS produced one quarter the savings of RP. CONCLUSIONS: RP of NSAIDs achieved its goal of reducing drug expenditures and was more effective than GS. The effects of RP on patient health and associated health care costs remain to be investigated.Reference pricing; generic substitution; prescription drugs; drug cost containment; NSAIDs.

The Impact of Reference Pricing of Cardiovascular Drugs on Health Care Costs and Health Outcomes: Evidence from British Columbia -- Volume I: Summary

Objective: We estimate the effects of Reference Pricing, a drug cost control policy introduced by the BC Ministry of Health Pharmacare program in 1995, on its program expenditures for seniors, out of pocket costs paid by its senior beneficiaries, indicators of beneficiary health status and attendant Ministry of Health expenditures on physicians and hospitals services. Rationale: Reference pricing (RP) limits the reimbursement of a group of drugs with similar therapeutic effect but different active ingredients to a fixed "reference price". The setting of the reference price varies by jurisdiction but typically is based on an average of the lowest cost "reference standard" drugs within the group. Critics of RP contend that the partially subsidized and fully subsidized (reference standard) drugs are not therapeutically interchangeable, and therefore patient health will be compromised and use of other non-pharmacologic health services may increase as a result, thus partially or wholly offsetting any potential cost savings from the policy. Findings: The application of RP to 3 groups of cardiac drugs produced annualized savings to Pharmacare of about $7.7 million, or 3.6$213.7 million that Pharmacare spent on drugs for seniors (not including dispensing fees) in 1997. The additional costs for physician consultations were modest, around $500,000 in the subsample of seniors we studied, from the introduction of the RP plans to March 1998, although the costs could be greater, perhaps up to twice this amount, if we accounted for all seniors exposed to the RP over the same period. We found no effects of RP on mortality, or premature admission to a longterm care facility. Seniors using the nitrate drugs for angina that were no longer fully subsidized when RP was introduced faced a higher probability in the short run of using medicines to deal with acute exacerbations of angina and in the longer run having bypass surgery or other revascularization procedures. No long run effects of morbidity were observed for the application of RP to two different types of anti-hypertensive medications, although there was a short run increase in the rate of revascularizations among those taking 1 type of anti-hypertensive: the ACE inhibitors. The results of these morbidity models should be seen as tentative, until these results can be replicated using alternative estimation strategies. Conclusions: The introduction of RP can indeed reduce Ministry of Health drug expenditures. The effects of RP on patient morbidity remain to be fully investigated before definitive policy recommendations can be offered.reference pricing,prescription drugs,ACE inhibitors,calcium channel blockers,nitrates,pharmaceutical cost control,seniors,user fees

The Impact of Reference Pricing of Cardiovascular Drugs on Health Care Costs and Health Outcomes: Evidence from British Columbia -- Volume II: Technical Report

(see QSEP 369 for abstract)reference pricing,prescription drugs,ACE inhibitors,calcium channel blockers,nitrates,pharmaceutical cost control,seniors,user fees

The Impact of Reference Pricing of Cardiovascular Drugs on Health Care Costs and Health Outcomes: Evidence from British Columbia--Volume I: Summary

Objective: We estimate the effects of Reference Pricing, a drug cost control policy introduced by the BC Ministry of Health Pharmacare program in 1995, on its program expenditures for seniors, out of pocket costs paid by its senior beneficiaries, indicators of beneficiary health status and attendant Ministry of Health expenditures on physicians and hospitals services. Rationale: Reference pricing (RP) limits the reimbursement of a group of drugs with similar therapeutic effect but different active ingredients to a fixed "reference price". The setting of the reference price varies by jurisdiction but typically is based on an average of the lowest cost "reference standard" drugs within the group. Critics of RP contend that the partially subsidized and fully subsidized (reference standard) drugs are not therapeutically interchangeable, and therefore patient health will be compromised and use of other non-pharmacologic health services may increase as a result, thus partially or wholly offsetting any potential cost savings from the policy. Findings: The application of RP to 3 groups of cardiac drugs produced annualized savings to Pharmacare of about $7.7 million, or 3.6$213.7 million that Pharmacare spent on drugs for seniors (not including dispensing fees) in 1997. The additional costs for physician consultations were modest, around $500,000 in the subsample of seniors we studied, from the introduction of the RP plans to March 1998, although the costs could be greater, perhaps up to twice this amount, if we accounted for all seniors exposed to the RP over the same period. We found no effects of RP on mortality, or premature admission to a longterm care facility. Seniors using the nitrate drugs for angina that were no longer fully subsidized when RP was introduced faced a higher probability in the short run of using medicines to deal with acute exacerbations of angina and in the longer run having bypass surgery or other revascularization procedures. No long run effects of morbidity were observed for the application of RP to two different types of anti-hypertensive medications, although there was a short run increase in the rate of revascularizations among those taking 1 type of anti-hypertensive: the ACE inhibitors. The results of these morbidity models should be seen as tentative, until these results can be replicated using alternative estimation strategies. Conclusions: The introduction of RP can indeed reduce Ministry of Health drug expenditures. The effects of RP on patient morbidity remain to be fully investigated before definitive policy recommendations can be offered.reference pricing,prescription drugs,ACE inhibitors,calcium channel blockers,nitrates,pharmaceutical cost control,seniors,user fees

The Impact of Reference Pricing of Cardiovascular Drugs on Health Care Costs and Health Outcomes: Evidence from British Columbia--Volume II: Technical Report

(see SEDAP 70 for abstract)reference pricing,prescription drugs,ACE inhibitors,calcium channel blockers,nitrates,pharmaceutical cost control,seniors,user fees