Cost and Utilization Impacts of Oral Antihistamines in the California Medi-Cal Program

AbstractObjectivesNewer oral allergic rhinitis (AR) medications, the second-generation antihistamines (SGAs) have gained widespread acceptance because of their efficacy and reduced side effects relative to first-generation antihistamines (FGAs). There are no empirical studies comparing the costs of treatment of SGAs relative to FGAs.MethodsWe analyzed data from a 20% beneficiary sample (approximately 120,000 continuously enrolled beneficiaries per year) for the Medi-Cal Fee-for-Service program during 1999 to 2000. AR medications available under Medi-Cal included three SGA medications (loratadine, fexofenadine, and cetirizine) and over 200 FGA products containing either diphenhydramine or chlorpheniramine or both. Because multiple medications were evaluated, a sample selection model was estimated using a two-stage multinomial logistic—variance components regression framework.ResultsSGA medications have significantly lower total direct health-care treatment costs per patient than FGA medications with costs ranging from $347 to$448 less (P < 0.001), despite higher AR medication costs. Total drug expenditures were also not significantly different for patients using SGA or FGA medications despite SGA prescriptions averaging $47 higher than FGAs. Emergency department visits, inpatient admissions and physician office visits were also significantly lower for patients using SGA medications.ConclusionsSignificant cost and utilization reductions were associated with all of the SGA medications relative to FGA drugs, despite their higher acquisition costs. If facing higher copayments for prescription AR drugs, many patients, particularly lower income patients, may choose cheaper over-the-counter (OTC) FGAs rather than SGAs. Our analysis finds this might lead to increased overall health-care treatment costs, unless Medicaid and health insurance plans subsidize OTC AR medications

Characterizing the Validity and Real-World Utility of Health Technology Assessments in Healthcare: Future Directions; Comment on “Problems and Promises of Health Technologies: The Role of Early Health Economic Modelling”

With their article, Grutters et al raise an important question: What do successful health technology assessments (HTAs) look like, and what is their real-world utility in decision-making? While many HTAs are published in peer-reviewed journals, many are considered proprietary and their attributes remain confidential, limiting researchers’ ability to answer these questions. Models for economic evaluations like cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) synthesize a wide range of evidence, are often statistically and mathematically sophisticated, and require untestable assumptions. As such, there is nearly universal agreement among researchers that enhancing transparency is an important issue in health economic modeling. However, the definition of transparency and guidelines for its implementation vary. Model registration combined with a linked database of model-based economic evaluations has been proposed as a solution, whereby registered models and their accompanying technical and nontechnical documentation are sourced into a single publicly-available repository, ideally in a standardized format to ensure consistent and complete representation of features, code, data sources, results, validation exercises, and policy recommendations. When such a repository is ultimately created, modelers will not have to reinvent the wheel for every new drug launched or new treatment pathway. These more open and transparent approaches will have substantial implications for model accuracy, reliability, and validity, improving trust and acceptance by healthcare decision-makers

802-6 The Cost-Effectiveness of Pravastatin in Secondary Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease

To determine the cost-effectiveness of pravastatin therapy in patients with coronary heart disease, a projected risk model was developed that used the results of the three-year, double blind, placebo controlled clinical trials: Pravastatin Limitation ofAtherosclerosis in the Coronary Arteries (PLAC I) and Pravastatin, Upids and Atherosclerosis in the Carotid Arteries (PLAC II). In addition to measuring atherosclerotic progression, the PLAC studies evaluated four outcome variables: coronary heart disease death, non-coronary heart disease death, fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal myocardial infarction in a patient population (mean age 60 years) with established coronary heart disease and moderate low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol levels, Pooled PLAC data analysis (n=559) revealed a statistically significant (p&lt;0.05) difference in male non-fatal myocardial infarctions between the pravastatin and placebo groups. The projected risk model utilized Framingham data to project the risk of mortality 10 years post myocardial infarction. Markov Process was used to estimate the life-years saved and cost. All costs and benefits were discounted by 5%, Results are presented in the table below:Patient Risk ProfileCost per Life-Year SavedMale with CHD + 1Additional Risk Factor$19,082Male with CHD + 2 Additional Risk Factors$14,022Male with CHD + 3 Additional Risk Factors$10,630Based on this model, pravastatin monotherapy in secondary prevention of coronary heart disease has a cost-effectiveness ratio comparable to some of the widely accepted medical interventions such as breast cancer screening,$21,700, hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of hypertension, $16,400, and pneumococcal vaccine,$12,000

Good Research Practices for Measuring Drug Costs in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Managed Care Perspective: The ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force Report—Part III

AbstractObjectivesThe objective of this report is to provide guidance and recommendations on how drug costs should be measured for cost-effectiveness analyses conducted from the perspective of a managed care organization (MCO).MethodsThe International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Task Force on Good Research Practices—Use of Drug Costs for Cost Effectiveness Analysis (DCTF) was appointed by the ISPOR Board of Directors. Members were experienced developers or users of CEA models. The DCTF met to develop core assumptions and an outline before preparing a draft report. They solicited comments on drafts from external reviewers and from the ISPOR membership at ISPOR meetings and via the ISPOR Web site.ResultsThe cost of a drug to an MCO equals the amount it pays to the dispenser for the drug's ingredient cost and dispensing fee minus the patient copay and any rebates paid by the drug's manufacturer. The amount that an MCO reimburses for each of these components can differ substantially across a number of factors that include type of drug (single vs. multisource), dispensing site (retail vs. mail order), and site of administration (self-administered vs. physician's office). Accurately estimating the value of cost components is difficult because they are determined by proprietary and confidential contracts.ConclusionEstimates of drug cost from the MCO perspective should include amounts paid for medication ingredients and dispensing fees, and net out copays, rebates, and other drug price reductions. Because of the evolving nature of drug pricing, ISPOR should publish a Web site where current DCTF costing recommendations are updated as new information becomes available

Is peace a missing value or a zero? On selection models in political science

Sample selection models, variants of which are the Heckman and Heckit models, are increasingly used by political scientists to accommodate data in which censoring of the dependent variable raises concerns of sample selectivity bias. Beyond demonstrating several pitfalls in the calculation of marginal effects and associated levels of statistical significance derived from these models, we argue that many of the empirical questions addressed by political scientists would – for both substantive and statistical reasons – be more appropriately addressed using an alternative but closely related procedure referred to as the two-part model (2 PM). Aside from being simple to estimate, one key advantage of the 2 PM is its less onerous identification requirements. Specifically, the model does not require the specification of so-called exclusion restrictions, variables that are included in the selection equation of the Heckit model but omitted from the outcome equation. Moreover, we argue that the interpretation of the marginal effects from the 2 PM, which are in terms of actual outcomes, are more appropriate for the questions typically addressed by political scientists than the potential outcomes ascribed to the Heckit results. Drawing on data from the Correlates of War database, we present an empirical analysis of conflict intensity illustrating that the choice between the sample selection model and 2 PM can bear fundamentally on the conclusions drawn.Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich. - This publication is with permission of the rights owner freely accessible due to an Alliance licence and a national licence (funded by the DFG, German Research Foundation) respectively

Good Research Practices for Measuring Drug Costs in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: Medicare, Medicaid and Other US Government Payers Perspectives: The ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force Report—Part IV

Objectives Public programs finance a large share of the US pharmaceutical expenditures. To date, there are not guidelines for estimating the cost of drugs financed by US public programs. The objective of this study was to provide standards for estimating the cost of drugs financed by US public programs for utilization in pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Methods This report was prepared by the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—Use of Drug Costs for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Medicare, Medicaid, and other US Government Payers Subgroup. The Subgroup was convened to assess the methodological and practical issues confronted by researchers when estimating the cost of drugs financed by US public programs, and to propose standards for more transparent, accurate and consistent costing methods. Results The Subgroup proposed these recommendations: 1) researchers must consider regulation requirements that affect the drug cost paid by public programs; 2) drug cost must represent the actual acquisition cost, incorporating any rebates or discounts; 3) transparency with respect to cost inputs must be ensured; 4) inclusion of the public program\u27s perspective is recommended; 5) high cost drugs require special attention, particularly when drugs represent a significant proportion of health-care expenditures for a specific disease; and 6) because of variations across public programs, sensitivity analyses for actual acquisition cost, real-world adherence, and generics availability are warranted. Specific recommendations also were proposed for the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Conclusions As pharmacoeconomic evaluations for coverage decisions made by US public programs grows, the need for precise and consistent estimation of drug costs is warranted. Application of the proposed recommendations will allow researchers to include accurate and unbiased cost estimates in pharmacoeconomic evaluations

Spatially Explicit Data: Stewardship and Ethical Challenges in Science

Scholarly communication is at an unprecedented turning point created in part by the increasing saliency of data stewardship and data sharing. Formal data management plans represent a new emphasis in research, enabling access to data at higher volumes and more quickly, and the potential for replication and augmentation of existing research. Data sharing has recently transformed the practice, scope, content, and applicability of research in several disciplines, in particular in relation to spatially specific data. This lends exciting potentiality, but the most effective ways in which to implement such changes, particularly for disciplines involving human subjects and other sensitive information, demand consideration. Data management plans, stewardship, and sharing, impart distinctive technical, sociological, and ethical challenges that remain to be adequately identified and remedied. Here, we consider these and propose potential solutions for their amelioration

Tracking the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant in the United Kingdom

No abstract available