The Financial Burden From Prescription Drugs Has Declined Recently For The Nonelderly, Although It Is Still High For Many

Pittsburgh Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.64). 02/2012; 31(2):408-16. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0469
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Prescription drug spending and pharmacy benefit design have changed greatly over the past decade. However, little is known about the financial impact these changes have had on consumers. We examined ten years of nationally representative data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and describe trends in two measures of financial burden for prescription drugs: out-of-pocket drug costs as a function of family income and the proportion of all out-of-pocket health care expenses accounted for by drugs. We found that although the percentage of people with high financial burden for prescription drugs increased from 1999 to 2003, it decreased from 2003 to 2007, with a slight increase in 2008. The decline is evidence of the success of strategies to lower drug costs for consumers, including the increased use of generic drugs. However, the financial burden is still high among some groups, notably those with public insurance and those with low incomes. For example, one in four nonelderly people devote more than half of their total out-of-pocket health care spending to prescription drugs. These trends suggest that the affordability of prescription drugs under the future insurance exchanges will need to be monitored, as will efforts by states to increase prescription drug copayments under Medicaid or otherwise restrict drug use to reduce public spending.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Fruit consumption is believed to have beneficial health effects, and some claim, "An apple a day keeps the doctor away." To examine the relationship between eating an apple a day and keeping the doctor away. A cross-sectional study of a nationally representative sample of the noninstitutionalized US adult population. A total of 8728 adults 18 years and older from the 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey completed a 24-hour dietary recall questionnaire and reported that the quantity of food they ate was reflective of their usual daily diet. Daily apple eaters (consuming the equivalent of at least 1 small apple daily, or 149 g of raw apple) vs non-apple eaters, based on the reported quantity of whole apple consumed during the 24-hour dietary recall period. The primary outcome measure was success at "keeping the doctor away," measured as no more than 1 visit (self-reported) to a physician during the past year; secondary outcomes included successful avoidance of other health care services (ie, no overnight hospital stays, visits to a mental health professional, or prescription medications). Of 8399 eligible study participants who completed the dietary recall questionnaire, we identified 753 adult apple eaters (9.0%)-those who typically consume at least 1 small apple per day. Compared with the 7646 non-apple eaters (91.0%), apple eaters had higher educational attainment, were more likely to be from a racial or ethnic minority, and were less likely to smoke (P < .001 for each comparison). Apple eaters were more likely, in the crude analysis, to keep the doctor (and prescription medications) away: 39.0% of apple eaters avoided physician visits vs 33.9% of non-apple eaters (P = .03). After adjusting for sociodemographic and health-related characteristics, however, the association was no longer statistically significant (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.93-1.53; P = .15). In the adjusted analysis, apple eaters also remained marginally more successful at avoiding prescription medications (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.00-1.63). There were no differences seen in overnight hospital stay or mental health visits. Evidence does not support that an apple a day keeps the doctor away; however, the small fraction of US adults who eat an apple a day do appear to use fewer prescription medications.
    JAMA Internal Medicine 03/2015; DOI:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.5466 · 13.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Australian health review: a publication of the Australian Hospital Association 08/2014; DOI:10.1071/AH13190 · 1.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To describe the role of social values in priority setting related to health technology assessment processes and decision-making in Australia. Approach The processes and decision criteria of the Pharmaceutical and Medical Benefits Advisory Committees are described based on literature and policy sources, and analysed using a framework for identifying social values in priority-setting. Findings Transparency and accountability of processes are apparent. Participation balances inclusiveness and effectiveness of decision-making, but presents an opportunity to enhance priority setting processes. Clinical and cost-effectiveness are important content considerations. Social values related to justice/equity are considered, without quantification of criteria weights for equity relative to other factors. HTA processes support solidarity through subsidising approved technologies for all Australians, whilst retaining autonomy by permitting non-subsidised technologies to be accessed privately, leading to possible tension between the values of solidarity, autonomy and equity. Conclusions Priority setting related to health technology subsidy incorporates a range of inter-related social values in the processes and content of decision-making. Participation in decision-making could arguably be improved if a patient and public engagement policy were to be formulated alongside more widespread changes across processes to assess social values using approaches such as the Citizens’ Jury.
    Health Policy 09/2014; 119(2). DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.09.003 · 1.73 Impact Factor


1 Download
Available from