Drug prices, out-of-pocket payments, and insurer costs: How do payers vary?

College of Staten Island, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA.
Advances in health economics and health services research 03/2010; 22:221-31. DOI: 10.1108/S0731-2199(2010)0000022013
Source: PubMed


To examine how drug prices for specific diseases vary across payers in the United States and how insurer and patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs vary by payer type.
This study uses data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) from 1996 to 2006. We estimate multivariate price regressions for four major drug product classes (antihypertensive, antidepressant, antiasthma drugs, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)). Separate models are estimated for brand and generic drugs within each of these drug product classes. In addition to estimating overall transaction price equations for brands and generics, the study estimates patient OOP payments and insurer payments for drugs.
We find relatively modest differences among payers in terms of total prices (e.g., insurer plus OOP). The main difference is in terms of how prices were shared between insurers and patients. Medicaid paid significantly more than other payers for each drug class, while Medicaid beneficiaries paid significantly less. RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS: Our results shed light on how drug prices vary by different payers and how drug prices are shared by third party payers and patients. The relatively modest differences in total drug prices across payer type suggest that these payers do not differ greatly in terms of their ability to negotiate price concessions from their suppliers. Instead, larger differences emerge in terms of how total costs are shared among the payer and their patients. Understanding the reasons for these variations, and their implications for health outcomes, are important directions for further research.

1 Follower
9 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Communicating potential benefits and harm to patients and payers is essential for high-quality care. However, there are no published guidelines or consensuses on how to communicate potential benefits and harm to patients and payers. The goal of this review was to identify key elements for communication between clinicians, patients, and payers to achieve maximal benefits and minimal risk. Literature published from January 1980 to July 2011 and cited on MEDLINE was searched using the terms communication, benefit, harm, effectiveness, cost, cost-effectiveness, psychiatry, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and major depressive disorder. Elements related to communicating benefits and/or harm to patients and payers were identified, with only key elements discussed in detail here. Evidence-based medicine, number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) or harm (NNTH), and the likelihood of being helped or harmed (LHH) have been advocated as the basis for communication in all specialties of medicine. Phase-dependent communication of benefits and harm is novel, especially in patients with different phases of illness, such as bipolar disorder. Duration-dependent (short-term versus long-term) communication is essential for all psychiatric disorders to reduce the burden of relapse and adverse events with long-term treatment. For drugs with multiple therapeutic indications, a disease-dependent approach is crucial to maximize benefits and minimize harm. The exclusion of comorbid psychiatric disorders in pivotal efficacy trials affects their generalizability. Communicating cost (direct versus indirect) is an essential component in reducing health care expenditures. The results of available cost-effectiveness analyses of psychiatric pharmacotherapy have been inconsistent and/or contradictory. Evidence-based communication of potential benefits and harm to patients and payers, using NNTB, NNTH, and LHH, should be the key principle that guides decision making. Phase-, duration-, and disease-dependent communication and evidence-based cost-saving principles can maximize benefit and reduce harm.
    Clinical Therapeutics 12/2011; 33(12):B62-76. DOI:10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.11.013 · 2.73 Impact Factor