Utilizing new prescription drugs: Disparities among non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, and Hispanic whites

University of Maryland, Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 2.49). 08/2007; 42(4):1499-519. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00682.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To examine racial and ethnic disparities in new prescription drug use.
Secondary data analyses of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (1996-2001), a national survey representative of U.S. noninstitutionalized civilian population. Drug approval dates were from the GenRx database of Mosby.
A negative binomial model was used to compare annual number of times when new drugs were obtained across racial and ethnic groups. Covariates in the model were demographic, economic characteristics, and health status. Drugs were considered new if approved within the past 5 years. We compared non-Hispanic whites with non-Hispanic blacks, and non-Hispanic whites with Hispanic whites, respectively, to examine racial and ethnic disparities separately.
Descriptive analyses found smaller racial disparities than ethnic disparities: the average annual number of times when new drugs were obtained was higher among non-Hispanic whites than non-Hispanic blacks (1.71 versus 1.36; p<.01) and Hispanic whites (1.71 versus 1.11; p<.01). Multivariate analyses found smaller ethnic than racial disparities: the number was 22-33 percent lower among non-Hispanic blacks than non-Hispanic whites (significant), and 5-16 percent lower among Hispanic whites than non-Hispanic whites (not always significant), respectively. While the absolute racial disparities decreased over the early years of the life cycles of the products, the reduction in disparities over time was not significant.
There are racial disparities in the use of new medications, which persist during the first 5 years of marketing. Socioeconomic and health characteristics account for a larger share of ethnic disparities than racial disparities.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are the standard of care for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however studies have found that many patients do not receive them. We examined predictors of starting and stopping DMARDs among a longitudinal cohort of patients with RA. Methods: Study participants came from a cohort of RA patients recruited from a random sample of rheumatologists' practices in Northern California. We examined patterns and predictors of stopping and starting non-biologic and biologic DMARDs during 1982-2009 based on annual questionnaires. Stopping was defined as stopping all DMARDs and starting was defined as transitioning from no DMARDs to any DMARDs across two consecutive years. Results: The analysis of starting DMARDs included 471 subjects with 1,974 pairs of years with no DMARD use in the first of two consecutive years. From this population, subjects started DMARD use by year two in 313 of the pairs (15.9%). The analysis of stopping DMARDs included 1,026 subjects with 7,595 pairs of years with DMARD use in the first of two consecutive years; in 423 (5.6%), subjects stopped DMARD use by year two. In models that adjusted for RA-related factors, sociodemographics and comorbidities, significant predictors of starting DMARDs included younger age, Hispanic ethnicity, shorter disease duration, and the use of oral glucocorticoids. In separate adjusted models, predictors of stopping DMARDs included Hispanic ethnicity, and low income, while younger age was associated with a reduced risk of stopping. Conclusion: Efforts to improve DMARD use should focus on patient age, ethnicity, and income, and RA-related factors. © 2014 American College of Rheumatology.
    08/2014; 66(8). DOI:10.1002/acr.22286
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: Determine whether the implementation of the Medicare Part D 2006 was associated with changes in differential racial and ethnic disparity patterns between the individuals ineligible for medication therapy management (MTM) services and MTM-eligible individuals. The urgency for modifying MTM eligibility criteria would be increased if the reduction of disparity not seen. Methods: Data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey were analyzed. A difference-in-differences analyses, difference-in-differences-in-differences-in-differences (DDDD) model, was used to examine changes in difference in disparities between the MTM-ineligible and MTM-eligible individuals from 2004-2005 to 2007-2008 in relation to the changes from 2001-2002 to 2004-2005. Disparities were examined in health outcomes, health services utilizations/costs, and medication utilization. Both main and sensitivity analyses were conducted by various regression models. Findings: The main analysis found no significant DDDD values. For racial disparities, according to some sensitivity analyses, Part D implementation was associated with a reduction in greater racial disparities among the MTM-ineligible and MTM-eligible individuals in activities of daily living (DDDD=1.13; P=0.03 for one analysis) and instrumental activities of daily living (DDDD=0.95; P=0.03 for one analysis). For ethnic disparities, Part D implementation was associated with reduction in any greater disparities among the MTM-ineligible than MTM-eligible individuals in costs of physician visits (DDDD=-4613.71; P=0.04 for one analysis) and high risk medication utilization (DDDD=-0.10; P=0.03 for one analysis). Conclusions: Part D implementation is not consistently associated with reductions in the disparity implications of the Medicare MTM eligibility criteria. The MTM eligibility criteria need to be modified in order to eliminate their disparity implications.
    142nd APHA Annual Meeting and Exposition 2014; 11/2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Retail prescription fill data have consistently shown wide variation in prescription drug utilization across states, with state-level rates ranging from 8.5 to 19.3 filled prescriptions per capita per year. Empirical explanations for this wide variation have not yet been sought. Objectives To examine which factors potentially explain the wide variation in prescription drug utilization across US states. Methods Summary data (proportions, counts, rates, etc) on sociodemographics, health, insurance, provider density, health service use, and retail prescription drug fills for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, from 2008 to 2010, were retrieved from multiple national data sources, such as the Kaiser Family Foundation’s “State Health Facts” Web Portal. Pooled cross-sectional linear, negative binomial, and ordered logit multivariable regressions were used to model states’ prescription utilization as a function of the aforementioned possible explanatory variables. Principal components analysis also was employed so as to overcome high correlations among some of the covariates. Results Among US states, higher levels of employer-sponsored insurance or Medicaid coverage were associated with both higher levels of prescription utilization and a higher likelihood of being in upper utilization quartiles. A higher density of nurse practitioners was also positively associated with both the level of utilization and the likelihood of higher utilization, whereas a higher density of active physicians was associated with opposite effects. Higher prevalence of physical activity was associated with lower utilization levels as well as a lower likelihood of high utilization. State-level prevalence of chronic conditions and poor health mattered only for the level of prescription utilization. States’ sociodemographics were not significantly associated with prescription utilization. Conclusions This study suggests that higher prescription utilization across states was associated with the variations in provider types, Medicaid and private insurance coverage, as well as the prevalence of chronic diseases. Further investigation of how each of these factors may contribute to a particular state’s prescription drug utilization level is needed.
    Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy 11/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.sapharm.2014.02.003 · 2.35 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 26, 2014