Article

Use of generic cardiovascular medications by elderly Medicare beneficiaries receiving generalist or cardiologist care.

Division of General Internal Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York 10029, USA.
Medical Care (Impact Factor: 2.94). 03/2007; 45(2):109-15. DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000250293.24939.2e
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Elderly Medicare beneficiaries can reduce out-of-pocket spending and increase their options for low-cost Medicare Part D plans by using generic drugs. Physicians play a key role in determining use of generics and specialty may be a particularly influential factor.
We sought to compare generic cardiovascular drug use by older adults receiving cardiologist and generalist care.
We undertook a cross-sectional analysis of data from the nationally representative Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. Included were community-dwelling adults 66 years of age or older with hypertension, coronary disease, or congestive heart failure, one or more Medicare Part B claims for outpatient visits with generalists (internist or family practitioner) or cardiologists, using one or more cardiovascular drug available in both brand-name and generic formulations (n = 1828).
The primary outcome was use of one or more generic medication aggregated across 5 drug classes: beta-blockers, thiazides, calcium channel blockers (CCB), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and alpha1-adrenergic receptor antagonists. Within-class generic use also was examined. The main independent variable was cardiologist (20.7%) versus generalist-only care (79.3%).
In the aggregate, fewer individuals under cardiologist care used generics compared with generalist-only care (75% vs. 81%, P = 0.03; adjusted relative risk 0.89, 95% confidence interval = 0.79-0.99). Overall use of generic beta-blockers was 86.6%; thiazides, 92.0%; ACE inhibitors, 59.0%; CCB, 55.5%; alpha-blockers 47.7%. In adjusted analysis, generic CCB use occurred 34% less often among cardiologist versus generalist-only patients.
Older patients of generalists and, to a greater extent, cardiologists, often use brand-name drugs when generic equivalents are available. Promoting generic prescribing among specialists and generalists may increase opportunities for patients and third-party payers to reduce spending on prescription drugs.

0 Followers
 · 
62 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: This review was conducted to document published literature related to physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of generic medicines in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and to compare the findings with high-income countries. Methods: A systematic search of articles published in peer-reviewed journals from January 2001 to February 2013 was performed. The search comprised nine electronic databases. The search strategy involved using Boolean operators for combinations of the following terms: generic medicines, generic medications, generic drugs, generic, generic substitution, generic prescribing, international non-proprietary, prescribers, doctors, general practitioners, physicians, and specialists. Results: Sixteen articles were included in this review. The majority (n = 11) were from high income countries and five from LMICs. The main difference between high income countries and LMICs is that physicians from high income countries generally have positive views whereas those from LMICs tend to have mixed views regarding generic medicines. Few similarities were identified among different country income groups namely low level of physicians' knowledge of the basis of bioequivalence testing, cost of generic medicines as an encouraging factor for generic medicine prescribing, physicians' concerns towards safety and quality of generic medicines and effect of pharmaceutical sales representative on generic medicine prescribing. Conclusion: The present literature review revealed that physicians from LMICs tend to have mixed views regarding generic medicines. This may be due to differences in the health care system and pharmaceutical funding system, medicine policies, the level of educational interventions, and drug information sources in countries of different income levels.
    Health Policy 08/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.07.014 · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Acceptance of generic medicines by patients is an essential factor given that they are the end users of these medicines. In fact, adequate knowledge and positive perceptions are prerequisite to patients' acceptance and use of generic medicines. To assess the current belief and views of patients about generic medicines in Malaysia. This was a self-administered questionnaire-based study. The study was conducted with patients visiting outpatient pharmacy department at a tertiary care hospital in Malaysia. The Malaysian version of Generic Medicines Scale (GMS) was used. The GMS consists of two subscales: efficacy and similarity of generic medicines to original brand medicines. The efficacy subscale consists of 10 items while the similarity subscale consists of 6 items. The responses to the items were framed as a five-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). A total of 202 out of 300 patients participated in the study, giving a response rate of 67.3%. In this study, only 49% of them (n=99) knew the term 'generic medicine'. Moreover, only 53.5% of the respondents (n=108) believed that the efficacy of generic medicines was the same as original brand medicines. In terms of quality, only 44% of the respondents (n=89) disagreed that generic medicines were of a lower quality. About one third (n=65, 32.2%) believed that generic medicines were cheaper because they were less efficacious. In terms of side effects, 44.5% of the respondents (n=90) believed that generic medicines had the same side effect profile as original brand medicines. The study finding showed that almost half of the respondents had negative belief in generic medicines. Similarly, many patients were not aware of the similarities and differences between generic and original brand medicines. Therefore, there is a need to provide patients with adequate information about generic medicines.
    Pharmacy Practice 10/2014; 12(4):474. DOI:10.4321/S1886-36552014000400006
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Statins are effective in preventing cardiovascular events, but patients do not fully adhere to them. Objective: To determine whether patients are more adherent to generic statins versus brand-name statins (lovastatin, pravastatin, or simvastatin) and whether greater adherence improves health outcomes. Design: Observational, propensity score-matched, new-user cohort study. Setting: Linked electronic data from medical and pharmacy claims. Participants: Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with prescription drug coverage between 2006 and 2008. Intervention: Initiation of a generic or brand-name statin. Measurements: Adherence to statin therapy (measured as the proportion of days covered [PDC] up to 1 year) and a composite outcome comprising hospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome or stroke and all-cause mortality. Hazard ratios (HRs) and absolute rate differences were estimated. Results: A total of 90 111 patients who initiated a statin during the study was identified; 83 731 (93%) initiated a generic drug, and 6380 (7%) initiated a brand-name drug. The mean age of patients was 75.6 years, and most (61%) were female. The average PDC was 77% for patients in the generic group and 71% for those in the brand-name group (P < 0.001). An 8% reduction in the rate of the clinical outcome was observed among patients in the generic group versus those in the brand-name group (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.86 to 0.99]). The absolute difference was -1.53 events per 100 person-years (CI, -2.69 to -0.19 events per 100 person-years). Limitation: Results may not be generalizable to other populations with different incomes or drug benefit structures. Conclusion: Compared with those initiating brand-name statins, patients initiating generic statins were more likely to adhere and had a lower rate of a composite clinical outcome.
    Annals of internal medicine 09/2014; 161(6):400-407. DOI:10.7326/M13-2942 · 16.10 Impact Factor