Utilization and drug cost outcomes of a step-therapy edit for generic antidepressants in an HMO in an integrated health system.

SelectHealth, 4646 West Lake Park Blvd., Suite N3, Salt Lake City, Utah 84120, USA.
Journal of managed care pharmacy: JMCP (Impact Factor: 2.71). 06/2006; 12(4):294-302.
Source: PubMed


Antidepressants do not differ significantly in their ability to treat depression. Excluding the tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), these drugs also do not differ significantly in their incidence of adverse events. Therefore, the initial choice of antidepressant medication should be based, in part, on cost. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact on utilization and costs of a generic steptherapy edit for antidepressant drugs excluding TCAs in a health maintenance organization (HMO) in an integrated health system (IHS).
The pharmacy department of the 440,000-member HMO in an IHS collaborated with the Behavioral Health Clinical Program to design an intervention that required generic antidepressants as first-line pharmacotherapy. Under the GenericStart! Program, a brand-name antidepressant was covered only after trial with a generic antidepressant, excluding TCAs. A step-therapy edit was added to the pharmacy claims processing system on January 1, 2005. All new starts, defined as members with no claims history of antidepressant treatment within the preceding 6 months, were required to use a generic antidepressant. The member copayment was waived for the first prescription. All generic antidepressants were in tier 1 of the drug formulary, with an average copayment of $5 to $10. All brand-name antidepressants were in either tier 2 (preferred brand), with an average copayment of $20 to $25 or 25% coinsurance, or tier 3 (nonformulary brand), with an average copayment of $40 to $45 or 50% coinsurance. Pharmacy claims data from a national pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) without interventions for antidepressants in 2004 or 2005 were used for the comparison group.
The generic antidepressant dispensing rate increased by 20 points (32.5% to 52.5%) in the intervention group but only 7.4 points (24.9% to 32.3%) in the comparison group in 2005 compared with 2004. The principal measure of antidepressant drug cost per day of therapy in the intervention group decreased by 11.7% (from $2.40 to $2.12) in 2005 compared with 2004 versus a 2.7% decrease (from $2.60 to $2.53) in the comparison group (P <0.001). Days of antidepressant drug therapy per member per month (PMPM) dropped by 1.5% (from 1.74 to 1.71) in the intervention group versus a decrease of 5.0% (from 1.37 to 1.30) in the comparison group in 2005 compared with 2004. The combination of change in drug cost and utilization resulted in a 13.0% decrease in antidepressant drug cost, from $4.16 PMPM in 2004 to $3.62 in 2005, compared with a 7.6% decrease (from $3.57 to $3.30 PMPM) in the comparison group. The 9.0% difference in drug cost per day represents drug cost savings of approximately $0.36 PMPM or $1,880,562 in 2005 dollars for this HMO of approximately 440,000 members.
A step-therapy edit requiring HMO members to use a generic antidepressant, excluding tricyclics, prior to use of a brand-name antidepressant resulted in drug cost savings of 9.0% for the entire class of antidepressants, equal to $1,880,562 ($0.36 PMPM) in 2005 dollars in the first year of the intervention. A small (-1.5%) decrease in use of antidepressants occurred in the intervention group, which was less than the 5.0% decrease in utilization of antidepressants in the comparison group.

21 Reads
  • Source
    • "Studies of step therapy have reported mixed results in terms of step therapy’s ability to control drug and total medical expenditures. In fact, several of these studies have reported that the initial cost savings of implementing step therapy programs diminished over time [10-13], resulting in a negative impact on medical utilization and associated costs [10,11,13]. Moreover, a recent commissioned report by the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP), a professional association of pharmacists and other health care practitioners who practice pharmaceutical care in managed health care environments[14], concluded that there is a paucity of research examining the effects of step therapy on clinical and humanistic outcomes [15]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 1st generation 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists (5-HT3 RAs), and palonosetron, a 2nd generation 5-HT3 RA, are indicated for the prevention of chemotherapy (CT)-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with moderately (MEC) and highly emetogenic CT agents (HEC). This study explores the impact of step therapy policies requiring use of an older 5-HT3 RA before palonosetron on risk of CINV associated with hospital or emergency department (ED) admissions. Patients who received cyclophosphamide post breast cancer (BC) surgery or who were diagnosed with lung cancer on carboplatin (LC-carboplatin) or cisplatin (LC-cisplatin) were selected from PharMetrics' (IMS LifeLink) claims dataset (2005-2008). Patients were followed for 6 months from initial CT administration for CINV events identified through ICD-9-CM codes. Patients were grouped into those initiated with older, generic 5-HT3 RAs (ondansetron, granisetron, and dolasetron) and those initiated and maintained on palonosetron throughout study follow-up. CINV events and CINV days were analyzed using multivariate regressions controlling for demographic and clinical variables. Eligible patients numbered 3,606 in BC, 4,497 in LC-carboplatin and 1,154 in LC-cisplatin cohorts, with 52%, 40%, and 34% in the palonosetron group, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two 5-HT3 RA groups in age or Charlson Comorbidity Index among the two MEC cohorts (BC and LC-carboplatin). Among the LC-cisplatin cohort, palonosetron users were older with more males than the older 5-HT3 RA group (age: 60.1 vs. 61.3; males, 66.9% vs. 56.9%). Compared to the older 5-HT3 RAs, the palonosetron groups incurred 22%-51% fewer 5-HT3 RA pharmacy claims, had fewer patients with CINV events (3.5% vs. 5.5% in BC, 9.5% vs. 12.8% in LC-carboplatin, 16.4% vs. 21.7% in LC-cisplatin), and had lower risk for CINV events (odds ratios 0.62, 0.71, or 0.71, respectively; p < 0.05). The BC and LC-carboplatin palonosetron groups experienced 50% and 30% fewer CINV days than the generic 5-HT3 RA group (p < 0.05). Patients with breast or lung cancer initiated and maintained on palonosetron were at significantly lower risk for potentially costly CINV versus those on older 5-HT3 RAs. Further studies on impact of step therapy policy are warranted in order to minimize the clinical and economic burden of CINV.
    BMC Health Services Research 07/2012; 12:215. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-12-215 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "These findings of substantial differences in pretreatment case mixes and costs between patients initiating treatment with either of the two SNRIs in actual practice patterns appear to be at odds with what might be expected based on their efficacy with each other and with the SSRIs, as reported in clinical trials and comparative effectiveness meta-analyses [13,14]. We suspect that a reason for this apparent discrepancy of trial data from real-world use is the emerging clinical practice pattern of successive step therapy [22,23], as most prominently illustrated in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR-D) effectiveness trial [9]. The STAR-D studies mimic real-world care by initiating treatment with SSRI in all patients, then offering nonremitting patients recommended second-step and third-step treatments. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Duloxetine and venlafaxine extended release (venlafaxine XR) are SNRIs indicated for the treatment of MDD. This study addresses whether duloxetine and venlafaxine XR are interchangeable in their patterns of use with patients who are depressed or are used more selectively based on treatment history, background characteristics, and presenting symptoms. This was a retrospective analysis of an administrative insurance claims database. We studied patients in managed care with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with duloxetine or venlafaxine XR. Predictors of treatment and cost were assessed using Chi-square and logistic regression analyses of demographics and past-year medication use and comorbidities. Patients with MDD treated with duloxetine (n = 9,641) versus venlafaxine XR (n = 8,514) tended to be older, slightly more likely to be female, and treated by a psychiatrist (P < 0.0001). In the prior year, more duloxetine patients (vs. venlafaxine XR) received ≥ 3 unique antidepressants (20.8% vs. 16.6%), ≥ 3 unique pain medications (25.5% vs. 15.6%), and had ≥ 8 unique diagnosed comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions (38.6% vs. 29.1%). The prior 6-month total health care costs were $1,731 higher for duloxetine than for venlafaxine XR and declined for both medications in the 6 months after treatment began. Logistic regression analysis revealed that 61% of duloxetine patients and 61% of venlafaxine XR patients were predictable from prior patient and treatment factors. Patients with MDD treated with duloxetine tended to have a more complex and costly antecedent clinical presentation compared with venlafaxine XR patients, suggesting that physicians do not use the medications interchangeably.
    BMC Psychiatry 01/2011; 11(1):19. DOI:10.1186/1471-244X-11-19 · 2.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Step therapy for angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) requiring prior use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) is a common cost-containment intervention in managed care. This study was designed to assess the effectiveness of the step-therapy intervention for ARBs, including ARB/hydrochlorthiazide (HCTZ) combinations, as measured by prescription use patterns and antihypertensive drug ingredient costs. Rejected and paid pharmacy claims data were evaluated from 3 health plans with a total membership of approximately 1 million. These plans had implemented a step-therapy intervention for ARBs from May 1, 2001, through February 28, 2003. Patients in the intervention group who had experienced a claim rejection for an ARB within the first 6 months of program implementation (i.e., had had no ACEI [or ACEI/HCTZ combination] or ARB [or ARB/HCTZ] claim in the preceding 3 months) were followed for 1 year after the ARB claim rejection. The rate of initiation of ARB versus ACEI and other outcomes was compared with similar data from a health plan with approximately 2 million members that did not have a step-therapy intervention for ARBs (comparison group). Mean and median total antihypertensive drug ingredient costs per patient and per day of therapy over 12 months were analyzed for the intervention and comparison groups. One pharmacy benefit manager administered the pharmacy benefits for the intervention and comparison health plans during the entire study period from May 1, 2001, through February 28, 2004, and the drug formulary was similar for all health plans. In the step-therapy health plans, before the criterion for 15 months of continuous eligibility was applied, there were 8,904 patients (approximately 0.9% of health plan members) who either attempted and were rejected for an ARB or who newly started ACEI therapy, compared with 44,788 patients (approximately 2.2% of members in the comparison health plan) who newly started ARB or ACEI therapy without the step-therapy intervention. After the eligibility criterion was applied, there were 6,758 intervention health plan members (0.7% of members) and 33,709 comparison health plan members (1.7% of members) in the 2 study groups. In addition to the smaller proportion of total members affected by the intervention in the ARB step-therapy health plans, a smaller proportion of ARB/ACEI patients attempted to obtain an ARB (1,296/6,758 or 19.2%) compared with the health plan without step therapy (8,697/33,709 or 25.8%, P <0.001). Of the 1,296 patients who attempted to obtain an ARB and were rejected in the step-therapy group, 578 patients (44.6%) went through the prior-authorization process and received an ARB as initial therapy, 632 patients (48.8%) received other antihypertensive therapy, and 86 patients (6.6%) did not receive any antihypertensive therapy within the 12-month follow-up period. In the 12 months of follow-up, 51.1% (323/632) of patients in the intervention group who received other antihypertensives as index therapy switched to or added an ARB, and 1,234 of total ACE/ARB patients (n = 6,758, 18.3%) received ARB therapy in the health plan with step therapy compared with 10,498 of 33,709 total ACEI/ARB patients (31.1%) who received ARB therapy in the health plan without step therapy. The mean antihypertensive drug cost per patient was lower in the intervention group ($370.00) than in the comparison group ($445.12; P <0.001), and the average cost per day of antihypertensive drug therapy was 12.8% lower in the step-therapy group ($0.82) than in the comparison group ($0.94). Unadjusted annual cost savings were $75.12 per patient, and ordinary least squares regression analysis showed that the ARB step-therapy intervention was associated with $43.91 in antihypertensive drug cost savings per patient over 12 months. Within 12 months of follow-up, a step-therapy intervention for ARBs was associated with an 18% ratio of ARB users to total ACEI/ARB users compared with a 31% ratio in a comparison health plan without the ARB step-therapy intervention. Approximately 45% of patients who did not receive an ARB as a result of the step-therapy intervention had either switched to or added an ARB within 12 months of the intervention, and almost 7% of patients did not receive any antihypertensive therapy. Antihypertensive drug cost was about 13% lower for the ACEI/ARB patients in the intervention group, creating approximately $368,000 in savings in 1 year or $0.03 per member per month across the 1 million health plan members.
    Journal of managed care pharmacy: JMCP 04/2007; 13(3):235-44. · 2.71 Impact Factor
Show more


21 Reads
Available from