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: 2.68). 06/2006; 12(4):294-302.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

  • 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. · 2.68 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 1999, Saskatchewan Health authorized pharmacists to initiate exception drug status (EDS) requests, also known as prior authorization (PA). Before 1999, only those licensed to prescribe medications were authorized to initiate EDS requests. A pharmacist who submits an EDS request must obtain a patient diagnosis from the physician or agent of the physician; a diagnosis presented by the patient is insufficient. To obtain pharmacists' opinions about the benefits of the PA program of the Saskatchewan drug Plan and to identify factors associated with pharmacist-initiated EDS requests. A census survey of community pharmacy managers was conducted via a self-administered postal questionnaire in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada, in the fall of 2004. The survey questionnaire was addressed to pharmacy managers, some of whom may have delegated the response to a staff pharmacist. Pharmacy managers or their delegates were asked to respond on behalf of all pharmacists in their pharmacies. A response rate of 82.6% was achieved (275/333). A majority of respondents agreed that the province's PA program (EDS) benefited patients (87.3%) and the Saskatchewan drug Plan (82.5%), whereas only 33.4% of respondents agreed that the EDS program benefited pharmacists. Pharmacists' ability to obtain the requisite information (87.6%) and to contact the prescribing physician (87.3%), as well as patient-centered concerns such as the patient's ability to pay for the prescription (85.1%), were the most important factors. The time required by the pharmacist to initiate the request was not important relative to other factors. community pharmacies reported receipt of an average of 36.4 prescriptions for restricted and nonformulary drugs per week, of which 22 were submitted for PA coverage, 17 by the pharmacy and 5 by the pharmacy at the request of the physician. The results of this study indicate that community pharmacists in Saskatchewan acknowledge that the EdS process is beneficial for their patients. However, pharmacists are burdened by an administrative process in which necessary information, particularly the patient diagnosis, is not readily available.
    Journal of managed care pharmacy: JMCP 10/2007; 13(7):589-97. · 2.68 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Journal of managed care pharmacy: JMCP 05/2008; 14(3):318-21. · 2.68 Impact Factor


1 Download
Available from