TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost savings associated with filling a 3-month supply of prescription medicines
AU - Rabbani, Atonu
AU - Alexander, G. Caleb
N1 - Funding Information:
Dr Alexander has career-development awards from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K08 HS15699-01A1) and the Robert Wood Johnson Physician Faculty Scholars Program, serves as a consultant for IMS Health, and has previously received grant funding from Merck and Pfizer and served as a consultant to AstraZeneca. The funding sources had no role in the design or conduct of the study; the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of the data; or the preparation, review or approval of the manuscript for publication.
Copyright:
Copyright 2010 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2009
Y1 - 2009
N2 - Background: Many patients are burdened by prescription costs, and patients, providers and policy makers may attempt to reduce these costs by substituting 3-month for 1-month supplies of medicines. Objectives: To measure the difference in out-of-pocket and total costs among patients receiving different quantities of the same prescription drug used to treat a chronic condition, and to examine patient and health system characteristics associated with the use of a 3-month supply. Methods: Data were pooled from the 2000?5 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, a nationally representative survey of the US non-institutionalized civilian population, to compare prescription drug expenditures for medicines dispensed as both 3-month and 1-month supplies. Logistic regression was used to model correlates associated with 3-month use. The main outcome measures were the mean monthly out-of-pocket and total costs expressed in year 2005 values. Results: Forty-four percent of prescriptions examined were dispensed as 3-month supplies. The average (95% CI) monthly total and out-of-pocket costs for a 1-month supply were $US42.72 (42.01, 43.42) and $US20.44 (19.99, 20.89), respectively, while the corresponding monthly costs for a 3-month supply were $US37.95 (37.26, 38.64) and $US15.10 (14.68, 15.53). After adjustment for potential confounders, this represented a 29% decrease in out-of-pocket costs and an 18% decrease in total prescription costs through the use of a 3-month rather than a 1-month supply. Eighty percent of patients achieved some cost savings from a 3-month supply and there was considerable variation in the amount saved. There were no marked differences in the characteristics of individuals using 3-month versus 1-month supplies. Conclusions: Although such opportunities are not universally available, these findings quantify the cost savings that patients in the US can achieve through filling larger quantities of a prescription for a chronic condition.
AB - Background: Many patients are burdened by prescription costs, and patients, providers and policy makers may attempt to reduce these costs by substituting 3-month for 1-month supplies of medicines. Objectives: To measure the difference in out-of-pocket and total costs among patients receiving different quantities of the same prescription drug used to treat a chronic condition, and to examine patient and health system characteristics associated with the use of a 3-month supply. Methods: Data were pooled from the 2000?5 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, a nationally representative survey of the US non-institutionalized civilian population, to compare prescription drug expenditures for medicines dispensed as both 3-month and 1-month supplies. Logistic regression was used to model correlates associated with 3-month use. The main outcome measures were the mean monthly out-of-pocket and total costs expressed in year 2005 values. Results: Forty-four percent of prescriptions examined were dispensed as 3-month supplies. The average (95% CI) monthly total and out-of-pocket costs for a 1-month supply were $US42.72 (42.01, 43.42) and $US20.44 (19.99, 20.89), respectively, while the corresponding monthly costs for a 3-month supply were $US37.95 (37.26, 38.64) and $US15.10 (14.68, 15.53). After adjustment for potential confounders, this represented a 29% decrease in out-of-pocket costs and an 18% decrease in total prescription costs through the use of a 3-month rather than a 1-month supply. Eighty percent of patients achieved some cost savings from a 3-month supply and there was considerable variation in the amount saved. There were no marked differences in the characteristics of individuals using 3-month versus 1-month supplies. Conclusions: Although such opportunities are not universally available, these findings quantify the cost savings that patients in the US can achieve through filling larger quantities of a prescription for a chronic condition.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=73549092491&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=73549092491&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2165/11313610-000000000-00000
DO - 10.2165/11313610-000000000-00000
M3 - Article
C2 - 19905039
AN - SCOPUS:73549092491
SN - 1175-5652
VL - 7
SP - 255
EP - 264
JO - Applied health economics and health policy
JF - Applied health economics and health policy
IS - 4
ER -