The Impact of Eliminating Out-of-Pocket Payments on Asthma Medication Use.

Kate M Johnson, Lucy Cheng, Yiwei Yin, Rachel Carter, Santa Chow, Emily Brigham, Michael R Law
{"title":"The Impact of Eliminating Out-of-Pocket Payments on Asthma Medication Use.","authors":"Kate M Johnson, Lucy Cheng, Yiwei Yin, Rachel Carter, Santa Chow, Emily Brigham, Michael R Law","doi":"10.1513/AnnalsATS.202402-130OC","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Rationale:</b> High costs of controller therapies may be a barrier to guideline-recommended asthma treatment. <b>Objectives:</b> We determined whether eliminating out-of-pocket (OOP) payments among low-income patients with asthma impacted controller medication use. <b>Methods:</b> We applied a controlled interrupted time series design to administrative claims data in British Columbia, Canada from 2017 to 2020. Cases were individuals with an annual household income <$13,750 in whom copays were eliminated in January 2019; there was no change in public coverage for the control group with annual income >$45,000. We evaluated trends in asthma medication costs, use, the ratio of inhaled corticosteroid-containing medications to all asthma medications, excessive use of short-acting β-agonists (more than one canister per month), and the proportion of days covered by controller therapies. <b>Results:</b> There were 12,940 cases (62% female; mean age, 30.3 yr; standard deviation [SD], 14.9) and 71,331 controls (55% female; mean age, 31.3 yr; SD, 16.3). Removal of OOP payments increased monthly mean medication costs by $3.32 (95% confidence interval [CI], $0.08 to $6.56, 2020 Canadian dollars), days' supply of controller medications by 1.50 days (95% CI, 0.61 to 2.40 d), and the ratio of inhaled corticosteroid-containing medications to total medications by 4.20% (95% CI, 0.73% to 7.66%) compared with the control group. The policy had no effect on the proportion of days covered by controller therapies (0.01; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.04), but nonsignificantly decreased the percentage of patients with excessive short-acting β-agonist use (-6.37%; 95% CI, -12.90% to 0.16%). <b>Conclusions:</b> Removal of OOP payments increased the dispensation of controller therapies, suggesting cost-related nonadherence could impair optimal asthma management.</p>","PeriodicalId":93876,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","volume":" ","pages":"1542-1549"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202402-130OC","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale: High costs of controller therapies may be a barrier to guideline-recommended asthma treatment. Objectives: We determined whether eliminating out-of-pocket (OOP) payments among low-income patients with asthma impacted controller medication use. Methods: We applied a controlled interrupted time series design to administrative claims data in British Columbia, Canada from 2017 to 2020. Cases were individuals with an annual household income <$13,750 in whom copays were eliminated in January 2019; there was no change in public coverage for the control group with annual income >$45,000. We evaluated trends in asthma medication costs, use, the ratio of inhaled corticosteroid-containing medications to all asthma medications, excessive use of short-acting β-agonists (more than one canister per month), and the proportion of days covered by controller therapies. Results: There were 12,940 cases (62% female; mean age, 30.3 yr; standard deviation [SD], 14.9) and 71,331 controls (55% female; mean age, 31.3 yr; SD, 16.3). Removal of OOP payments increased monthly mean medication costs by $3.32 (95% confidence interval [CI], $0.08 to $6.56, 2020 Canadian dollars), days' supply of controller medications by 1.50 days (95% CI, 0.61 to 2.40 d), and the ratio of inhaled corticosteroid-containing medications to total medications by 4.20% (95% CI, 0.73% to 7.66%) compared with the control group. The policy had no effect on the proportion of days covered by controller therapies (0.01; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.04), but nonsignificantly decreased the percentage of patients with excessive short-acting β-agonist use (-6.37%; 95% CI, -12.90% to 0.16%). Conclusions: Removal of OOP payments increased the dispensation of controller therapies, suggesting cost-related nonadherence could impair optimal asthma management.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
取消自付费用对哮喘用药的影响。
背景:控制药物治疗的高昂费用可能会阻碍指南推荐的哮喘治疗。我们确定了取消低收入哮喘患者的自付费用(OOP)是否会影响控制药物的使用:我们对加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省 2017-2020 年的行政报销数据采用了受控中断时间序列设计。病例为家庭年收入 45,000 美元的个人。我们评估了哮喘用药成本、使用情况、含吸入性皮质类固醇(ICS)药物占所有哮喘药物的比例、短效β-激动剂(SABA)的过度使用(>1罐/月)以及控制性疗法所覆盖的天数比例(PDC)等方面的趋势:共有 12,940 例病例(62% 为女性,平均年龄为 30.3 岁,SD 为 14.9)和 71,331 例对照组病例(55% 为女性,平均年龄为 31.3 岁,SD 为 16.3)。与对照组相比,取消 OOP 支付使每月平均药费增加了 3.32 加元(95% CI 为 0.08 - 6.56 加元,2020 年加元),控制药物供应天数增加了 1.50 天(95% CI 为 0.61 - 2.40),含 ICS 药物占总药物的比例增加了 4.20%(95% CI 为 0.73% - 7.66%)。该政策对控制疗法的 PDC 没有影响(0.01,95% CI -0.01 - 0.04),但非显著性地降低了过量使用 SABA 的患者比例(-6.37%;95% CI -12.90% - 0.16%):取消 OOP 支付增加了控制疗法的配药量,这表明与费用相关的不依从性可能会影响哮喘的最佳治疗效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Airway Remodeling in Cystic Fibrosis Is Heterogeneous. County Level Social Determinates of Health and Correlation with COPD Prevalence in the US. Lest a Smoky Haze of Doubt Suffocate Progress Towards Better Pulse Oximeters. Lung Function Recovery from Pulmonary Exacerbations Treated with Oral Antibiotics in Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia. Trends in the Treatment of Allergic Bronchopulmonary Aspergillosis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1