A Model for Comparing Unnecessary Costs Associated with Various Prescription Fill-Quantity Policies: Illustration Using VA Data

S. Walton, B. Arondekar, N. Johnson, G. Schumock
{"title":"A Model for Comparing Unnecessary Costs Associated with Various Prescription Fill-Quantity Policies: Illustration Using VA Data","authors":"S. Walton, B. Arondekar, N. Johnson, G. Schumock","doi":"10.18553/JMCP.2001.7.5.386","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE: To describe a model for analyzing the unnecessary costs associated with outpatient prescription fill quantities and to apply the model to prescription data from the Veterans Administration’s Chicago Health Care System (VACHCS) to examine costs under various scenarios. DESIGN: The model developed here included the cost of drugs, quantity of drug wasted, and the cost to fill the prescription, and is used to determine and compare the total unnecessary costs (TUC) of different prescription fill quantities. The model was applied to the VACHCS outpatient prescription records for two formulary hydroxymethyl glutaryl coenzyme A (HMGCoA) reductase-inhibitor drugs to determine TUC for 30- and 90-day fills. Sensitivity analysis was used to analyze changes in the TUC over a range of possible values for each variable in the model. RESULTS: A total of 16,990 prescriptions met the study inclusion criteria, of which 21.4% were for a 30-day supply and 78.6% for a 90-day supply. For 30-day and 90-day prescriptions, the average prescription cost per day was $0.56 and $0.54, respectively; quantity wasted was 1.06 days and 5.33 days; and TUC per prescription were $5.62 and $3.17. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the 90day policy maintained lower TUC for most scenarios with the exception of very high drug costs. CONCLUSION: Prescription benefit managers will find this model informative for determining policies for prescription fill quantities.","PeriodicalId":50156,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18553/JMCP.2001.7.5.386","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe a model for analyzing the unnecessary costs associated with outpatient prescription fill quantities and to apply the model to prescription data from the Veterans Administration’s Chicago Health Care System (VACHCS) to examine costs under various scenarios. DESIGN: The model developed here included the cost of drugs, quantity of drug wasted, and the cost to fill the prescription, and is used to determine and compare the total unnecessary costs (TUC) of different prescription fill quantities. The model was applied to the VACHCS outpatient prescription records for two formulary hydroxymethyl glutaryl coenzyme A (HMGCoA) reductase-inhibitor drugs to determine TUC for 30- and 90-day fills. Sensitivity analysis was used to analyze changes in the TUC over a range of possible values for each variable in the model. RESULTS: A total of 16,990 prescriptions met the study inclusion criteria, of which 21.4% were for a 30-day supply and 78.6% for a 90-day supply. For 30-day and 90-day prescriptions, the average prescription cost per day was $0.56 and $0.54, respectively; quantity wasted was 1.06 days and 5.33 days; and TUC per prescription were $5.62 and $3.17. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the 90day policy maintained lower TUC for most scenarios with the exception of very high drug costs. CONCLUSION: Prescription benefit managers will find this model informative for determining policies for prescription fill quantities.
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
一个比较不同处方填充量政策的不必要成本的模型:使用VA数据的说明
目的:描述一个分析与门诊处方填充量相关的不必要成本的模型,并将该模型应用于退伍军人管理局芝加哥医疗保健系统(VACHCS)的处方数据,以检查各种情况下的成本。设计:本文建立的模型包括药品成本、浪费药品数量和处方填充成本,用于确定和比较不同处方填充数量的总不必要成本(TUC)。将该模型应用于两种羟甲基戊二酰辅酶A (HMGCoA)还原酶抑制剂处方的VACHCS门诊处方记录,以确定30天和90天的TUC。敏感性分析用于分析TUC在模型中每个变量的可能值范围内的变化。结果:共有16990张处方符合研究纳入标准,其中30天处方占21.4%,90天处方占78.6%。对于30天和90天的处方,平均处方费用分别为每天0.56美元和0.54美元;浪费量分别为1.06天和5.33天;每张处方分别为5.62美元和3.17美元。敏感性分析表明,除了药费非常高的情况外,90天政策在大多数情况下保持较低的TUC。结论:处方福利管理人员将发现该模型为确定处方填充数量的政策提供了信息。
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
Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy
Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy 医学-卫生保健
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Managing Congestive Heart Failure in the Medicare Risk Population Pharmacy Cost Reduction Imperative at United HealthCare Analyzing Variations in Medication Compliance Related to Individual Drug, Drug Class, and Prescribing Physician Evaluation of Blood Pressure and Adverse Effects in Patients Converted from Lisinopril to Benazepril The Treatment of Depression with Newer Antidepressants: Pharmacology and Efficacy Versus Clinical Effectiveness
×
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