<p>Legacy drug-prescribing, the practice of continuing fixed-term drug therapy indefinitely without strong evidence of long-term therapeutic benefit, is a growing concern in healthcare [<span>1</span>]. Legacy drug prescribing can contribute to polypharmacy, which is associated with adverse health outcomes [<span>2</span>]. Several studies have highlighted significant proportions of elderly patients receiving legacy drug prescriptions for antidepressants, bisphosphonates, and proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) [<span>1, 3, 4</span>]. In British Columbia, the provincial government operates the BC Pharmacare Drug Plan, which provides medication funding for individuals [<span>5</span>]. Within this plan, the Limited Coverage program (BCPLC) funds medications only when patients meet specific medical criteria, with coverage typically granted for defined durations [<span>5</span>].</p><p>Because such funding rules shape access, drug policy itself can influence prescribing patterns. Irish data show polypharmacy is more common among patients with subsidized coverage than those paying out-of-pocket [<span>4</span>]. Medicare Part D similarly increased both essential and low-value drug use [<span>3</span>], while British Columbia's reference pricing policy shifted patients to lower-cost equivalents without harm [<span>6</span>]. Together, this evidence suggests that funding arrangements can either reinforce problematic polypharmacy or promote more cost-effective prescribing. This study aims to assess whether BCPLC funding criteria contribute to legacy drug prescribing specifically and/or problematic polypharmacy.</p><p>We analyzed the 2022 BCPLC formulary, comprising 302 medications, focusing on the covered indications and duration of therapy (DOT) for each medication [<span>5</span>]. A multidisciplinary research group consisting of two pharmacist members of the BC Ministry of Health, a pharmacist and two research assistants developed a standardized data collection form. This form extracted the BCPLC covered indications and funding durations, as well as the listed indications and durations found in best-available evidence, such as systematic reviews, Health Canada drug monographs, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (now known as Canada's Drug Agency) reimbursement recommendations, and clinical databases like UpToDate and Lexicomp [<span>7</span>]. We compared BCPLC criteria with referenced durations and indications and identified two types of mismatches: duration of therapy mismatch (DOTM) and indication mismatches (IM) [<span>5</span>]. We looked to see if medications with mismatches were listed as potentially inappropriate according to Beer's 2019 criteria [<span>8</span>]. All analyses were descriptive only; no statistical calculations were done. No Research Ethics Board approval was required as this was a quality assurance project.</p><p>Of 286 medications analyzed, 40% exhibited at least one mismatch (see Figure 1), predominantly DOTMs,
{"title":"Drug Coverage Policy and Legacy Prescribing: A Cross-Sectional Analysis in British Columbia","authors":"Aydan Con, Ivy Thrasher, Aaron M. Tejani","doi":"10.1002/hsr2.71718","DOIUrl":"10.1002/hsr2.71718","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Legacy drug-prescribing, the practice of continuing fixed-term drug therapy indefinitely without strong evidence of long-term therapeutic benefit, is a growing concern in healthcare [<span>1</span>]. Legacy drug prescribing can contribute to polypharmacy, which is associated with adverse health outcomes [<span>2</span>]. Several studies have highlighted significant proportions of elderly patients receiving legacy drug prescriptions for antidepressants, bisphosphonates, and proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) [<span>1, 3, 4</span>]. In British Columbia, the provincial government operates the BC Pharmacare Drug Plan, which provides medication funding for individuals [<span>5</span>]. Within this plan, the Limited Coverage program (BCPLC) funds medications only when patients meet specific medical criteria, with coverage typically granted for defined durations [<span>5</span>].</p><p>Because such funding rules shape access, drug policy itself can influence prescribing patterns. Irish data show polypharmacy is more common among patients with subsidized coverage than those paying out-of-pocket [<span>4</span>]. Medicare Part D similarly increased both essential and low-value drug use [<span>3</span>], while British Columbia's reference pricing policy shifted patients to lower-cost equivalents without harm [<span>6</span>]. Together, this evidence suggests that funding arrangements can either reinforce problematic polypharmacy or promote more cost-effective prescribing. This study aims to assess whether BCPLC funding criteria contribute to legacy drug prescribing specifically and/or problematic polypharmacy.</p><p>We analyzed the 2022 BCPLC formulary, comprising 302 medications, focusing on the covered indications and duration of therapy (DOT) for each medication [<span>5</span>]. A multidisciplinary research group consisting of two pharmacist members of the BC Ministry of Health, a pharmacist and two research assistants developed a standardized data collection form. This form extracted the BCPLC covered indications and funding durations, as well as the listed indications and durations found in best-available evidence, such as systematic reviews, Health Canada drug monographs, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (now known as Canada's Drug Agency) reimbursement recommendations, and clinical databases like UpToDate and Lexicomp [<span>7</span>]. We compared BCPLC criteria with referenced durations and indications and identified two types of mismatches: duration of therapy mismatch (DOTM) and indication mismatches (IM) [<span>5</span>]. We looked to see if medications with mismatches were listed as potentially inappropriate according to Beer's 2019 criteria [<span>8</span>]. All analyses were descriptive only; no statistical calculations were done. No Research Ethics Board approval was required as this was a quality assurance project.</p><p>Of 286 medications analyzed, 40% exhibited at least one mismatch (see Figure 1), predominantly DOTMs, ","PeriodicalId":36518,"journal":{"name":"Health Science Reports","volume":"9 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2026-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12836862/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146094583","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}