BACKGROUND: The affordability of prescription medications continues to be a major public health issue in the United States. Estimates of cost-related medication underuse come largely from surveys of ambulatory patients. Hospitalized patients may be vulnerable to cost-related underuse and its consequences, but have been subject to little investigation. OBJECTIVE: To determine impact of medication costs in a cohort of hospitalized managed care beneficiaries. METHODS: We surveyed consecutive patients admitted to medical services at an academic medical center. Questions about cost-related underuse were based on validated measures; predictors were assessed with multivariable models. Participants were asked about strategies to improve medication affordability, and were contacted after discharge to determine if they had filled newly prescribed medications. RESULTS: One-hundred thirty (41%) of 316 potentially eligible patients participated; 93 (75%) of these completed postdischarge surveys. Thirty patients (23%) reported cost-related underuse in the year prior to admission. In adjusted analyses, patients of black race were 3.39 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 11.02) more likely to report cost-related underuse than non-Hispanic white patients. Virtually all respondents (n = 123; 95%) endorsed at least 1 strategy to make medications more affordable. Few (16%) patients, prescribed medications at discharge, knew how much they would pay at the pharmacy. Almost none had spoken to their inpatient (4%) or outpatient (2%) providers about the cost of newly prescribed drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-related underuse is common among hospitalized patients. Individuals of black race appear to be particularly at risk. Strategies should be developed to address this issue around the time of hospital discharge. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2011. (c) 2011 Society of Hospital Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Although combination pharmacotherapy after myocardial infarction dramatically reduces morbidity and mortality, the full benefits of secondary prevention medications remain unrealized owing to medication non-adherence. Because financial barriers are a major determinant of non-adherence, we examined the costs and benefits of providing free medications to myocardial infarction patients who do not have private insurance and are ineligible for substantial public coverage. METHODS: An economic evaluation combining decision analysis and Markov modelling was conducted to compare full public coverage of secondary prevention medications with the status quo. Costs and benefits were estimated using Canadian data wherever possible. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio measured in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: From the perspective of the publicly funded healthcare system, full coverage resulted in greater quality-adjusted survival than the status quo (7.02 vs. 6.13 QALYs) but at increased cost ($20,423 vs. $17,173). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for full coverage compared to the status quo was $3,663/QALY. This result was robust to a wide range of sensitivity analyses. In a secondary analysis from the perspective of government, the ICER for full coverage compared to the status quo was $12,350/QALY. In this analysis, the ICER was sensitive to changes in price elasticity, but remained below $50,000/QALY as long as the elasticity remained below -0.035. INTERPRETATION: Public payers in Canada should consider providing secondary prevention medications to myocardial infarction patients without private insurance free of charge. Full public coverage is cost-effective compared to the status quo.

OBJECTIVES: Physicians may be aware of at least 2 types of costs when prescribing: patient's out-of-pocket costs and the actual costs of the medication. We evaluated physicians' perceptions about relevant costs for prescription drugs and the importance of communication about these costs. STUDY DESIGN: Mailed survey to a random sample of 1200 physician members of the California Medical Association, and a phone survey of a sample of nonresponders. METHODS: Descriptive statistics of survey items, McNemar's test to compare survey item responses, and logistic regression to evaluate the relationship between physician, practice, and system variables and physicians' perceptions of relevant medication costs. RESULTS: Of respondents with correct addresses, 49.6% responded to the survey; 13% of nonresponders were contacted by phone. Approximately 91% and 80% of physicians reported that it is important to manage patients' out-of-pocket costs and total medication costs, respectively. When comparing the relative importance of managing the 2 types of costs, 59% of physicians agreed that managing patients' out-of-pocket costs was more important than managing the total medication costs and only 16% disagreed. Physicians believed it was more important to discuss out-of-pocket costs than total costs with patients (P < .0001), but only 15% of physicians reported discussing out-of-pocket costs frequently and 5% reported talking about total medication costs frequently. Physicians who managed more Medicare patients had a greater likelihood than physicians managing fewer Medicare patients of prioritizing out-of-pocket cost rather than total cost management (P = .038), and generalists had a greater likelihood than medical subspecialists (P = .046). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians prioritize managing out-of-pocket costs over total medication costs. Pharmacy benefit designs that use patient out-of-pocket cost incentives to influence utilization are addressing the costs to which physicians may be most responsive. When physicians face conflicts between managing patients' out-of-pocket costs and total costs, they will likely try to protect the patients' resources at the expense of the insurer or society. Efforts to align patients', insurers', and societies' incentives will simplify prescribing decisions and result in better value in prescribing.

Taken in combination, aspirin, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and statins (combination pharmacotherapy) greatly reduce cardiac events. These therapies are underused, even among patients with drug insurance. Out-of-pocket spending is a key barrier to adherence. We estimated the impact of providing combination pharmacotherapy without cost sharing ("full coverage") to insured patients after a myocardial infarction (MI). Under base-case assumptions, compared to standard coverage, three years of full coverage will reduce mortality and reinfarction rates and will save 5,974 per patient. Our analysis suggests that covering combination therapy for such patients will save both lives and money.

BACKGROUND: Effective therapies for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease-related events are significantly underused, and attempts to improve adherence have often yielded disappointing results. Elimination of patient out-of-pocket costs may be an effective strategy to enhance medication use. We sought to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of providing full coverage for aspirin, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and statins (combination pharmacotherapy) to individuals enrolled in the Medicare drug benefit program after acute myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: We created a Markov cost-effectiveness model to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of providing Medicare beneficiaries with full coverage for combination pharmacotherapy compared with current coverage under the Medicare Part D program. Our analysis was conducted from the societal perspective and considered a lifetime time horizon. In a sensitivity analysis, we repeated our analysis from the perspective of Medicare. In the model, post-myocardial infarction Medicare beneficiaries who received usual prescription drug coverage under the Part D program lived an average of 8.21 quality-adjusted life-years after their initial event, incurring coronary heart disease-related medical costs of $114,000. Those who received prescription drug coverage without deductibles or copayments lived an average of 8.56 quality-adjusted life-years and incurred $111,600 in coronary heart disease-related costs. Compared with current prescription drug coverage, full coverage for post-myocardial infarction secondary prevention therapies would result in greater functional life expectancy (0.35 quality-adjusted life-year) and less resource use ($2500). From the perspective of Medicare, full drug coverage was highly cost-effective ($7182/quality-adjusted life-year) but not cost saving. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that providing full coverage for combination therapy to post-myocardial infarction Medicare beneficiaries would save both lives and money from the societal perspective.

Drug company-sponsored patient assistance programs (PAPs) provide access to brand-name medications at little or no cost and have been advocated as a safety net for inadequately insured patients. Yet little is known about these programs. We surveyed drug company-sponsored PAPs and found much variability in their structures and application processes. Most cover one or two drugs. Only 4 percent disclosed how many patients they had directly helped, and half would not disclose their income eligibility criteria. A better understanding of PAPs might clarify their role in improving access to medications, the adequacy of existing public programs, and their impact on cost-effective medication use.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether retail prices for prescription drugs are higher in poorer areas. DATA SOURCES: The MyFloridarx.com website, which provides retail prescription prices at Florida pharmacies, and median ZIP code income from the 2000 Census. STUDY DESIGN: We compared mean pharmacy prices for each of the four study drugs across ZIP code income groups. Pharmacies were classified as either chain pharmacies or independent pharmacies. DATA COLLECTION: Prices were downloaded in November 2006. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Across the four study drugs, mean prices were highest in the poorest ZIP codes: 9 percent above the statewide average. Independent pharmacies in the poorest ZIP codes charged the highest mean prices. CONCLUSIONS: Retail prescription prices appear to be higher in poorer ZIP codes of Florida.