Do Drugs Save Money? Check The Assumptions

Econometrics has finally discovered the hidden truth about pharmaceuticals—they save money, a lot of money.  A recent study found that compliance with pharmaceuticals demonstrated a 8.4:1 ROI for congestive heart failure, 10.1:1 for hypertension, 6.7:1 for diabetes, and 3.1:1 for dyslipidemia.  This is certainly a surprising result given the contradictory findings from other credible research on the cost-effectiveness of pharmaceuticals.  However, it’s likely to capture some headlines given its intuitive appeal to many so I took a closer look.

This study, published by researchers at one of the large PBMs, examined the correlation between medication compliance and use of other healthcare services over several years for a large population of commercially insured members with a diabetes or cardiovascular-related diagnosis.  It is well-known in the published literature that making causal conclusions from the cross-sectional examination of medication compliance against total medical spend is highly problematic due to the Healthy Adherer Effect, which is the tendency of people who are adherent to their medications to also engage in other healthy behaviors, such as exercising regularly and eating a healthy diet.  Reason being, it is difficult, if not impossible, to control for differences in patient behavior that one cannot measure in the claims data. In this particular study, the Healthy Adherer Effect was likely compounded by assigning a compliance score of zero to patients having a diagnosis but no prescription claim for the condition.

The study authors stated that they overcame the systematic selection bias created by the Healthy Adherer Effect through the use of an econometrics technique called fixed-effect regression—basically an alternative form of the more commonly used ordinary least squares regression (OLS).  As is often the case with econometric models, to believe in the superiority of fixed-effect modeling, you have to believe a key underlying assumption that the model makes, which is that confounders, such as eating healthy and exercise, do not vary over time in conjunction with medication compliance.  As the authors acknowledge in the references, “fixed-effects modeling does not allow for the control of confounders that vary over time. Thus, for example, if patients who become adherent simultaneously start exercising regularly (assuming that both of these behavioral changes reduce health services use and spending), the estimated impact of adherence would remain biased.”  The authors make no case for why this assumption would hold true and it hardly seems plausible given what is already known on the subject.

While such fixed-effects estimators may be an improvement on basic cross-sectional methods, they are still quite limited when it comes to uncovering a true causal effect when  the confounder(s) varies over time; and like OLS, will tend to overestimate the causal effect of pharmaceuticals on medical spending in the presence of the Healthy Adherer Effect.  Some evidence to that effect lies in the manuscript’s appendix—for most of the conditions, the difference between the estimate for the OLS regression, which the authors acknowledge does not address the selection bias problem, and the fixed-effect model was minimal (e.g., marginal effects estimate for inpatient days for heart failure of 5.731 for OLS vs. 5.715 for fixed-effects).

However, setting aside the more technical discussion, one of the most informative and practical ways to test the strength of these results is to conduct a plausibility test of the ROI, which basically means to compare these findings against credible randomized controlled trials of medication efficacy.  I’ll show you those results in an upcoming post.  Of course, none of this discussion is meant to minimize the importance of improved medication compliance.  It continues to be a critically important gap to address but employers and other plan sponsors should be provided realistic expectations about the economic value of improved compliance.

Advertisements

, ,

  1. #1 by Patrick Gleason on January 12, 2011 - 3:06 pm

    Excllent points.
    Could you please comment on the article below?

    The H-E-B Value-Based Health Management Program: Impact on Asthma Medication Adherence and Healthcare Cost
    Anna O. D’Souza, PhD ; Roshan Rahnama, MPH ; Timothy S. Regan, BPharm, RPh ; Beth Common, MBA ; Steven Burch, PhD
    Dr D’Souza is a Manager, Ms Rahnama is a Healthcare Strategy Consultant, and Mr Regan is an Executive Director, Xcenda, Palm Harbor, FL; Ms Common is Corporate Benefits Manager, H-E-B, San Antonio, TX; and Dr Burch is a Director, GlaxoSmithKline, Durham, NC.

    ABSTRACT
    Background: Recent publications have shown that copayment reductions increase medication adherence above the effects of existing disease management programs, demonstrating an additive effect of combining a value-based insurance design with a disease management program. This effect, however, has yet to be demonstrated for medications used for the treatment of asthma.

    Objective: To evaluate the impact of a value-based health management asthma program— which included providing patient education and lowering copayments for select asthma controller medications—on medication adherence and healthcare utilization and costs.

    Study Design: The study involved a quasi-experimental intervention versus control group design of insured patients diagnosed with asthma.

    Method: After applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria for study participation, we obtained informed consent from the intervention group; those eligible to participate who did not return the forms served as the control group. The final sample size included 764 patients with asthma—298 in the intervention group and 466 in the control group. The intervention consisted of a reduction in copayment for select asthma controller medications from an average of $20 to $30 down to $5, as well as 3 mailings of educational materials for asthma management. Medical and pharmacy claims data for the study population were used to evaluate all study parameters and outcomes. Medication possession ratio was used to measure adherence to asthma controller medications. Statistical models were used to study differences in the 2 study groups during the 12-month follow-up period for adherence and cost outcomes.

    Results: Participation in the value-based health management asthma program increased patients’ 12-month medication adherence by 10 absolute percentage points in the intervention group (53.9% for intervention vs 43.9% for control group, P <.001) and significantly decreased average monthly medical costs ($170 intervention vs $229 control, P = .004). This increase in adherence resulted in greater monthly pharmacy costs ($181 intervention vs $124 control, P <.001). However, the increase in pharmacy costs was offset by lower medical costs, leading to a nonsignificant increase in average monthly total healthcare costs ($362 intervention vs $337 control, P = .276).

    Conclusion: Adoption of a value-based health management program that combines patient education with lowered copayments has a positive impact on medication adherence, resulting in a reduction in associated medical costs and no significant increase in total costs.

    Thank you,
    Pat Gleason

  1. Grand Rounds (volume 7: number 17): Engagement Is Multi-Faceted « Enabling Healthy Decisions
  2. Do Drugs Save Money? A Plausibility Test « Rx Outcomes Adviser

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: