Paul Abourjaily, PharmD
Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston
William A. Gouveia, MS
Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston
Harry P. Selker, MD, MSPH
Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston
Deborah R. Zucker, MD, PhD
Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston
PDF version: 

Purpose: Clinicians often are required to switch prescribed therapy for their patients in response to health plan initiatives for controlling drug expenditures. To explore the effect of these initiatives, we sought clinicians' feedback regarding their practices and processes for switching patients' medications to accommodate insurance coverage.

Design: Self-administered Intranet-based survey of clinicians at an urban, tertiary-care hospital.

Methodology: Using survey responses, we calculate nondrug costs induced by formulary cost-saving measures.

Principal findings: A total of 91 responses were received from 569 providers who were sent a request to complete the questionnaire via electronic mail (18 percent response rate). It took an average of 11.1, 18.9, and 16.4 minutes for physicians, nurses, and nurse practitioners/physician assistants, respectively, to make the medication switch. The mean number of switches per month ranged from 10.6 to 36.9. More than half the time spent on these switches is not directly reimbursed. Specific switch-induced intervention costs differed for different drug types. The effect on clinician workload tended to be an inconvenience. While the majority of physicians and nurse practitioners/physician assistants did not feel this process damaged patient-provider relations, most nurses did.

Conclusions: In response to formulary restrictions, other costs are induced and incurred by providers and patients. The extent of patient costs, including those from adverse drug reactions, needs further study. More research is needed to elucidate costs and burden shifts as all parties involved evaluate and modify plans to moderate prescription drug expenditures.

Key words: Formulary, cost, nondrug, insurance, benefits

Author correspondence:
Deborah R. Zucker, MD, PhD
Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies
Tufts-New England Medical Center, Box #63
750 Washington St.
Boston, MA 02111

Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.