Health insurers change their formularies to increase medical effectiveness and save money, and a new study from Case Western Reserve University has determined the effect these changes might have on patient care with respect to the prevalence of difficulty in filling a prescription and resultant problems.

Questionnaires were mailed to 1,200 patients who had visited any of three family medicine practices within the previous six months, asking them to describe problems that they encountered when filling prescriptions.

Mark N. Rood, MD, of the department of medicine at Case Western, and colleagues found that 23 percent of patients reported missing doses of their medication because of difficulties related to insurance, and 8 percent reported a worsening of their medical condition.

Of the 100 patients reporting a problem with a medication, 21 percent had a problem with a new prescription, 42 percent with a medication they were already taking, and 37 percent with both.

It is suggested that clinical executives are not adequately taking into account the true costs to the patient population when they make formulary changes. The researchers found that vulnerable populations — particularly people on Medicare and/or Medicaid — bore a disproportionate share of the consequences of formulary changes.

Rood says, “Establishing universal best-practice guidelines for evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of one agent over another would go a long way toward ensuring that a significant threshold is met before formularies are altered.”

The study recommends minimizing variation among insurance company formularies instead of the existing practice of each insurance carrier using its own pharmacy committee to develop a drug list.

“If a drug is judged by evidence-based best practices to be of high quality and cost effectiveness for one insurer, it is reasonable to conclude it should be the same for all,” Rood says.

“Our study found that although patients were less likely to blame their physician than their insurance company or pharmacist, physicians bore the [greatest] administrative burden for fixing the problem.”

1208.formfiles_fig1.png

n=100

Patients reported, on average, 2.9 problems.

Source: Rood MN, Cruz-Knight WC, Cunagin J, Zyzanski SJ, et al. The effect of insurance-driven medication changes on patient behavior. swJ Fam Pract. 2012;61(7):E1–E7

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.