Effects of Real-time Prescription Benefit Recommendations on Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Rising drug costs contribute to medication nonadherence and adverse health outcomes. Real-time prescription benefit (RTPB) systems present prescribers with patient-specific out-of-pocket cost estimates and recommend lower-cost, clinically appropriate alternatives at the point of prescribing. Objective: To investigate whether RTPB recommendations lead to reduced patient out-of-pocket costs for medications. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cluster randomized trial, medical practices in a large, urban academic health system were randomly assigned to RTPB recommendations from January 13 to July 31, 2021. Participants were adult patients receiving outpatient prescriptions during the study period. The analysis was limited to prescriptions for which RTPB could recommend an available alternative. Electronic health record data were used to analyze the intervention's effects on prescribing. Data analyses were performed from August 20, 2021, to June 8, 2022. Interventions: When a prescription was initiated in the electronic health record, the RTPB system recommended available lower-cost, clinically appropriate alternatives for a different medication, length of prescription, and/or choice of pharmacy. The prescriber could select either the initiated order or one of the recommended options. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient out-of-pocket cost for a prescription. Secondary outcomes were whether a mail-order prescription and a 90-day supply were ordered. Results: Of 867 757 outpatient prescriptions at randomized practices, 36 419 (4.2%) met the inclusion criteria of having an available alternative. Out-of-pocket costs were $39.90 for a 30-day supply in the intervention group and $67.80 for a 30-day supply in the control group. The intervention led to an adjusted 11.2%; (95% CI, -15.7% to -6.4%) reduction in out-of-pocket costs. Mail-order pharmacy use was 9.6% and 7.6% in the intervention and control groups, respectively (adjusted 1.9 percentage point increase; 95% CI, 0.9 to 3.0). Rates of 90-day supply were not different. In high-cost drug classes, the intervention reduced out-of-pocket costs by 38.9%; 95% CI, -47.6% to -28.7%. Conclusions and Relevance: This cluster randomized clinical trial showed that RTPB recommendations led to lower patient out-of-pocket costs, with the largest savings occurring for high-cost medications. However, RTPB recommendations were made for only a small percentage of prescriptions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04940988; American Economic Association Registry: AEARCTR-0006909.

Validation of EHR medication fill data obtained through electronic linkage with pharmacies.

BACKGROUND: Recent linkages between electronic health records (EHRs) and pharmacy data hold opportunity for up-to-date assessment of medication adherence at the point of care. OBJECTIVE: To validate linked EHR-pharmacy data, which can be used for point-of-care interventions for concordance with insurance claims data for patients in a large health care delivery system. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with an active antihypertensive medication order and seen as outpatients between August 25, 2019, and August 31, 2019. Pharmacy fill information was obtained from the EHR via linkages with Surescripts pharmacy and pharmacy benefit manager data, as well as from insurance claims available at our institution. We matched antihypertensive medication fills observed in the linked EHR-pharmacy database with available fills in the insurance claims database and calculated the percentage of medication fills that were available in each database. We estimated medication adherence using proportion of days covered in the linked EHR-pharmacy database and in the insurance claims database. RESULTS: Of 26,679 patients with hypertension, 23,348 (87.5%) had at least 1 antihypertensive medication fill recorded in the linked EHR-pharmacy database. Of 1,501 patients matched with the insurance database and with a documented medication fill, a fill was present for 1,484 (98.9%) and 1,259 (83.9%) patients in the linked EHR-pharmacy and insurance databases, respectively. Of 12,109 medication fills recorded in the insurance data, we found an overlap of 11,060 (91.3%) fills with the linked EHR-pharmacy database. The linked EHR-pharmacy database also contained 18,232 of 19,281 (94.6%) medication fills present in either database. Measured medication adherence was higher for patients when based on linked EHR-pharmacy data compared with insurance claims data (42% vs 30%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Linked EHR-pharmacy data captured medication fills for the vast majority of patients and resulted in higher estimates of adherence than insurance claims. Our results suggest that pharmacy fill data available in the EHR have sufficient reliability to be used for point-of-care assessment of medication adherence. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by grant R01HL155149 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Allen Thorpe provided funding for the NYU Langone Health Learning Health System Program, which helped fund this project. The authors have nothing to disclose.