Out-of-pocket costs and prescription reversals with oral linezolid.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between benefit design, out-of-pocket costs, and prescription reversals, and the impact of reversals on rehospitalizations and total healthcare costs among Medicare members prescribed oral linezolid. STUDY DESIGN: Medicare members from a national health plan prescribed oral linezolid posthospitalization for skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) or pneumonia were followed retrospectively. METHODS: Members were identified by an oral linezolid prescription between June 1, 2007, and April 30, 2011, where the index event was a prescription fill or reversal less than 2 days before or 10 days after discharge. Associations between out-of-pocket costs and reversal, and between reversal and rehospitalization 30 days postindex, were compared for prescription fills versus reversals. A generalized linear model calculated adjusted total healthcare costs per member controlling for age, sex, geographic region, and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Reversal rates rose progressively from 2% for members with out-of-pocket costs of $0 to 27% for members with out-of-pocket costs higher than $100 (P < .0001). Infection-related rehospitalizations were 23% versus 9% for members with a prescription reversal versus a fill (P < .0001). While postdischarge prescription drug costs were $1228.78 lower (P <.0001), adjusted mean medical costs were $2061.69 higher (P = .0033) and total healthcare costs were $1280.93 higher (P = .0349) for reversal versus fill members. CONCLUSIONS: Higher out-of-pocket costs were associated with higher rates of reversal, and reversals were associated with higher rates of rehospitalization and adjusted total healthcare costs among Medicare members prescribed oral linezolid posthospitalization for SSTI or pneumonia.

Primary nonadherence to medications in an integrated healthcare setting.

OBJECTIVES: To measure primary nonadherence (PNA) rates for 10 therapeutic drug groups and identify factors associated with PNA to chronic and acute medications. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: New prescriptions written in an integrated healthcare system for study drugs were identified between December 1, 2009, and February 28, 2010. PNA was defined as the failure to fill a prescription within 14 days of when it was written. PNA rates were calculated by drug group and descriptive statistics were performed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify significant patient, provider, and prescription characteristics associated with PNA. Results were stratified by acute versus chronic treatment. RESULTS: A total of 569,095 new prescriptions were written during the 3-month period. Across all drug groups, the PNA rate was 9.8%. PNA rates for individual drug groups varied and were highest for osteoporosis medications (22.4%) and antihyperlipidemics (22.3%). Patients who filled at least 1 prescription in the prior year (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI] for acute = 0.06 [0.06-0.07], for chronic = 0.11 [0.10-0.12]) or had a prescription for a symptomatic disease (OR = 0.51 [0.48-0.53]) were more likely to fill their prescription. Patients were more likely to be primary nonadherent if they were black (OR acute = 1.30 [1.25-1.36], chronic = 1.26 [1.18-1.33]) or treatment-naive to therapy (OR acute = 2.52 [2.36-2.7], chronic=1.07 [1.03-1.12]). CONCLUSIONS: Overall PNA was 9.8% but individual PNA rates varied by therapeutic drug group. Factors of PNA were mostly consistent across drug groups, but some depended on whether the treatment was acute or chronic.

Impact of Celecoxib restrictions in medicare beneficiaries with arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of serious gastrointestinal (GI) complications and associated medical costs in a population with either osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) enrolled in Medicare plans with celecoxib formulary restrictions versus plans without such restrictions. METHODS: This study was a retrospective cohort analysis of Medicare members in plans with and without celecoxib restrictions. Members diagnosed with OA or RA were identified and followed for 1 year. RESULTS: The restricted group had higher levels of nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use (51% vs 40%, p <.001), and celecoxib use was double in the unrestricted group (16% vs 8%, p <.001). The incidence of a serious GI complication was slightly higher in the restricted group (5.4% vs 4.6%, P <.001). The adjusted mean serious GI complication-related cost for the restricted group was more than 15 times higher than that for the nonrestricted group ($1559 [95% confidence interval (CI) $1341-$1811] vs $101 [95% CI $87-$117]), adjusted mean arthritis-related medical costs were $5733 per year (95% CI $5097-$6448) for the restricted group and $3170 (95% CI $2816-$3569) for the unrestricted group. CONCLUSIONS: The restricted group had significantly less use of celecoxib, indicating that restriction was effective at reducing celecoxib utilization. Although limitations exist when comparing populations from different health plans, and the underlying causes of serious GI complications are multifactorial, the restricted group had a higher incidence of serious GI complications and higher costs related to serious GI complications and arthritis.

Nonadherence to oral linezolid after hospitalization: a retrospective claims analysis of the incidence and consequence of claim reversals.

BACKGROUND: Linezolid is available in an oral as well as an intravenous formulation. It is an oxazolidinone antibiotic and is effective in treating resistant gram-positive organisms such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and multidrug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. OBJECTIVES: The goals of this study were to identify the incidence of claim reversals for oral linezolid in members who were recently discharged from a hospital and to study the subsequent pattern of health care utilization to quantify the consequences for members who have a reversed linezolid claim. METHODS: This study was a retrospective claims analysis of Humana Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug patients who had a claim for oral linezolid after an inpatient discharge between April 1, 2006, and June 30, 2008. The incidence of reversed claims among those with a linezolid prescription was measured as a proxy for medication adherence. Propensity scores were calculated to account for differences in patients' propensity to have a reversed claim. The association of the claim reversal with subsequent expenditures was assessed through 3 multivariate regression models wherein the dependent variables were drug, medical, and total costs for the 60-day period after discharge. The key independent variable was the occurrence of a reversed linezolid claim, and control variables included the propensity score quartiles and other clinical and demographic characteristics. All costs were provided in US dollars and from the year in which they occurred. RESULTS: Of 1046 patients identified (mean [SD] age, 69 [12] years; 51% male), 252 patients (24.1%) had a claim reversal for linezolid. Among these, 125 patients (49.6%) received linezolid within 10 days of the initial reversal, 39 patients (15.5%) received other antibiotics, and 88 patients (34.9%) did not receive any antibiotics. The unadjusted, mean outpatient drug costs were $696 and $2265 for patients with and without a reversal, respectively, whereas mean medical costs were $13,567 and $9355. Multivariable analyses revealed that members who did not receive linezolid after the claim reversal had significantly higher medical expenditures (Wald χ(2), 8.370; P = 0.004) and lower drug expenditures (Wald χ(2), 122.630; P < 0.01). The total costs did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (Wald χ(2), 1.540; P = 0.215), however, as the medical savings were partially negated by the higher drug costs. CONCLUSION: These patients with a reversed outpatient claim for linezolid had lower outpatient drug costs and higher medical costs in the 60-day period after the reversal.