How rebates, copayments, and administration costs affect the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis therapies.

PURPOSE: Because of rising drug expenditures, cost considerations have become essential, necessitating the requirement for cost-effectiveness analyses for managed care organizations (MCOs). The study objective is to examine the impact of various drug-cost components, in addition to wholesale acquisition cost (WAC), on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis therapies. DESIGN: A Markov model of osteoporosis was used to exemplify different drug cost scenarios. METHODOLOGY: We examined the effect of varying rebates for oral bisphosphonates--risedronate and ibandronate--as well as considering the impact of varying copayments and administration costs for intravenous zoledronate. The population modeled was 1,000 American women, > or = 50 years with osteoporosis. Patients were followed for 1 year to reflect an annual budget review of formularies by MCOs. The cost of therapy was based on an adjusted WAC, and is referred to as net drug cost. The total annual cost incurred by an MCO for each drug regimen was calculated using the net drug cost and fracture cost. We estimated cost on a quality adjusted life year (QALY) basis. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: When considering different rebates, results for risedronate versus ibandronate vary from cost-savings (i.e., costs less and more effective) to approximately $70,000 per QALY. With no risedronate rebate, an ibandronate rebate of approximately 65% is required before cost per QALY surpasses $50,000. With rebates greater than 25% for risedronate, irrespective of ibandronate rebates, results become cost-saving. Results also showed the magnitude of cost savings to the MCO varied by as much as 65% when considering no administration cost and the highest coinsurance rate for zoledronate. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that cost-effectiveness varies considerably when factors in addition to the WAC are considered. This paper provides recommendations for pharmaceutical manufacturers and MCOs when developing and interpreting such analyses.

Women are less likely to be admitted to substance abuse treatment within 30 days of assessment.

The information gathered in a centralized intake unit (CIU) allows payers and administrators to examine if there are access issues for their population. For this study, the authors examined whether there were gender differences in the rate at which people are admitted to treatment within 30 days of assessment. Of the 5,004 individuals seeking publicly-funded substance abuse treatment in Detroit for the years 1996-97, 50.3% of those assessed at the CIU actually entered treatment. Women (31% of the people assessed) had a lower rate of admission (45% for women versus 53% for men) a difference that was maintained even after controlling for known risk factors. Women who were given priority for admission (i.e., those who were pregnant, had children, or injected drugs) had a higher rate of admission than other women (73% versus 39%), but only 17% of the women presenting were included in the priority groups. Men who were injecting drugs (a priority group) also had a higher rate of admission than other men (83% versus 49%). In multivariate analysis controlling for priority groups and known risk factors, women were still less likely to be admitted to treatment within 30 days of admission than men. Establishing priorities improves the rate of admission within 30 days of assessment for those groups, but more needs to be done to improve the admission rate for women. These results demonstrate that a CIU allows administrators to monitor for access issues.