Association of co-pay elimination with medication adherence and total cost.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether elimination of co-pays for prescription drugs affects medication adherence and total health care spending. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. METHODS: We conducted a difference-in-differences comparison in the year before and after expansion of a Zero Dollar Co-pay (ZDC) prescription drug benefit in commercially insured Louisiana residents. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana members with continuous disease management program enrollment were analyzed, of whom 6463 were enrolled in the ZDC program and 1821 were controls who were ineligible because their employers did not opt in. RESULTS: After ZDC expansion, medication adherence fell in the control group and rose in the ZDC group, with a relative increase of 2.1 percentage points (P = .002). Medical spending fell by $71 per member per month (PMPM) (P = .027) in the ZDC group relative to controls. Overall, there was no significant increase in the cost of drugs between treatment and controls. However, when drugs were further categorized, there was a significant increase of $8 PMPM for generic drugs and no significant difference for brand name drugs. Comparisons of medication adherence rates by household income showed the largest relative increase post ZDC expansion among low-income members. CONCLUSIONS: Elimination of co-pays for drugs indicated to treat chronic illnesses was associated with increases in medication adherence and reductions in overall spending of $63. Benefit designs that eliminate co-pays for patients with chronic illnesses may improve adherence and reduce the total cost of care.

Value-based insurance design in Louisiana: Blue Cross Blue Shield's Zero Dollar Co-pay program.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a program that eliminated pharmacy co-pays, the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana (BCBSLA) Zero Dollar Co-pay (ZDC) program, decreased health care spending. Previous studies have found that value-based insurance designs like the ZDC program have little or no impact on total health care spending. ZDC included an expansive set of medications related to 4 chronic diseases rather than a limited set of medications for 1 or 2 chronic diseases. Additionally, ZDC focused on the most at-risk patients. STUDY DESIGN: ZDC began in 2014 and enrolled patients over time based on (1) when a patient answered a call from a nurse care manager and (2) when a patient or their employer changed the benefit structure to meet the program criteria. During 2015 and 2016, 265 patients with at least 1 chronic condition (asthma, diabetes, hypertension, mental illness) enrolled in ZDC. METHODS: Observational study using within-patient variation and variation in patient enrollment month to identify the impact of the ZDC program on health spending measures. We used 100% BCBSLA claims data from January 2015 to June 2018. Monthly level event studies were used to test for differential spending patterns prior to ZDC enrollment. RESULTS: We found that total spending decreased by $205.9 (P = .049) per member per month, or approximately 18%. We saw a decrease in medical spending ($195.0; P = .023) but did not detect a change in pharmacy spending ($7.59; P = .752). We found no evidence of changes in spending patterns prior to ZDC enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: The ZDC program provides evidence that value-based insurance designs that incorporate a comprehensive set of medications and focus on populations with chronic disease can reduce spending.

Pharmacokinetic comparison of nomogram-based and individualized vancomycin regimens in neonates.

PURPOSE: This study compared steady-state concentrations achieved with a dosing strategy using first-dose kinetics to individualize vancomycin regimens with the steady-state concentrations achieved using standardized nomograms. METHODS: Neonatal intensive care unit patients receiving vancomycin according to published nomograms (phase 1) were compared with patients receiving vancomycin using first-dose pharmacokinetic information to individualize the dosing regimen (phase 2). Retrospective chart review was used to gather demographic and patient-specific pharmacokinetic data. Data collected included gestational and postnatal ages, birth and dosing weights, first-dose peak and trough concentrations, serum creatinine, and information related to infection. Data were analyzed to determine the percentage of therapeutic concentrations at a steady state in each group. RESULTS: Phase 1 included 108 patients given doses according to published nomograms, and phase 2 included 85 patients who received vancomycin with first-dose pharmacokinetics. Steady-state concentrations were collected in 108 patients in phase 1 and 39 patients in phase 2. Both peak and trough concentrations were therapeutic at steady state in 39% in phase 1 versus 63% in phase 2 (p < 0.02). Therapeutic steady-state peak concentrations were achieved in 70% versus 76% while therapeutic steady-state trough concentrations were achieved in 50% versus 82% (p < 0.02) in phase 1 and phase 2, respectively. CONCLUSION: Compared with the use of nomograms, individualization of vancomycin regimens after the first dose in neonatal patients significantly increased the percentage of patients with target steady-state trough concentrations and with both target peak and trough concentrations. The benefits of individualized dosing were attained without additional venous sampling.