• Clinical therapeutics · Apr 2010

    Impact of two Medicaid prior-authorization policies on antihypertensive use and costs among Michigan and Indiana residents dually enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare: results of a longitudinal, population-based study.

    • Michael R Law, Christine Y Lu, Stephen B Soumerai, Amy Johnson Graves, Robert F LeCates, Fang Zhang, Dennis Ross-Degnan, and Alyce S Adams.
    • Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. mlaw@chspr.ubc.ca
    • Clin Ther. 2010 Apr 1; 32 (4): 729-41; discussion 716.

    BackgroundIn response to rising pharmaceutical costs, many state Medicaid programs have implemented policies requiring prior authorization for high-cost medications, even for established users. However, little is known about the impact of these policies on the use of antihypertensive medicines in the United States.ObjectiveThe aim of this longitudinal, population-based study was to assess comprehensive prior-authorization programs for antihypertensives on drug use and costs in a vulnerable Medicaid population in Michigan and Indiana.MethodsA prior-authorization policy for antihypertensives was implemented in Michigan in March 2002 and in Indiana in September 2002; Indiana also implemented an antihypertensive stepwise-therapy requirement in July 2003. Our study cohort included individuals aged >or=18 years in Michigan and Indiana who were continuously enrolled in both Medicaid and Medicare from July 2000 through September 2003. Claims data were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We included all antihypertensive medications, including diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, beta-blockers, alpha-blockers, and angiotcnsin II receptor blockers. We used interrupted time-series analysis to study policy-related changes in the total number and cost of antihypertensive prescriptions.ResultsOverall, 38,684 enrollees in Michigan and 29,463 in Indiana met our inclusion criteria. Slightly more than half of our cohort in both states was female (53.29%in Michigan and 56.32%in Indiana). In Michigan, 20.23% of patients were aged >or=65 years; 77.44% were white, 20.11% were black, and the remainder were Hispanic, Native American, Asian, or of other or unknown race. In Indiana, 20.07% were aged >or=65 years; 84.93% were white, 13.64% were black, and the remainder were Hispanic, Native American, Asian, or of other or unknown race. The implementation of both policies was associated with large and immediate reductions in the use of nonpreferred medications: 83.33% reduction in the use of such drugs in Michigan (-84.30 prescriptions per 1000 enrollees per month; P < 0.001) and 35.76% in Indiana (-64.45 prescriptions per 1000 enrollees per month; P < 0.001). As expected, use of preferred medications also increased substantially in both states (P < 0.001). Overall, antihypertensive therapy immediately dropped 0.16% in Michigan (P = 0.04) and 1.82% in Indiana (P = 0.02). Implementation of the policies was also associated with reductions in pharmacy reimbursement of $616,572.43 in Michigan and $868,265.97 in Indiana in the first postpolicy year.ConclusionsPrior authorization was associated with lower use of nonpreferred antihypertensive drugs that was largely offset by increases in the use of preferred drugs. The possible clinical consequences of policy-induced drug switching for individual patients remain unknown because the present study did not include access to medical record data. Further research is needed to establish whether large-scale switches in medicines following the inception of prior-authorization policies have any long-term health effects.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.