/PRNewswire/ -- Sticker shock is taking a toll on Americans when they fill their prescriptions: 66% of those polled by Consumer Reports said they found out the cost of a drug when they picked it up at the pharmacy counter, while just 4% said they had a conversation with their doctor about the cost of a drug. And 28% of Americans told Consumer Reports they'd taken potentially dangerous actions to save money, such as not filling prescriptions, skipping dosages, and cutting pills in half without the approval of their doctor.
Cutting Corners, Not Complying With Prescriptions
"We were surprised by the extent to which consumers are cutting corners and the risks they're taking as a result of belt-tightening. Most importantly, patients need to talk to their doctors about the cost of drugs and let them know when they have difficulty paying for prescriptions," said Dr. John Santa, director of the Consumer Reports Health Ratings Center. In a separate poll of Hispanic consumers, Consumer Reports found that half of Hispanic Americans are not following through on their doctors' prescriptions and nearly 3 in 10 had decided against filling a script for cost reasons.
New Magazine Identifies Proven, Cost-Effective Alternatives
The poll is being released in conjunction with Consumer Reports Best Drugs For Less, a 60-page magazine that rates more than 200 prescription drugs and over-the-counter medicines for more than 20 conditions including heart disease, asthma, diabetes, and depression. Best Drugs for Less can be purchased by visiting www.ConsumerReportsHealth.org, where the ratings can be accessed for free. The ratings are part of a larger initiative by the newly launched Consumer Reports Health Ratings Center to provide consumers with health ratings based on independent and unbiased review of the best scientific evidence available.
"By every measure, and certainly through our extensive polling, it is clear that our long term economic crisis will only be solved by also fixing our nation's health-care system," said Consumers Union President Jim Guest. According to Guest, Consumers Union has been a strong advocate of increased federal funding for comparative effectiveness -- the task of comparing different options for treating a medical condition -- which received $1.1 billion in stimulus funding and is being looked at by Congress for additional funding. "Comparative effectiveness research helps patients and doctors make better choices, and will help improve our broken health-care system," said Guest.
Misgivings About Generics
When generic versions of a brand name drug are available, they are as safe and effective as the original. For brand name drugs, where a generic version is not available, in many cases doctors or pharmacists can substitute the generic version of an older drug with equivalent effectiveness (and often a longer safety record).
-- Nearly half of Americans polled (47%) had reservations or
misconceptions about taking generic drugs.
-- Forty-six percent of Americans polled by Consumer Reports said their
physician never or sometimes recommended generics.
-- Accurate information about generics is not reaching the consumers who
could benefit the most, such as those spending more than $50/month on
prescription drugs (52%).
-- In a separate Consumer Reports poll of Hispanic consumers, 43%
expressed misgivings about generics, saying they sometimes or never
work.
Americans Heeding Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising
"The pharmaceutical industry undermines generic drugs very effectively through advertising and free samples of brand-name drugs, while using more subtle tactics to tell patients and doctors that generics are something to be afraid of," said Dr. Santa.
-- One fifth of people who regularly take a prescription medication have
requested a drug from their doctor that they had seen in a drug ad and
the majority (67%) said their doctor wrote the prescription.
-- Eighty percent of the same group said they had received free drug
samples from their doctors.
Americans Perceive Undue Influence of Pharmaceutical Industry
-- Consumers perceive the undue influence of pharmaceutical companies on
their doctors. Those practices raising the greatest concern among
consumers were rewarding doctors who write a lot of prescriptions
(82%); receiving fully paid trips (77%) or gifts worth more than $50
(76%); and paying for doctors' attendance at meetings (67%).
Washington, D. C., Campaign For Comparative Effectiveness
To underscore the point that some pills work better than others -- and hence the need for rigorous comparisons -- Consumer Reports is staging a display at Union Station in Washington, D.C., from Tuesday, March 17th to Thursday, March 19th. The display at the station's main hall will be easy to spot: Just look for the giant pills running on treadmills. Copies of Consumer Reports Best Drugs For Less will be distributed at Union Station, in addition to four key metro stops, as part of a weeklong Washington D.C. campaign to raise awareness about comparative effectiveness.
Poll Methodology
The Consumer Reports National Research Center conducted a telephone survey of a nationally representative probability sample of telephone households. A total of 2,004 interviews were completed among adults ages 18+ and interviewing took place January 15-19, 2009. The margin of error is +/-3.4% points at a 95% confidence level.
The material above is intended for legitimate news entities only; it may not be used for commercial or promotional purposes. Consumer Reports(R) is published by Consumers Union, an expert, independent nonprofit organization whose mission is to work for a fair, just, and safe marketplace for all consumers and to empower consumers to protect themselves. To achieve this mission, we test, inform, and protect. To maintain our independence and impartiality, Consumers Union accepts no outside advertising, no free test samples, and has no agenda other than the interests of consumers. Consumers Union supports itself through the sale of our information products and services, individual contributions, and a few noncommercial grants.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Showing posts with label cost. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cost. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Co-Payment Increases Result in Gaps in Veterans' Prescription Usage
TT Note: It just doesn't seem right that our men and women who fought for our country should have to choose whether or not to take medicine.
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Fewer veterans filled their prescriptions for cholesterol-lowering drugs after an increase in co-payment costs for prescription drugs, researchers report in Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association.
In February 2002, the Veterans Administration (VA) increased prescription co-payments from $2 to $7 per 30-day drug supply.
To determine the impact of the co-payment increase on cholesterol-lowering medication adherence, researchers examined the electronic records of 5,604 veterans treated at the Philadelphia Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center from November 1999 to April 2004.
They compared veterans in the all co-payment group and the some co-payment group with veterans who were exempt from making prescription drug co-payments. The all co-payment group paid co-pays for all drugs and the some co-payment group paid co-pays only for drugs for non-service connected health problems with out-of-pocket expenses capped at $840 per year.
Researchers analyzed the differences in cholesterol-lowering medication adherence during the 24 months before and 24 months after the institution of co-payments. Evidence of veterans having cholesterol-lowering medication 80 percent or more of the time were considered adherent.
Researchers found:
-- The number of patients who had medications available for more than 80
percent of the time declined by more than 19 percent in both the all
co-payment group and the some co-payment group. In comparison,
veterans exempt from co-payments, used as controls in the study, had a
decline of 12 percent.
-- The odds of having a continuous gap without medications for more than
90 days was three times higher among patients in the all co-payment
group and twice as high in patients in the some co-payment group when
compared to the exempt group.
"The increase in co-payments adversely impacted lipid-lowering medication adherence among veterans," said Jalpa A. Doshi, Ph.D., lead author of the study and research assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. "Of even greater concern is our finding on the similar adverse effect of the co-payment increase in veterans who are at higher risk for coronary artery disease taking the medications for primary or secondary prevention."
Statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs have been shown to reduce the risk of future coronary events and cardiovascular mortality in patients at high risk, Doshi said.
"It is concerning to see that the increase in co-payments adversely affected the use of these usually long-term medications, especially since the prevalence of heart disease is higher in the VA population than in the general population," Doshi said. "These weren't just short gaps interspersed between lipid-lowering medication refills, but continuous gaps for 90 days or more."
The study did not look at the possible increase in use of medical care due to the lack of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Other studies have shown that not taking medications for chronic diseases increases healthcare costs.
"Policymakers need to realize that the one-size-fits-all approach in designing cost-sharing policies can adversely impact high-risk patient groups," Doshi said. "This seemingly small increase from $2 to $7 more than tripled the out-of-pocket costs for veterans, who were more likely to have a lower income than the patients in the private sector."
The VA should at least consider charging lower co-payments for generic drugs than for the brand-name prescription drugs, Doshi said. "Right now the VA charges a flat co-payment for a 30-day prescription, whether it is generic or a brand-name drug. This is particularly relevant in the case of lipid-lowering drugs such as statins, wherein two brand drugs became available as generics in 2006 and are available at significantly lower prices."
She said a more-promising approach is a "value-based insurance design" method that would link co-payments to the patient's need with lower co-payments for drugs with higher expected therapeutic benefit and higher co-payments for drugs with lower therapeutic benefit.
The co-payment was increased from $7 to $8 in 2006, and with present budget constraints, it's likely that the co-payment will be further increased, Doshi said.
The VA Center for Health Equity, Research and Promotion (CHERP), American Heart Association Pharmaceutical Roundtable Award, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the National Institute of Aging and the Penn Institute on Aging funded the study.
Co-authors are: Jingsan Zhu, M.B.A.; Bruce Lee, M.D., M.B.A.; Stephen Kimmel, M.D., M.S.C.E.; and Kevin Volpp, M.D., Ph.D. Individual author disclosures are available on the manuscript.
Statements and conclusions of study authors that are published in American Heart Association scientific journals are solely those of the study authors and do not necessarily reflect the association's policy or position. The association makes no representation or guarantee as to their accuracy or reliability. The association receives funding primarily from individuals, foundations and corporations (including pharmaceutical, device manufacturers and other companies) also make donations and fund specific association programs and events. The association has strict policies to prevent these relationships from influencing the science content. Revenues from pharmaceutical and device corporations are available at www.americanheart.org/corporatefunding.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Fewer veterans filled their prescriptions for cholesterol-lowering drugs after an increase in co-payment costs for prescription drugs, researchers report in Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association.
In February 2002, the Veterans Administration (VA) increased prescription co-payments from $2 to $7 per 30-day drug supply.
To determine the impact of the co-payment increase on cholesterol-lowering medication adherence, researchers examined the electronic records of 5,604 veterans treated at the Philadelphia Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center from November 1999 to April 2004.
They compared veterans in the all co-payment group and the some co-payment group with veterans who were exempt from making prescription drug co-payments. The all co-payment group paid co-pays for all drugs and the some co-payment group paid co-pays only for drugs for non-service connected health problems with out-of-pocket expenses capped at $840 per year.
Researchers analyzed the differences in cholesterol-lowering medication adherence during the 24 months before and 24 months after the institution of co-payments. Evidence of veterans having cholesterol-lowering medication 80 percent or more of the time were considered adherent.
Researchers found:
-- The number of patients who had medications available for more than 80
percent of the time declined by more than 19 percent in both the all
co-payment group and the some co-payment group. In comparison,
veterans exempt from co-payments, used as controls in the study, had a
decline of 12 percent.
-- The odds of having a continuous gap without medications for more than
90 days was three times higher among patients in the all co-payment
group and twice as high in patients in the some co-payment group when
compared to the exempt group.
"The increase in co-payments adversely impacted lipid-lowering medication adherence among veterans," said Jalpa A. Doshi, Ph.D., lead author of the study and research assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. "Of even greater concern is our finding on the similar adverse effect of the co-payment increase in veterans who are at higher risk for coronary artery disease taking the medications for primary or secondary prevention."
Statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs have been shown to reduce the risk of future coronary events and cardiovascular mortality in patients at high risk, Doshi said.
"It is concerning to see that the increase in co-payments adversely affected the use of these usually long-term medications, especially since the prevalence of heart disease is higher in the VA population than in the general population," Doshi said. "These weren't just short gaps interspersed between lipid-lowering medication refills, but continuous gaps for 90 days or more."
The study did not look at the possible increase in use of medical care due to the lack of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Other studies have shown that not taking medications for chronic diseases increases healthcare costs.
"Policymakers need to realize that the one-size-fits-all approach in designing cost-sharing policies can adversely impact high-risk patient groups," Doshi said. "This seemingly small increase from $2 to $7 more than tripled the out-of-pocket costs for veterans, who were more likely to have a lower income than the patients in the private sector."
The VA should at least consider charging lower co-payments for generic drugs than for the brand-name prescription drugs, Doshi said. "Right now the VA charges a flat co-payment for a 30-day prescription, whether it is generic or a brand-name drug. This is particularly relevant in the case of lipid-lowering drugs such as statins, wherein two brand drugs became available as generics in 2006 and are available at significantly lower prices."
She said a more-promising approach is a "value-based insurance design" method that would link co-payments to the patient's need with lower co-payments for drugs with higher expected therapeutic benefit and higher co-payments for drugs with lower therapeutic benefit.
The co-payment was increased from $7 to $8 in 2006, and with present budget constraints, it's likely that the co-payment will be further increased, Doshi said.
The VA Center for Health Equity, Research and Promotion (CHERP), American Heart Association Pharmaceutical Roundtable Award, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the National Institute of Aging and the Penn Institute on Aging funded the study.
Co-authors are: Jingsan Zhu, M.B.A.; Bruce Lee, M.D., M.B.A.; Stephen Kimmel, M.D., M.S.C.E.; and Kevin Volpp, M.D., Ph.D. Individual author disclosures are available on the manuscript.
Statements and conclusions of study authors that are published in American Heart Association scientific journals are solely those of the study authors and do not necessarily reflect the association's policy or position. The association makes no representation or guarantee as to their accuracy or reliability. The association receives funding primarily from individuals, foundations and corporations (including pharmaceutical, device manufacturers and other companies) also make donations and fund specific association programs and events. The association has strict policies to prevent these relationships from influencing the science content. Revenues from pharmaceutical and device corporations are available at www.americanheart.org/corporatefunding.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Obesity Comes With a Price Tag
(BUSINESS WIRE)--There are hard dollars-and-cents costs to being overweight or obese, according to Humana (NYSE: HUM), one of the nation’s largest health benefits companies.
Specifically, Humana estimates these costs at the following for 2009:
* $19.39 in added health care costs for every overweight pound;
* $1,037.64 for every overweight individual;
* $127 billion added to the national health care bill.
Overweight people are more prone to heart disease, stroke, diabetes — even some kinds of cancers. Chronic diseases that are a result of weighing too much are an ever-increasing part of America’s health care bill.
Carol McCall — a research actuary at Humana — culled through national health care data and the data from Humana’s members, and here is what she found.
Like butter and sugar, obesity has a cost per pound
On average, the annual per-pound cost of being overweight — that is, the added cost per added pound of the overweight and the obese — is $19.39. The cost increases with age.
For 25-year-olds, it averages $10.25 for every overweight pound. By age 64, it increases to $26.32. (On average, overweight people are 29 pounds overweight; the obese are 82 pounds overweight.)
For someone age 25, the added annual health care cost is $209 for the overweight and $960 for the obese. By age 64, this grows to $610 extra for the overweight and $2,300 for the obese.
Why this impacts the national healthcare crisis
There are more than 122 million overweight and obese Americans between the ages of 20 and 65. On average, their additional health care costs are $534 per year for an overweight person and $1,614 for an obese person. Those costs add up to a $127 billion crisis. The increase in obesity prevalence – going from 23 percent to 33 percent between 1994 and 2004 – added $34 billion to the annual health care bill.
A person who is 25 and obese today, and remains obese until they’re 65, will average $179,000 more in health care costs (in 2009 dollars, assuming health care inflation of 4 percent a year) over those 40 years.
A new way to look at and to count calories
Maintaining all of those extra pounds requires Americans to take in 23 trillion calories a year. That’s the equivalent of 46 billion Big Macs, 114 billion Krispy Kreme donuts or 152 billion bags of chips.
These calories have the same energy as the following:
* 10 1,000-megawatt power stations generating for a year
* 788 million gallons of gasoline
* 10 million tons of coal
* 96 trillion AA alkaline batteries
There is a way to get out of this national problem
The good news is that Humana’s data also indicates that just a small change – a reduction of 276 calories a day for the overweight – makes a big difference. Cutting that little from each day’s intake would start moving millions of Americans from the category of overweight to healthy. That means people don’t have to re-engineer their lives to get on a healthier path. Incremental change — giving up one soft drink and walking an extra 2,500 steps each day, for example — will do the job.
“If obesity were eliminated, or even significantly reduced,” says McCall, “the money saved would be significant. It could pay for food for the poor, health insurance for the uninsured or millions of college educations every year.”
Dr. Jonathan Lord, Humana’s Chief Innovation Officer — who oversees Humana’s efforts to reduce health care costs by engaging people in healthy behaviors — put it this way: “In this time of financial crisis, it’s now clear that Americans can improve the economy as well as their own health prospects by giving up a few pounds.”
“Riding a bike and taking a walk in the park burn calories,” Dr. Lord says, “but those activities are also fun. Life is so hectic and we are so dependent on cars that many of us have forgotten that.”
Humana’s Innovation Center is full of teams trying to find new ways to engage people in their health. The company believes that the key to success is to meet people where they are: at school, playing video games, on cell phones, walking or riding bikes in the park.
Humana, for example, created the Freewheelin bike-sharing program, which debuted at the Democratic and Republican national conventions last summer. In less than two weeks, 7,523 rides were taken, 42,000 miles were ridden, 1.3 million calories were burned – and participants who hadn’t been on a bike in years raved about the experience. Now, Humana is partnering in B-cycle, a new company it created to sell bike-sharing programs to cities and universities.
Humana also is partnering in Sensei, a cell phone application to support people in making better nutritional choices and in physical activity. And the company has also pioneered several very successful pedometer programs in England and in this country.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Specifically, Humana estimates these costs at the following for 2009:
* $19.39 in added health care costs for every overweight pound;
* $1,037.64 for every overweight individual;
* $127 billion added to the national health care bill.
Overweight people are more prone to heart disease, stroke, diabetes — even some kinds of cancers. Chronic diseases that are a result of weighing too much are an ever-increasing part of America’s health care bill.
Carol McCall — a research actuary at Humana — culled through national health care data and the data from Humana’s members, and here is what she found.
Like butter and sugar, obesity has a cost per pound
On average, the annual per-pound cost of being overweight — that is, the added cost per added pound of the overweight and the obese — is $19.39. The cost increases with age.
For 25-year-olds, it averages $10.25 for every overweight pound. By age 64, it increases to $26.32. (On average, overweight people are 29 pounds overweight; the obese are 82 pounds overweight.)
For someone age 25, the added annual health care cost is $209 for the overweight and $960 for the obese. By age 64, this grows to $610 extra for the overweight and $2,300 for the obese.
Why this impacts the national healthcare crisis
There are more than 122 million overweight and obese Americans between the ages of 20 and 65. On average, their additional health care costs are $534 per year for an overweight person and $1,614 for an obese person. Those costs add up to a $127 billion crisis. The increase in obesity prevalence – going from 23 percent to 33 percent between 1994 and 2004 – added $34 billion to the annual health care bill.
A person who is 25 and obese today, and remains obese until they’re 65, will average $179,000 more in health care costs (in 2009 dollars, assuming health care inflation of 4 percent a year) over those 40 years.
A new way to look at and to count calories
Maintaining all of those extra pounds requires Americans to take in 23 trillion calories a year. That’s the equivalent of 46 billion Big Macs, 114 billion Krispy Kreme donuts or 152 billion bags of chips.
These calories have the same energy as the following:
* 10 1,000-megawatt power stations generating for a year
* 788 million gallons of gasoline
* 10 million tons of coal
* 96 trillion AA alkaline batteries
There is a way to get out of this national problem
The good news is that Humana’s data also indicates that just a small change – a reduction of 276 calories a day for the overweight – makes a big difference. Cutting that little from each day’s intake would start moving millions of Americans from the category of overweight to healthy. That means people don’t have to re-engineer their lives to get on a healthier path. Incremental change — giving up one soft drink and walking an extra 2,500 steps each day, for example — will do the job.
“If obesity were eliminated, or even significantly reduced,” says McCall, “the money saved would be significant. It could pay for food for the poor, health insurance for the uninsured or millions of college educations every year.”
Dr. Jonathan Lord, Humana’s Chief Innovation Officer — who oversees Humana’s efforts to reduce health care costs by engaging people in healthy behaviors — put it this way: “In this time of financial crisis, it’s now clear that Americans can improve the economy as well as their own health prospects by giving up a few pounds.”
“Riding a bike and taking a walk in the park burn calories,” Dr. Lord says, “but those activities are also fun. Life is so hectic and we are so dependent on cars that many of us have forgotten that.”
Humana’s Innovation Center is full of teams trying to find new ways to engage people in their health. The company believes that the key to success is to meet people where they are: at school, playing video games, on cell phones, walking or riding bikes in the park.
Humana, for example, created the Freewheelin bike-sharing program, which debuted at the Democratic and Republican national conventions last summer. In less than two weeks, 7,523 rides were taken, 42,000 miles were ridden, 1.3 million calories were burned – and participants who hadn’t been on a bike in years raved about the experience. Now, Humana is partnering in B-cycle, a new company it created to sell bike-sharing programs to cities and universities.
Humana also is partnering in Sensei, a cell phone application to support people in making better nutritional choices and in physical activity. And the company has also pioneered several very successful pedometer programs in England and in this country.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
