...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of managed care pharmacy : >Addition of generic medication vouchers to a pharmacist academic detailing program: effects on the generic dispensing ratio in a physician-hospital organization.
【24h】

Addition of generic medication vouchers to a pharmacist academic detailing program: effects on the generic dispensing ratio in a physician-hospital organization.

机译:在药剂师的学术详细计划中增加通用药物代用券:对医师-医院组织中通用药物配给率的影响。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Generic dispensing ratio (GDR) is an important measure of efficiency in pharmacy benefit management. A few studies have examined the effects of academic detailing or generic drug samples on GDR. On July 1, 2007, a physician-hospital organization (PHO) with a pay-for-performance incentive for generic utilization initiated a pilot generic medication voucher program that augmented its existing pharmacist-led academic detailing efforts. No published studies have examined the role of generic medication vouchers in promoting generic drug utilization. OBJECTIVE: To determine if supplementing an existing academic detailing initiative in a PHO with a generic medication voucher program would be more effective in increasing the GDR compared with academic detailing alone. METHODS: The intervention took place over the 9-month period from July 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. Vouchers provided patients with the first fill of a 30-day supply of a generic drug at no cost to the patient for 8 specific generic medications obtained through a national community pharmacy chain. The study was conducted in a PHO composed of 7 hospitals and approximately 2,900 physicians (900 primary care providers [PCPs] and 2,000 specialists). Of the approximately 300 PCP practices, 21 practices with at least 2 physicians each were selected on the basis of high prescription volume (more than 500 pharmacy claims for the practice over a 12-month pre-baseline period) and low GDR (practice GDR less than 55% in the 12-month pre-baseline period). These 21 practices were then randomized to a control group of academic detailing alone or the intervention group that received academic detailing plus generic medication vouchers. One of 10 intervention groups declined to participate, and 2 of 11 control groups dropped out of the PHO. GDR was calculated monthly for all pharmacy claims including the 8 voucher medications. GDR was defined as the ratio of the total number of paid generic pharmacy claims divided by the total number of paid pharmacy claims for 108 prescriber identification numbers (Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA] or National Provider Identifier [NPI]) for 9 intervention groups [n = 53 PCPs] and 9 control groups [n = 55 PCPs]). For both intervention and control arms, the GDR for each month from July 2007 (start of 2007 Q3, intervention start date) through September 2008 (end of 2008 Q3, 6 months after intervention end date) was compared with the same month in the previous year. A descriptive analysis compared a 9-month baseline period from 2006 Q3 through 2007 Q1 with a 9-month voucher period from 2007 Q3 to 2008 Q1. A panel data regression analysis assessed GDR for 18 practices over 27 months (12 months pre-intervention and 15 months post-intervention). RESULTS: A total of 656 vouchers were redeemed over the 9-month voucher period from July 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008, for an average of about 12 vouchers per participating physician; approximately one-third of the redeemed vouchers were for generic simvastatin. The GDR increase for all drugs, including the 8 voucher drugs, was 7.4 points for the 9 PCP group practices with access to generic medication vouchers, from 53.4% in the 9-month baseline period to 60.8% in the 9-month voucher period, compared with a 6.2 point increase for the control group from 55.9% during baseline to 62.1% during the voucher period. The panel data regression model estimated that the medication voucher program was associated with a 1.77-point increase in overall GDR compared with academic detailing alone (P = 0.047). CONCLUSION: Compared with academic detailing alone, a generic medication voucher program providing a 30-day supply of 8 specific medications in addition to academic detailing in PCP groups with low GDR and high prescribing volume in an outpatient setting was associated with a small but statistically significant increase in adjusted overall GDR.
机译:背景:通用配药比例(GDR)是药房收益管理效率的重要指标。一些研究检查了学术细节或仿制药样品对GDR的影响。 2007年7月1日,具有绩效奖励的医师/医院组织(PHO)启动了仿制药利用试点的仿制药优惠券计划,该计划扩大了其现有的由药剂师主导的学术详细研究工作。没有发表的研究检查过仿制药凭单在促进仿制药利用中的作用。目的:确定用通用药品券计划在PHO中补充现有的学术详细计划是否比单独进行学术详细设计能更有效地提高GDR。方法:干预从2007年7月1日至2008年3月31日的9个月内进行。优惠券为患者提供了30天免费提供的仿制药的第一批补给,可免费提供8种特定药物通过国家社区药房链获得的非专利药。该研究是在PHO中进行的,该PHO由7家医院和大约2,900名医生(900名初级保健提供者[PCP]和2,000名专家)组成。在大约300种PCP执业中,根据高处方量(在基线前12个月内有500多个药理要求的执业资格)和低GDR(较少的GDR)选择了21种执业,每个执业医师至少2名在基线前12个月内超过55%)。然后,将这21种做法随机分配到一个单独的学术详细信息对照组或一个接受学术详细信息以及通用药物优惠券的干预组。 10个干预组中的1个拒绝参与,11个对照组中的2个退出了PHO。每月对所有药房索赔(包括8种优惠券药物)计算GDR。 GDR定义为9个干预组[n]的108个处方药识别号码(药物执行管理局[DEA]或国家医疗服务提供者识别码[NPI])的已付款仿制药索赔总数与已付款药索赔总数之比。 = 53个PCP]和9个对照组[n = 55个PCP])。对于干预和控制部门,将从2007年7月(2007年第三季度开始,干预开始日期)到2008年9月(2008年第三季度末,干预结束日期后六个月)的每个月的GDR与上个月的同月进行比较年。描述性分析比较了从2006年第三季度到2007年第一季度的9个月基准期与从2007年第三季度到2008年第一季度的9个月优惠券期。小组数据回归分析评估了27个月(干预前12个月和干预后15个月)中18种实践的GDR。结果:从2007年7月1日到2008年3月31日的9个月优惠券期内,共兑换了656张优惠券,每位参与医师平均可兑换12张优惠券。约有三分之一的兑换券用于仿制辛伐他汀。所有9种PCP组可使用仿制药凭单的药品的所有药品(包括8种凭单药品)的GDR增长为7.4点,从9个月基线期的53.4%增至9个月凭单期间的60.8%,对照组则从基准期间的55.9%增加到优惠券期间的62.1%,增加了6.2点。面板数据回归模型估计,与单独的学术细节相比,药物券计划与总体GDR增加1.77点相关(P = 0.047)。结论:与单独的学术详细信息相比,普通药物优惠券计划除了在门诊患者中具有低GDR和高处方量的PCP组中提供学术详细信息外,还提供30天的8种特​​定药物的供应,其相关性虽小但具有统计学意义调整后的整体GDR增加。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号