↓ Skip to main content

Giving formulary and drug cost information to providers and impact on medication cost and use: a longitudinal non-randomized study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Giving formulary and drug cost information to providers and impact on medication cost and use: a longitudinal non-randomized study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1752-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chien-Wen Tseng, Grace A. Lin, James Davis, Deborah A. Taira, Jinoos Yazdany, Qimei He, Randi Chen, Allison Imamura, R. Adams Dudley

Abstract

Providers wish to help patients with prescription costs but often lack drug cost information. We examined whether giving providers formulary and drug cost information was associated with changes in their diabetes patients' drug costs and use. We conducted a longitudinal non-randomized evaluation of the web-based Prescribing Guide ( www.PrescribingGuide.com ), a free resource available to Hawaii's providers since 2006, which summarizes the formularies and copayments of six health plans for drugs to treat 16 common health conditions. All adult primary care physicians in Hawaii were offered the Prescribing Guide, and providers who enrolled received a link to the website and regular hardcopy updates. We analyzed prescription claims from a large health plan in Hawaii for 5,883 members with diabetes from 2007 (baseline) to 2009 (follow-up). Patients were linked to 299 "main prescribing" providers, who on average, accounted for >88 % of patients' prescriptions and drug costs. We compared changes in drug costs and use for "study" patients whose main provider enrolled to receive the Prescribing Guide, versus "control" patients whose main provider did not enroll to receive the Prescribing Guide. In multivariate analyses controlling for provider specialty and clustering of patients by providers, both patient groups experienced similar increases in number of prescriptions (+3.2 vs. +2.7 increase, p = 0.24), and days supply of medications (+141 vs. +129 increase, p = 0.40) averaged across all drugs. Total and out-of-pocket drug costs also increased for both control and study patients. However, control patients showed higher increases in yearly total drug costs of $208 per patient (+$792 vs. +$584 increase, p = 0.02) and in 30-day supply costs (+$9.40 vs. +$6.08 increase, p = 0.03). Both groups experienced similar changes in yearly out-of-pocket costs (+$41 vs + $31 increase, p = 0.36) and per 30-day supply (-$0.23 vs. -$0.19 decrease, p = 0.996). Giving formulary and drug cost information to providers was associated with lower increases in total drug costs but not with lower out-of-pocket costs or greater medication use. Insurers and health information technology businesses should continue to increase providers' access to formulary and drug cost information at the point of care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 21%
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 26%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Environmental Science 2 6%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 6 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 January 2019.
All research outputs
#7,892,319
of 25,257,066 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,887
of 8,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,061
of 328,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#91
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,257,066 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,493 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 194 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.