Impact of Patient Reimbursement Timing and Patient Out-of-Pocket Expenses on Medication Adherence in Patients Covered by Private Drug Insurance Plans
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Adherence to prescribed medications used in the treatment of chronic diseases is suboptimal, and drug insurance plans can have an impact on adherence. There is little evidence on the impact of patient reimbursement timing on medication adherence. OBJECTIVE: To compare adherence to prescribed medications in privately insured patients from Quebec, Canada, with different patient reimbursement timing and levels of patient out-of-pocket expenses. METHODS: A retrospective cohort was constructed by selecting privately insured patients aged 18-64 years from the reMed database (2008-2012) who filled at least 1 prescription for a medication belonging to 1 of the 10 most prescribed drug classes for chronic diseases. Patient reimbursement timing was classified as immediate (immediate patient reimbursement at the point of service of the portion of the medication cost covered by the insurer) or deferred (patient reimbursement at a later time). Patient outof-pocket expenses related to the medication under study at cohort entry (available only for the immediate patient reimbursement group), which included the deductible and the coinsurance, were categorized into 5 levels (null category and quartiles): $0, $0.01-$3.59, $3.60-$8.11, $8.12-$14.40, and $14.41-$89.99. Adherence was measured with the proportion of days covered (PDC) over 1 year among new users of the medication under study. Linear regression models were used to estimate the adjusted mean difference of PDC between groups. RESULTS: There was no difference in medication adherence between the immediate (n = 1,345) and deferred patient reimbursement (n = 437; difference, 0.0%; 95% CI, -3.0 to 3.0). Patients with the highest patient out-of-pocket expenses were less adherent than those with the lowest patient out-of-pocket expenses (difference, -19.0%; 95% CI, -24.0 to -13.0); however, patients with no patient out-of-pocket expenses were less adherent than those with low patient out-of-pocket expenses (difference, -9.0%; 95% CI, -15.0 to -2.0). CONCLUSIONS: Medication adherence appeared to be unaffected by patient reimbursement timing but was affected by the level of patient out-of-pocket expenses. The absence of a correlation between medication adherence and timing of patient reimbursement might be explained by the relatively rapid reimbursement of expenses by insurance companies in Canada. Subjects with no patient out-of-pocket expenses at the point of service might be less adherent because they place less value on their medications than do patients who must pay even a small amount. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Pfizer Canada, Montréal, Québec, Canada. Blais received research grants or honorarium from AstraZeneca, Pfizer Canada, Sanofi, Novartis, Almirall, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck for research projects and co-chairs the AstraZeneca Endowment Pharmaceutical Chair in Respiratory Health. Després, Kettani, and Forget have no competing interests to declare. All authors contributed to the concept and design of the study. Data were collected by Blais and Forget. Data analysis was conducted by Després. The manuscript was written by Després and revised by all authors.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».