MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040835663 · doi:10.3821/145.6.cpj245

Private Insurers Implementing Policies Making Generic Substitution Mandatory

2012· article· en· W2040835663 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kathie Lynas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicPharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubstitution (logic)BusinessActuarial scienceMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two of Canada's major private insurers are borrowing a page from their public-sector counterparts, by implementing mandatory generic substitution for employer drug plans. In the past few months, both Sun Life Financial and Great West Life have implemented new rules on reimbursement in a bid to contain drug payment costs. The changes are expected to have a significant impact; together, the 2 insurance companies administer about half of Canada's private health plans. In an update on group benefits issued April 2012, Sun Life called its new policy “the next step in generic substitution” — aimed at reducing costs for clients and ensuring long-term drug plan sustainability. It stated that the average claim on brandname drugs is approximately $72, versus only $27 for generics. Under the new rules, Sun Life will reimburse only the cost of the lowest-priced equivalent drug (usually the generic version). “This means that even when a doctor writes ‘no substitution’ on the prescription, the member will be reimbursed for the lowest-priced equivalent,” the update read. Initially, the change was to apply only to new plans (effective May 1, 2012). Great West Life introduced similar changes to all new plans in December 2011 and in mid-2012, extended the policy to existing plans. It stated, “…benefits will be based on the cost of the lowest-priced interchangeable drug that has the same medicinal ingredients. A plan member can choose to pay the difference in cost and still purchase the prescribed drug.” The insurers are allowing for some exceptions; the higher-cost drug will be covered if the plan member provides medical evidence that a prescribed brand-name drug cannot be substituted. The brand-name pharmaceutical industry has expressed concern about the insurers' new policies. They argue it restricts freedom and in some cases, will force changes on patients for purely cost-containment reasons. “We believe that health care professionals, working hand-in-hand with their patients, are best positioned to make the safest, most effective treatment decisions,” says Russell Williams, president of Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D). The brand-name industry appreciates the “very serious fiscal pressures facing all payers,” says Mr. Williams, while adding that “new, more scientifically advanced medicines are actually a critical tool in building a more sustainable system and productive workforce overall. In restricting access to innovative medicines, we risk impacting health care costs negatively by increasing the need for hospitalizations or more costly interventions.” The generic industry, on the other hand, has welcomed the changes. The insurance companies are responding to the growing use of reimbursement coupons for brand-name drugs, according to Jeff Connell, vice president, corporate affairs, with the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association (CGPA). “These programs claim that they ‘pay the difference between the brand and the generic,’ but that's not true if the private drug plans don't have strict no-substitution policies,” he says. “The coupons are the payer of last resort, which means if the card is presented at a pharmacy and the drug plan has loose rules, the employer pays the difference.” Sun Life has said that the number of doctors writing “no substitution” on prescriptions has dramatically increased. For example, says the insurer, nosubstitution claims for Lipitor — which went off patent in 2010 — have increased 138% so far this year. This trend is directly related to the coupon incentives that many brand-name drug companies have developed, says Mr. Connell. “We congratulate Sun Life and Great West Life for putting the brakes on the costs to their clients with absolutely zero impact on patient care.”

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0170.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du CanadaSame topicPharmaceutical Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207