29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Physician Awareness of Drug Cost: A Systematic Review

      research-article
      1 , 2 , * , 3 , 4 , 5
      PLoS Medicine
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Pharmaceutical costs are the fastest-growing health-care expense in most developed countries. Higher drug costs have been shown to negatively impact patient outcomes. Studies suggest that doctors have a poor understanding of pharmaceutical costs, but the data are variable and there is no consistent pattern in awareness. We designed this systematic review to investigate doctors' knowledge of the relative and absolute costs of medications and to determine the factors that influence awareness.

          Methods and Findings

          Our search strategy included The Cochrane Library, EconoLit, EMBASE, and MEDLINE as well as reference lists and contact with authors who had published two or more articles on the topic or who had published within 10 y of the commencement of our review. Studies were included if: either doctors, trainees (interns or residents), or medical students were surveyed; there were more than ten survey respondents; cost of pharmaceuticals was estimated; results were expressed quantitatively; there was a clear description of how authors defined “accurate estimates”; and there was a description of how the true cost was determined. Two authors reviewed each article for eligibility and extracted data independently. Cost accuracy outcomes were summarized, but data were not combined in meta-analysis because of extensive heterogeneity. Qualitative data related to physicians and drug costs were also extracted. The final analysis included 24 articles. Cost accuracy was low; 31% of estimates were within 20% or 25% of the true cost, and fewer than 50% were accurate by any definition of cost accuracy. Methodological weaknesses were common, and studies of low methodological quality showed better cost awareness. The most important factor influencing the pattern and accuracy of estimation was the true cost of therapy. High-cost drugs were estimated more accurately than inexpensive ones (74% versus 31%, Chi-square p < 0.001). Doctors consistently overestimated the cost of inexpensive products and underestimated the cost of expensive ones (binomial test, 89/101, p < 0.001). When asked, doctors indicated that they want cost information and feel it would improve their prescribing but that it is not accessible.

          Conclusions

          Doctors' ignorance of costs, combined with their tendency to underestimate the price of expensive drugs and overestimate the price of inexpensive ones, demonstrate a lack of appreciation of the large difference in cost between inexpensive and expensive drugs. This discrepancy in turn could have profound implications for overall drug expenditures. Much more focus is required in the education of physicians about costs and the access to cost information. Future research should focus on the accessibility and reliability of medical cost information and whether the provision of this information is used by doctors and makes a difference to physician prescribing. Additionally, future work should strive for higher methodological standards to avoid the biases we found in the current literature, including attention to the method of assessing accuracy that allows larger absolute estimation ranges for expensive drugs.

          Abstract

          From a review of data from 24 studies, Michael Allan and colleagues conclude that doctors often underestimate the price of expensive drugs and overestimate the price of those that are inexpensive.

          Editors' Summary

          Background.

          Many medicines are extremely expensive, and the cost of buying them is a major (and increasing) proportion of the total cost of health care. Governments and health-care organizations try to find ways of keeping down costs without reducing the effectiveness of the health care they provide, but their efforts to control what is spent on medicines have not been very successful. There are often two or more equally effective drugs available for treating the same condition, and it would obviously help keep costs down if, when a doctor prescribes a medicine, he or she chose the cheapest of the effective drugs available. This choice could result in savings for whoever is paying for the drugs, be it the government, the patient, or a medical insurance organization.

          Why Was This Study Done?

          Doctors who prescribe drugs cannot be expected to know the exact cost of each drug on the market, but it would he helpful if they had some impression of the cost of a treatment and how the various alternatives compare in price. However, systems deciding how drugs are priced are often very complex. (This is particularly the case in the US.) The researchers wanted to find out how aware doctors are regarding drug costs and the difference between the alternatives. They also wanted to know what factors affected their awareness.

          What Did the Researchers Do and Find?

          They decided to do a systematic review of all the research already conducted that addressed this issue so that the evidence from all of them could be considered together. In order to do such a review they had to specify precise requirements for the type of study that they would include and then comprehensively search the medical literature for such studies. They found 24 studies that met their requirements. From these studies, they concluded that doctors were usually not accurate when asked to estimate the cost of drugs; doctors came up with estimates that were within 25% of the true cost less than one-third of the time. In particular doctors tended to underestimate the cost of expensive drugs and overestimate the cost of the cheaper alternatives. A further analysis of the studies showed that many doctors said they would appreciate more accurate information on costs to help them choose which drugs to prescribe but that such information was not readily available.

          What Do These Findings Mean?

          The researchers concluded that their systematic review demonstrates a lack of appreciation by prescribing doctors of the large difference in cost between inexpensive and expensive drugs, and that this finding has serious implications for overall spending on drugs. They call for more education and information to be provided to doctors on the cost of medicines together with better processes to help doctors in making such decisions.

          Additional Information.

          Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040283.

          Related collections

          Most cited references81

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses.

          The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The QUOROM group consisted of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and researchers. In conference, the group was asked to identify items they thought should be included in a checklist of standards. Whenever possible, checklist items were guided by research evidence suggesting that failure to adhere to the item proposed could lead to biased results. A modified Delphi technique was used in assessing candidate items. The conference resulted in the QUOROM statement, a checklist, and a flow diagram. The checklist describes our preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta-analysis. It is organised into 21 headings and subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis, and in the results with "trial flow", study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis; research documentation was identified for eight of the 18 items. The flow diagram provides information about both the numbers of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for exclusion of trials. We hope this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care.

            To characterise the information needs of family doctors by collecting the questions they asked about patient care during consultations and to classify these in ways that would be useful to developers of knowledge bases. Observational study in which investigators visited doctors for two half days and collected their questions. Taxonomies were developed to characterise the clinical topic and generic type of information sought for each question. Eastern Iowa. Random sample of 103 family doctors. Number of questions posed, pursued, and answered; topic and generic type of information sought for each question; time spent pursuing answers; information resources used. Participants asked a total of 1101 questions. Questions about drug prescribing, obstetrics and gynaecology, and adult infectious disease were most common and comprised 36% of all questions. The taxonomy of generic questions included 69 categories; the three most common types, comprising 24% of all questions, were "What is the cause of symptom X?" "What is the dose of drug X?" and "How should I manage disease or finding X?" Answers to most questions (702, 64%) were not immediately pursued, but, of those pursued, most (318, 80%) were answered. Doctors spent an average of less than 2 minutes pursuing an answer, and they used readily available print and human resources. Only two questions led to a formal literature search. Family doctors in this study did not pursue answers to most of their questions. Questions about patient care can be organised into a limited number of generic types, which could help guide the efforts of knowledge base developers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Pharmacy benefits and the use of drugs by the chronically ill.

              Many health plans have instituted more cost sharing to discourage use of more expensive pharmaceuticals and to reduce drug spending. To determine how changes in cost sharing affect use of the most commonly used drug classes among the privately insured and the chronically ill. Retrospective US study conducted from 1997 to 2000, examining linked pharmacy claims data with health plan benefit designs from 30 employers and 52 health plans. Participants were 528,969 privately insured beneficiaries aged 18 to 64 years and enrolled from 1 to 4 years (960,791 person-years). Relative change in drug days supplied (per member, per year) when co-payments doubled in a prototypical drug benefit plan. Doubling co-payments was associated with reductions in use of 8 therapeutic classes. The largest decreases occurred for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (45%) and antihistamines (44%). Reductions in overall days supplied of antihyperlipidemics (34%), antiulcerants (33%), antiasthmatics (32%), antihypertensives (26%), antidepressants (26%), and antidiabetics (25%) were also observed. Among patients diagnosed as having a chronic illness and receiving ongoing care, use was less responsive to co-payment changes. Use of antidepressants by depressed patients declined by 8%; use of antihypertensives by hypertensive patients decreased by 10%. Larger reductions were observed for arthritis patients taking NSAIDs (27%) and allergy patients taking antihistamines (31%). Patients with diabetes reduced their use of antidiabetes drugs by 23%. The use of medications such as antihistamines and NSAIDs, which are taken intermittently to treat symptoms, was sensitive to co-payment changes. Other medications--antihypertensive, antiasthmatic, antidepressant, antihyperlipidemic, antiulcerant, and antidiabetic agents--also demonstrated significant price responsiveness. The reduction in use of medications for individuals in ongoing care was more modest. Still, significant increases in co-payments raise concern about adverse health consequences because of the large price effects, especially among diabetic patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                PLoS Med
                pmed
                PLoS Medicine
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1549-1277
                1549-1676
                September 2007
                25 September 2007
                : 4
                : 9
                : e283
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
                [2 ] Institute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
                [3 ] Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [4 ] School of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [5 ] Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
                World Health Organization, Switzerland
                Author notes
                * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: michael.allan@ 123456ualberta.ca
                Article
                06-PLME-RA-0954R3 plme-04-09-11
                10.1371/journal.pmed.0040283
                1989748
                17896856
                032bdb72-888b-4f59-8b22-80b1e68f59a5
                Copyright: © 2007 Allan et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
                History
                : 5 December 2006
                : 14 August 2007
                Page count
                Pages: 11
                Categories
                Research Article
                Pharmacology
                Public Health and Epidemiology
                Epidemiology
                Public Health
                Health Economics
                Health Policy
                Health Services Administration/Management
                Custom metadata
                Allan GM, Lexchin J, Wiebe N (2007) Physician awareness of drug cost: A systematic review. PLoS Med 4(9): e283. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040283

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article