Is the Rate of Generic Drug Prescribing a Fair Measure for Pay for Performance?
Tóm tắt
Prescription drugs are a significant and rising component of healthcare costs. To limit this expenditure and maximize cost savings, half of the pay-for-performance health programs in the US reward generic drug prescribing once the patents on brand-name drugs expire. This article discusses arguments for and against the rate of generic drug prescribing as a fair measure for pay for performance from both provider and patient perspectives. Compared with brand-name drugs, generic drugs are usually cheaper to purchase, can avoid confusion over different names for the same drug, minimize commercial influences from drug manufacturers, and can allow pharmacists to dispense any medicine that meets the necessary specifications. However, saving money may be a responsibility of governments and payers rather than providers. Some providers and patients are uneasy that financial incentives for generic prescribing may not directly aim to improve patient care and may motivate providers to put their own financial interests above the welfare of patients. It has not been proven that the financial incentives are large enough to change prescribing behavior or that generic drugs are less safe or less effective than their brand-name counterparts. However, there are legitimate concerns around bioequivalence standards, and some providers and patients object to attempts to compromise their autonomy. High-quality care requires not a rigid adherence to performance indicators but a careful and flexible balancing of provider and patient interests. A final concern is patient non-adherence or mistakes in adherence following a change to a generic drug. It is uncertain that pay for performance is the best way — or a fair way — to contain spiraling health costs.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Galvin R, McGlynn EA. Using performance measurement to drive improvement: a road map for change. Med Care 2003; 41 Suppl.: 148–60
Shojania KG, McDonald K, Wachter RM, et al. Closing the quality gap: a critical analysis of quality improvement strategies. Vol. 1: series overview and methodology [AHRQ publication no. 04-0051-1]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2004
Doran T. Lessons from early experience with pay for performance. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 2008; 16(2): 69–77
Shekelle PG. New contract for general practitioners. BMJ 2003; 326: 457–8
Rosenthal M, Fernandopulle R, Song H, et al. Paying for quality: providers’ incentives for quality improvement. Health Aff 2004; 23: 127–37
Gross R, Elhaynay A, Friedman N, et al. Pay for performance in Israeli sick funds. J Health Org Manag 2008; 22: 23–35
Greb S, Focke A, Hessel F, et al. Financial incentives for disease management programmes and integrated care in German social health insurance. Health Policy 2006; 78: 295–305
Buetow S. Pay-for-performance in New Zealand primary health care. J Health Org Manag 2008; 22: 36–47
Endsley S, Baker G, Kershner B, et al. What family physicians need to know about pay for performance. Farn Pract Manag 2006; 13(7): 69–74
Snow DJ. Maximising generic utilisation: the power of pharmacy benefit management. J Generic Meds 2007; 5: 27–38
Schachter S. State laws or statutes governing generic substitution by pharmacists [online]. Available from URL: http://professionals.epilepsy.com/page/statutes_by_pharmacists.html [Accessed 2008 Aug 11]
Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association. Canadians missing out on $750-million in annual Rx drug savings [press release; online]. Available from URL: http://www.canadiangenerics.ca/en/news/mar_26_08.asp [Accessed 2008 Aug 11]
Frank R. The ongoing regulation of generic drugs. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 1993–6
Henley E. Medicare update: what will the latest changes mean for you?. J Fam Med 2007; 56: E1–3
Perucca E, Albani F, Capovilla G, et al. Recommendations of the Italian League Against Epilepsy working group on generic products of antiepileptic drugs. Epilepsia 2006; 47(5 Suppl.): 16–20
American Medical Association (AMA). Kickback questions and answers, 2007 Nov [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/18077.html [Accessed 2008 Nov 10]
Pearson S, Kleinman K, Rusinak D, et al. A trial of disclosing physicians’ financial incentives to patients. Arch Intern Med 2007; 166: 623–8
Epstein AM, Lee T, Hamel M. Paying physicians for high-quality care. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 406–10
Roland M. Linking physicians’ pay to the quality of care: a major experiment in the United Kingdom. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 1448–54
Frey B. Not just for the money: an economic theory of personal motivation. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing, 1997
Himmel W, Simmenroth-Nayda A, Niebling W, et al. What do primary care patients think about generic drugs?. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2005; 43: 472–9
Valles J, Barreiro M, Cereza G, et al. A prospective multicenter study of the effect of patient education on acceptability of generic prescribing in general practice. Health Policy 2003; 65: 269–75
Ganther J, Kreling D. Consumer perceptions of risk and required cost savings for generic prescription drugs. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 2000; 40(3): 378–83
Andermann F, Duh M, Gosselin A, et al. Compulsory generic switching of antiepileptic drugs: high switchback rates to branded compounds compared with other drug classes. Epilepsia 2007; 48: 464–9