Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26625505›Full record

Trial reportThe American journal of managed care2015

A randomized controlled trial of co-payment elimination: the CHORD trial.

Kevin G Volpp, Andrea B Troxel, Judith A Long, Said A Ibrahim, Dina Appleby, J Otis Smith, Jane Jaskowiak, Marie Helweg-Larsen, Jalpa A Doshi, Stephen E Kimmel

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The American journal of managed care, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. How to make value-based health insurance designs more effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Drug use and spending under a formulary informed by cost-effectiveness.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2023
    Article
  5. Study design of BETTER-BP: Behavioral economics trial to enhance regulation of blood pressure.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2022
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Should national pharmacare apply a value-based insurance design?CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2019
    Article
  8. Adherence to Antihypertensive Therapy.The Medical clinics of North America · 2017
    Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kevin G VolppCenter for Health Equity Research & Promotion, Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, PA
Andrea B Troxel
Judith A Long
Said A Ibrahim
Dina Appleby
J Otis Smith
Jane Jaskowiak
Marie Helweg-Larsen
Jalpa A Doshi
Stephen E Kimmel
Veterans Health Administration · US

Funding

The Penn Roybal Center on Behavioral Economics and Health: Solving for Scale and Impact with Design Thinking, Digital Platforms, and Dynamic AdaptationP30AG034546 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Alison Meredith Buttenheim, KEVIN G VOLPP · 2009 to 2026
$10.6M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG034546
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesEfforts to improve adherence by reducing co-payments through value-based insurance design are become more prevalent despite limited evidence of improved health outcomes. The objective of this study was to determine whether eliminating patient co-payments for blood pressure medications improves blood pressure control. STUDY

designRandomized controlled trial.

methodsThe Collaboration to Reduce Disparities in Hypertension (CHORD) was a randomized controlled trial with 12 months' follow-up conducted among patients from the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh Veterans Administration Medical Centers. We enrolled 479 patients with poorly controlled systolic blood pressure. Participants were randomly assigned to: a) receive reductions in co-payments from $8 to $0 per medication per month for each antihypertensive prescription filled, b) a computerized behavioral intervention (CBI), c) both co-pay reduction and CBI, or d) usual care. Our main outcome measure was change in systolic blood pressure from enrollment to 12 months post enrollment. We also measured adherence using the medication possession ratio in a subset of participants.

resultsThere were no significant interactions between the co-payment interventions and the CBI interventions. There was no relative difference in the change in medication possession ratio between baseline and 12 months (0.05% and -.90% in control and incentive groups, respectively; P = .74) or in continuous medication gaps of 30, 60, or 90 days. Blood pressure decreased among all participants, but to a similar degree between the financial incentive and control groups. Systolic pressure within the incentive group dropped 13.2 mm Hg versus 15.2 mm Hg for the control group (difference = 2.0; 95% CI, -2.3 to 6.3; P = .36). The proportion of patients with blood pressure under control at 12 months was 29.5% in the incentive group versus 33.9 in the control group (odds ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.3; P = .36).

conclusionsAmong patients with poorly controlled blood pressure, financial incentives--as implemented in this trial--that reduced patient cost sharing for blood pressure medications did not improve medication adherence or blood pressure control.

Indexed as

Deductibles and CoinsuranceMedication AdherenceAgedAntihypertensive AgentsFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleUnited StatesUnited States Department of Veterans AffairsAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID26625505
PMCPMC6142179
OpenAlexW2469685337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.