Trial reportThe American journal of managed care2015
A randomized controlled trial of co-payment elimination: the CHORD trial.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2019Pooled it
- Behavioral Economics and Medication Adherence for Hypertension: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2026Trial
- Patient Perspectives on Health Insurance Design: A Mixed-Methods Analysis.Journal of market access & health policy · 2025Article
- Drug use and spending under a formulary informed by cost-effectiveness.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2023Article
- Study design of BETTER-BP: Behavioral economics trial to enhance regulation of blood pressure.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2022Article
- The Role of Behavioral Economics in Improving Cardiovascular Health Behaviors and Outcomes.Current cardiology reports · 2021Review
- Should national pharmacare apply a value-based insurance design?CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2019Article
- Adherence to Antihypertensive Therapy.The Medical clinics of North America · 2017Review
- A renewed Medication Adherence Alliance call to action: harnessing momentum to address medication nonadherence in the United States.Patient preference and adherence · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
26625505PMC6142179W2469685337What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.