Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31619229›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Association between physician adoption of a new oral anti-diabetic medication and Medicare and Medicaid drug spending.

Ilinca D Metes, Lingshu Xue, Chung-Chou H Chang, Haiden A Huskamp, Walid F Gellad, Wei-Hsuan Lo-Ciganic, Niteesh K Choudhry, Seth Richards-Shubik, Hasan Guclu, Julie M Donohue

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Ilinca D MetesDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, 130 DeSoto Street, Crabtree Hall A651, Pittsburgh, PA, 15261, USA.
Lingshu XueDepartment of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, 130 DeSoto Street, Crabtree Hall A651, Pittsburgh, PA, 15261, USA.
Chung-Chou H ChangDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 200 Meyran Avenue, Suite 200, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Haiden A HuskampDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, 180 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Walid F GelladDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 200 Meyran Avenue, Suite 200, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Wei-Hsuan Lo-CiganicDepartment of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, 1225 Center Drive, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA.
Niteesh K ChoudhryDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont Street, Suite 3030, Boston, MA, 02120, USA.
Seth Richards-ShubikCollege of Business and Economics, Lehigh University, Rausch Business Center, Room 465, 621 Taylor St, Bethlehem, PA, 18015, USA.
Hasan GucluDepartment of Statistics, School of Science, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Uskudar, 34700, Istanbul, Turkey.
Julie M DonohueCenter for Pharmaceutical, Policy and Prescribing, Health Policy Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 15261, USA. jdonohue@pitt.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2418-6017

Funding

The Role of Physician Networks in the Adoption of New Prescription Drugs.R01HL119246 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI DONOHUE, JULIE MARIE · 2013 to 2016
$3.0M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL119246NHLBI NIH HHS R01HL119246-04
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the United States, there is well-documented regional variation in prescription drug spending. However, the specific role of physician adoption of brand name drugs on the variation in patient-level prescription drug spending is still being investigated across a multitude of drug classes. Our study aims to add to the literature by determining the association between physician adoption of a first-in-class anti-diabetic (AD) drug, sitagliptin, and AD drug spending in the Medicare and Medicaid populations in Pennsylvania.

methodsWe obtained physician-level data from QuintilesIMS Xponent™ database for Pennsylvania and constructed county-level measures of time to adoption and share of physicians adopting sitagliptin in its first year post-introduction. We additionally measured total AD drug spending for all Medicare fee-for-service and Part D enrollees (N = 125,264) and all Medicaid (N = 50,836) enrollees with type II diabetes in Pennsylvania for 2011. Finite mixture model regression, adjusting for patient socio-demographic/clinical characteristics, was used to examine the association between physician adoption of sitagliptin and AD drug spending.

resultsPhysician adoption of sitagliptin varied from 44 to 99% across the state's 67 counties. Average per capita AD spending was $1340 (SD $1764) in Medicare and $1291 (SD $1881) in Medicaid. A 10% increase in the share of physicians adopting sitagliptin in a county was associated with a 3.5% (95% CI: 2.0-4.9) and 5.3% (95% CI: 0.3-10.3) increase in drug spending for the Medicare and Medicaid populations, respectively.

conclusionsIn a medication market with many choices, county-level adoption of sitagliptin was positively associated with AD spending in Medicare and Medicaid, two programs with different approaches to formulary management.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAgedDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Fee-for-Service PlansFemaleHealth ExpendituresHumansHypoglycemic AgentsMaleMedicaidMedicareMiddle AgedPennsylvaniaPractice Patterns, Physicians'Sitagliptin PhosphateUnited StatesHypoglycemic AgentsSitagliptin PhosphateDiabetesMedicaidMedicarePhysician behaviorPrescription drugsTechnology adoption

Identifiers

PMID31619229
PMCPMC6794771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.