Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32996397›Full record

ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2020

Effect of Carving in Pharmacy Benefits on Utilization and Costs.

Natasha Parekh, Sarah Papa, Alek Drnach, Laura Spiegel, Yan Huang, Chronis Manolis, Chester B Good

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Bundling medical and pharmacy benefits: Impact on medical costs.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026
    Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Natasha ParekhUPMC Centers for Value-Based Pharmacy Initiatives and High-Value Health Care, UPMC Insurance Services Division, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Sarah PapaWorkPartners, UPMC Insurance Services Division, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Alek DrnachWorkPartners, UPMC Insurance Services Division, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Laura SpiegelWorkPartners, UPMC Insurance Services Division, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Yan HuangUPMC Centers for Value-Based Pharmacy Initiatives and High-Value Health Care, UPMC Insurance Services Division, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Chronis ManolisPharmacy Services, UPMC Insurance Services Division, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Chester B GoodUPMC Centers for Value-Based Pharmacy Initiatives and High-Value Health Care, UPMC Insurance Services Division and University of Pittsburgh Division of General Internal Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRising medical costs are a significant concern for employers offering health benefits to employees, and there is interest in identifying insurance plan designs that optimize the effect of pharmacy benefits on overall costs. For instance, employers must decide between plans that carve in pharmacy benefits (where medical and pharmacy benefits are integrated into 1 package through an insurer) versus plans that carve out pharmacy benefits (where pharmacy benefits are separately administered through a pharmacy benefit manager). Little is known about the effect of carving in pharmacy benefits on medical utilization and costs.

objectiveTo compare the effect of carving in versus carving out pharmacy benefits on medical utilization, medical costs, and health management program participation in commercial health plans.

methodsWe performed a propensity score-matched analysis comparing carve-in and carve-out members of a regional health plan in 2018. Our primary outcomes were medical utilization (annual medical claims/1,000 members) and costs (medical costs per member per month [PMPM]). We categorized these into the following domains: inpatient, emergency department, outpatient/ambulatory surgery, urgent care, primary care, specialist services, and diagnostics (laboratory testing/imaging). We additionally assessed participation in health plan-based health management programs.

resultsWe analyzed 9,633 carve-in members matched with 9,633 carve-out members. Compared with carving out pharmacy benefits, carving in was associated with 3.7% lower medical costs, with an $8.73 reduction in PMPM ($225.87 vs. $234.60), and no significant difference in medical utilization; significantly lower inpatient and urgent care claims (reduction of 9.29 claims/1,000 and 51.3 claims/1,000, respectively) and costs ($10.08 and $0.12 PMPM reduction, respectively); lower injectable medical therapy costs ($4.32 PMPM reduction); and higher durable medical equipment costs ($2.14 PMPM increase). Carve-in members also experienced 4.9% higher health management program participation.

conclusionsAs employers attempt to understand the value of carving in versus carving out pharmacy benefits to health plans, our findings suggest that carving in pharmacy benefits is associated with reduced medical costs and hospitalizations. Our findings can assist in informing employer decision-making processes and, as a result, reducing costs of care. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Parekh was and Huang and Good are employed by the UPMC Centers for High-Value Health Care and Value-Based Pharmacy Initiatives. Manolis is employed by the UPMC Health Plan within the UPMC Insurance Services Division. Papa, Drnach, and Spiegel are employed by WorkPartners within the UPMC Insurance Services Division.

Indexed as

AdultAmbulatory CareDrug CostsFemaleHealth Benefit Plans, EmployeeHealth Care CostsHospitalizationHumansInsurance, Pharmaceutical ServicesMalePropensity Score

Identifiers

PMID32996397
PMCPMC10390975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.