ArticleCMAJ open
Comparison of claims from high-drug cost beneficiaries in Ontario, Canada, and Australia: a cross-sectional analysis.
Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlobally, payers are struggling with rising drug costs, driven primarily by the increasing number of high-cost medications used by their beneficiaries. We aimed to compare the annual drug spending on claims from high-drug cost beneficiaries in the province of Ontario, Canada, and Australia.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of public drug claims in Ontario and Australia from fiscal years 2006 to 2017. We identified the total government costs for prescribed medications per beneficiary. During the study period, public drug coverage in Ontario was provided to all residents 65 years of age and older, those with financial needs, and those living in long-term care or in need of home care. Australia maintains a publicly funded, universal system covering all citizens. Based on annual spending, we divided beneficiaries into 4 cost groups, representing the top 1%, top 5%, top 10% and the remaining 90%. We reported the following for each cost group: medication cost and proportion of total government spending, number of unique drugs dispensed per person and the top 10 most costly drug classes.
resultsIn Ontario and Australia, the top 1% of beneficiaries accounted for a large and increasing proportion of all government drug costs, growing from 12% ($405 946 197) to 24% ($1 345 977 248) in Ontario, and from 14% ($86 565 586) to 34% ($416 097 984) in Australia between 2006 and 2017. The most costly drug classes among high-drug cost beneficiaries in both jurisdictions were biologics and hepatitis C treatments.
interpretationIn both Ontario and Australia, a small number of beneficiaries accounted for a large proportion of public drug spending, driven largely by the use of expensive medications. The current development of potential national pharmacare strategies in Canada must optimize the use of high-cost drugs to ensure the sustainability of the program.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.