Cargando…

Economic Effects of Fixed-Dose Versus Loose-Dose Combination Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes Patients

OBJECTIVE: We examined the effects of fixe-dose combinations (FDCs) versus loose-dose combinations (LDCs) on costs from the payer and patient perspective and investigated potential channels contributing to differences in costs between the two modes of treatment. METHODS: We investigated administrati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Böhm, Anna-Katharina, Schneider, Udo, Stargardt, Tom
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9834204/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36310297
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40258-022-00760-x
_version_ 1784868410555891712
author Böhm, Anna-Katharina
Schneider, Udo
Stargardt, Tom
author_facet Böhm, Anna-Katharina
Schneider, Udo
Stargardt, Tom
author_sort Böhm, Anna-Katharina
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: We examined the effects of fixe-dose combinations (FDCs) versus loose-dose combinations (LDCs) on costs from the payer and patient perspective and investigated potential channels contributing to differences in costs between the two modes of treatment. METHODS: We investigated administrative data from 2017 to 2020 on diabetes patients in Germany. After using prospensity-score matching to remove dissimilarities between FDC and LDC patients, we compared changes in costs with a difference-in-differences approach. We analyzed pharmaceutical costs, inpatient and outpatient costs, other costs and total healthcare costs from the payer perspective, and co-payments from the patient perspective. RESULTS: The sample comprised 1117 FDC and 1272 LDC patients. Regression analysis revealed that FDC therapy significantly increased antidiabetic pharmaceutical spending in the first year by 5.5% (p < 0.01), but decreased co-payments by 33% (p < 0.01) in the first and 44% (p < 0.01) in the second year. We also observed a trend towards higher outpatient spending in the first year. No significant differences were found with respect to inpatient or other costs. The increase in antidiabetic pharmaceutical spending did not contribute to a significant increase in total healthcare expenditure. We identified a shift of co-payments to the payer and higher adherence as possible mechanisms behind the increase in antidiabetic pharmaceutical spending. CONCLUSION: Although FDC therapy increased disease-specific pharmaceutical spending in the short term, this increase did not lead to differences in total healthcare costs from the payer perspective. From the patient perspective, FDC therapy may be the preferred treatment approach, because of significant saving in co-payments, which is likely attributable to the elimination of one co-payment and therefore a shift in costs to the payer. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40258-022-00760-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9834204
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98342042023-01-13 Economic Effects of Fixed-Dose Versus Loose-Dose Combination Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes Patients Böhm, Anna-Katharina Schneider, Udo Stargardt, Tom Appl Health Econ Health Policy Original Research Article OBJECTIVE: We examined the effects of fixe-dose combinations (FDCs) versus loose-dose combinations (LDCs) on costs from the payer and patient perspective and investigated potential channels contributing to differences in costs between the two modes of treatment. METHODS: We investigated administrative data from 2017 to 2020 on diabetes patients in Germany. After using prospensity-score matching to remove dissimilarities between FDC and LDC patients, we compared changes in costs with a difference-in-differences approach. We analyzed pharmaceutical costs, inpatient and outpatient costs, other costs and total healthcare costs from the payer perspective, and co-payments from the patient perspective. RESULTS: The sample comprised 1117 FDC and 1272 LDC patients. Regression analysis revealed that FDC therapy significantly increased antidiabetic pharmaceutical spending in the first year by 5.5% (p < 0.01), but decreased co-payments by 33% (p < 0.01) in the first and 44% (p < 0.01) in the second year. We also observed a trend towards higher outpatient spending in the first year. No significant differences were found with respect to inpatient or other costs. The increase in antidiabetic pharmaceutical spending did not contribute to a significant increase in total healthcare expenditure. We identified a shift of co-payments to the payer and higher adherence as possible mechanisms behind the increase in antidiabetic pharmaceutical spending. CONCLUSION: Although FDC therapy increased disease-specific pharmaceutical spending in the short term, this increase did not lead to differences in total healthcare costs from the payer perspective. From the patient perspective, FDC therapy may be the preferred treatment approach, because of significant saving in co-payments, which is likely attributable to the elimination of one co-payment and therefore a shift in costs to the payer. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40258-022-00760-x. Springer International Publishing 2022-10-31 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9834204/ /pubmed/36310297 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40258-022-00760-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022, corrected publication 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Böhm, Anna-Katharina
Schneider, Udo
Stargardt, Tom
Economic Effects of Fixed-Dose Versus Loose-Dose Combination Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes Patients
title Economic Effects of Fixed-Dose Versus Loose-Dose Combination Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes Patients
title_full Economic Effects of Fixed-Dose Versus Loose-Dose Combination Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes Patients
title_fullStr Economic Effects of Fixed-Dose Versus Loose-Dose Combination Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes Patients
title_full_unstemmed Economic Effects of Fixed-Dose Versus Loose-Dose Combination Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes Patients
title_short Economic Effects of Fixed-Dose Versus Loose-Dose Combination Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes Patients
title_sort economic effects of fixed-dose versus loose-dose combination therapy for type 2 diabetes patients
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9834204/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36310297
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40258-022-00760-x
work_keys_str_mv AT bohmannakatharina economiceffectsoffixeddoseversusloosedosecombinationtherapyfortype2diabetespatients
AT schneiderudo economiceffectsoffixeddoseversusloosedosecombinationtherapyfortype2diabetespatients
AT stargardttom economiceffectsoffixeddoseversusloosedosecombinationtherapyfortype2diabetespatients