Skip to main content
Log in

Which Physicians are Affected Most by Medicaid Preferred Drug Lists for Statins and Antihypertensives?

  • Original Research
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: To limit quickly rising prescription drug expenditures, many state Medicaid programmes have implemented preferred drug lists (PDLs) and prior authorisation (PA). Lessons from Medicaid efforts may be informative for Medicare, which started covering outpatient prescription drugs recently.

Objectives: To examine how the cost of compliance with Medicaid PDLs for antihypertensives and statins varied across physicians, and to assess the effects of PDLs on physician prescribing patterns and access for Medicaid patients.

Data and methods: An anonymous survey of primary care physicians and cardiologists in nine states with PDLs was conducted in December 2005 and January 2006. Survey responses were augmented with physician prescribing data, practice location characteristics, and publicly available information about state PDLs. We analysed six physician-level outcome measures: annual PDL-related costs; the proportion of Medicaid prescriptions covered by the PDL; the proportion of Medicaid prescriptions written for an alternative to a physician’s most preferred drug because of PDLs; the proportion of times no drug was prescribed to a Medicaid patient because of PDLs; whether they restricted their new Medicaid patient caseload because of PDLs; and whether they decreased the proportion of prescriptions not covered by the Medicaid PDL for non-Medicaid patients. We assessed how these outcomes varied with Medicaid caseload, physician practice size, and socioeconomic characteristics of the practice’s ZIP Code.

Results: Costs from complying with Medicaid PDLs for statins and antihypertensives were greatest for physicians in solo practices with high Medicaid caseloads located in poor areas. Although all physicians’ prescribing patterns were influenced to some extent by PDLs, those with high volumes of Medicaid prescriptions were affected more. They more frequently prescribed Medicaid patients a less-preferred medication or nothing at all, and were more likely to alter their prescribing to non-Medicaid patients. Physicians with low Medicaid prescription volumes in areas with fewer minorities were more likely to limit their willingness to treat new Medicaid patients.

Conclusion: The burden of Medicaid PDLs fell greatest on physicians in disadvantaged areas and their patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 2004 Medicaid managed care enrollment report [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidDataSourcesGenInfo/downloads/mmcer04.pdf [Accessed 2006 October 27].

  2. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National health expenditures by type of service and source of funds: calendar years 2004–1960 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp [Accessed 2006 October 27].

  3. Smith C, Cowan C, Heftier S, et al. National health spending in 2004: recent slowdown led by prescription drug spending. Health Aff 2006; 25(1): 186–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Center for Medicaid and State Operations. 2004. Letter to state Medicaid directors September 9, 2004. [online] Available from URL: http://www.nasmd.org/Multi-State-pool-letter.pdf [Accessed 2006 October 27].

  5. MacKinnon NJ, Kumar R. Prior authorization programs: a critical review of the literature. J Manag Care Pharm 2001; 74: 297–303

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fischer MA, Schneeweis S, Avorn J, et al. Medicaid prior-authorization programs and the use of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2187–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bukstein DA, Cheriayil GA, Gepner AD, et al. The economic burden associated with prior authorizations in an allergist office. Allergy Asthma Proc 2006; 27(2): 119–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Soumerai SB. Benefits and risks of increasing restrictions on access to costly drugs in Medicaid. Health Aff 2004 Jan/Feb; 23(1): 135–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Headen A, Masia N. Exploring the potential link between Medicaid access restrictions, physician location, and health disparities. Am J Manag Care 2005; 11: SP21–26

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cunningham PJ. Medicaid cost containment and access to prescription drugs. Health Aff 2005; 24(3): 780–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sloan F, Mitchell J, Cromwell J. Physician participation in state Medicaid programs. J Hum Resourc 1978; 13 Suppl.: 211–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Adams K. Factors affecting physician preventive care to Medicaid children. Health Care Financ Rev 2001; 22(4): 9–26

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Perloff JD, Kletke P, Fossett JW. Which physicians limit their Medicaid participation and why. Health Serv Res 2006; 30(1): 7–26

    Google Scholar 

  14. Glied S, Zivin JG. How do doctors behave when some (but not all) of their patients are in managed care? J Health Econ 2001; 21: 337–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang YR, Pauly MV, Lin YA. Impact of Maine’s Medicaid drug formulary change on non-Medicaid markets: spillover effects of a restrictive drug formulary. Am J Manag Care 2003; 9: 686–96

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang YR, Pauly MV. Spillover effects of restrictive drug formularies on physician prescribing behavior: evidence from Medicaid. J Econ Manag Strat 2005; 14(3): 755–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Virabhak S, Shinogle JA. Physicians’ prescribing responses to a restricted formulary: the impact of Medicaid preferred drug lists in Illinois and Louisiana. Am J Manag Care 2005; 11: SP14–20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fossett JW, Peterson JA. Physician supply and Medicaid participation. Med Care 1989; 27(4): 386–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Polsky D, Kletke PR, Wozniak GD, Escarce JJ. HMO penetration and the geographic mobility of practicing physicians. J Health Econ 2000; 19(5): 793–809

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 2006 Medicare trustees report [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?Counter=1846 [Accessed 2006 October 27]

  21. Hoadley JE, Hargrave E, Cubanski J, et al. An in-depth examination of formularies and other features of Medicare drug plans, Kaiser Family Foundation. Available from URL: http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7489.pdf [Accessed 2006 October 27]

  22. Murawski MM, Abdelgawad T. Exploration of the impact of preferred drug lists on hospital and physician visits and the costs to Medicaid. Am J Manag Care 2005; 11: SP35–42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Smalley WE, Griffen MR, Fought RL, et al. Effect of a prior-authorization requirement on the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs by Medicaid patients. New Engl J Med 1995; 332: 1612–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Wilson J, Axelsen K, Tang S. PDL implementation increases chances that Medicaid patients discontinue filling prescriptions for antihypertensives. Am J Manag Care 2005; 11: SP27–34

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Särndal CE, Swensson B, Wretman J. Model assisted survey sampling. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan D. Ketcham.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ketcham, J.D., Epstein, A.J. Which Physicians are Affected Most by Medicaid Preferred Drug Lists for Statins and Antihypertensives?. PharmacoEconomics 24 (Suppl 3), 27–40 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624003-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624003-00003

Keywords

Navigation