Skip to main content

Making a Case for Employing a Societal Perspective in the Evaluation of Medicaid Prescription Drug Interventions

Abstract

The choice of a perspective is among the most critical influences of the potential outcome of an economic evaluation, since it determines whose interest is relevant in any given analysis. For publicly funded programmes such as Medicaid, and now Medicare, it is important that economic evaluations are undertaken from a societal perspective because such evaluations inform decisions about allocation of healthcare resources. It has been argued that approaches other than the societal perspective selectively include specific costs, while ignoring other costs that are very much more ‘real’, and hence lack theoretical foundation in welfare economics. In view of the importance of perspectives in economic evaluations, this paper reviews 25 existing reports of economic evaluations of interventions involving prescription drugs in the Medicaid programme to examine the perspectives employed in such evaluations, based on the specific cost and benefit measurements.

No explicit statement of the perspective employed was included in any of the articles selected for this review. Based on an analysis of the cost measures, none of the studies were found to have adopted a societal perspective in their evaluation. Most studies were from the perspective of Medicaid as the payer and as such did not include costs and benefits from outside the Medicaid system. Ten of the identified evaluations of interventions focused just on costs related to prescription drugs. Six studies included an evaluation of the impact of the intervention on overall programme costs along with the costs of prescription drugs. The nine remaining evaluations employed a broader approach to include related effects of the drug-benefit intervention on costs and utilization of other healthcare services such as physician, outpatient and inpatient services.

This review emphasizes the importance of a societal approach in evaluating the effects of interventions in Medicaid and other publicly funded drug benefit programmes. Existing evaluations fall short of employing such a broad perspective. This, along with the limitations in design and data, make findings from these studies less reliable than should be used to make major decisions regarding allocation of tax dollars. While methodological challenges to such an approach are valid and understandable, there is an increasing need to attempt evaluations of cost-containment strategies from a broad-based societal perspective to ensure continuity and sustainability of publicly funded drug benefit programmes such as Medicaid and Medicare.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Table I

Notes

  1. In economics, a loss of wellbeing to the society that occurs when equilibrium for a good or service is not Pareto optimal, (i.e. at least one individual could be made better off without others being made worse off) is considered as ‘dead weight loss’.

References

  1. OECD Health Data 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.oecd.org [Accessed 2005 Nov]

  2. National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States [table 120]. Hyattsville (MD): NCHS, 2005: 361

    Google Scholar 

  3. Heftier S, Smith S, Keehan S, et al. US health spending projections for 2004–2014. Health Affairs, 2005 Feb [online]. Available from URL: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/ full/hlthaff.w5.74/DCl

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rowland D. Medicaid: the basics [online]. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, Kaiser Family Foundation, 2005 Jun. Available from URL: http://www.KaiserEDU.org [Accessed 2005 Nov]

    Google Scholar 

  5. Suh DC, Lacy CR, Barone JA, et al. Factors contributing to trends in prescription drug expenditures. Clin Ther 1999 Jul; 21 (7): 1241–1253

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gencarelli DM. Medicaid prescription dmg coverage: state efforts to control costs [online]. National Health Policy Forum Issue Brief 2003 May 10; 790. Available from URL: http://www.nhpf.org/pdfs_ib/IB790_StateRx_5-10-03.pdf [Accessed 2007 Jul 10]

    Google Scholar 

  7. Smith V. The continuing medical budget challenge: state Medicaid spending growth and cost containment in fiscal year 2004 and 2005. Results from a 50-state survey. Washington, DC: Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, 2004 Oct

    Google Scholar 

  8. Soumerai SB, Avorn J, Ross-Degnan D, et al. Payment restrictions for prescription drugs under Medicaid: effects on therapy, cost, and equity. N Engl J Med 1987; 317: 550–556

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Jang R. Medicaid formularies: a critical review of the literature. J Pharm Mark Manage Spring 1988; 2 (3): 39–61

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Soumerai SB, Ross-Degnan D, Fortess E, et al. A critical analysis of studies of state drug reimbursement policies: research in need of discipline. Milbank Quarterly 1993; 71 (2): 217–252

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lexchin J. Effects of restrictive formularies in the ambulatory care setting. Am J Manag Care 2001; 7: 69–76

    Google Scholar 

  12. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of healthcare programmes. 3rd ed. Cary (NC): Oxford University Press, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  13. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 1996; 313: 275–283

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Siegel JE, Torrance GW, Russell LB, et al. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies: recommendations from the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 1.1: 159–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. Health economic guidelines: similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 2001; 4: 225–250

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hay J. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines: where do we go from here? Value Health 2001; 4 (3): 211

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hammel RW. Insights into public assistance medical care expenditures. JAMA 1972 Mar 27; 219 (1740): 39–61

    Google Scholar 

  18. Smith MC, Maclayton DW. The effect of closing a Medicaid formulary on the prescription of analgesic drugs. Hosp Formul 1977 Jan; 12: 36–77

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith DM, McKercher PL. The elimination of selected drug products from the Michigan Medicaid formulary: a case study. Hosp Formul 1984; 19: 366–372

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bloom BS, Jacobs J. Cost effects of restricting cost-effective therapy. Med Care 1985; 23: 872–880

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Schweitzer SO, Salehi H, Boling N. The social drug lag: an examination of pharmaceutical approval delays in Medicaid formularies. Soc Sci Med 1983; 21: 1077–1082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kreling DH, Knocke DJ, Hammel RW. Changes in market shares for internal analgesic products after a Medicaid formulary restriction. J Pharm Mark Manag 1988; 3 (2): 65–76

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Dranove D. Medicaid drug formulary restrictions. J Law Econ 1989; 32: 143–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kreling DH, Knocke DJ, Hammel RW. The effects of an internal analgesic formulary restriction on Medicaid dmg expenditures in Wisconsin. Med Care 1989; 27: 34–44

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kozma CM, Reeder CE, Lingle EW. Expanding Medicaid drug formulary coverage: effects on utilization of related services. Med Care 1990; 28: 963–977

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Soumerai SB, Ross-Degnan D, Gortmaker S, et al. Withdrawing payment for non-scientific drug therapy: intended and unexpected effects of a large-scale natural experiment. J Am Med Assoc 1990: 263: 831–839

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kotzan J A, McMillan JA, Jankel CA, et al. Initial impact of a Medicaid prior authorization program for NSAID prescriptions. J Res Pharm Econ 1993; 5: 2541

    Google Scholar 

  28. McCombs JS, Nichol MB. Pharmacy-enforced outpatient drug treatment protocols: a case study of Medi-Cal restrictions for cefaclor. Ann Pharmacother 1993; 27: 155–161

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Moore WJ, Newman RJ. Drug formulary restrictions as a cost-containment policy in Medicaid programs. J Law Econ 1993; 36: 71–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Soumerai SB, McLaughlin TJ, Ross-Degnan D, et al. Effects of a limit on Medicaid drug-reirribursement benefits on the use of psychotropic agents and acute mental health services by patients with schizophrenia. N Engl J Med 1994; 331 (10): 650–655

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Smalley WE, Griffin MR, Fought RL, et al. Effect of a prior authorization requirement on the use of non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs by Medicaid patients. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 1612–1617

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Martin BC, McMillan JA. The impact of implementing a more restrictive prescription limit on Medicaid recipients: effects on cost, therapy, and out-of-pocket expenditures. Med Care 1996 Jul; 34 (7): 686–701

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Zechnich AD, Greenlick M, Haxby D. Elimination of over-the-counter medication coverage in the Oregon Medicaid population: the impact on program costs and drug use. Med Care 1998; 36: 1283–1294

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Cromwell DM, Bass EB, Steinberg EP, et al. Can restrictions on reimbursement for anti-ulcer drugs decrease Medicaid pharmacy costs without increasing hospitalizations? Health Serv Res 1999; 33: 1593–1610

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. McCombs JS, Shi L, Croghan TW, et al. Access to dmg therapy and substitution between alternative antidepressants following an expansion of the California Medicaid formulary. Health Policy 2003; 65: 301–311

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Fischer MA, Schneeweiss S, Avorn J, et al. Medicaid prior-authorization programs and the use of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors. N Engl J Med 2004 Nov 18; 351 (21): 2187–2194

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. McCombs JS, Mulani P, Gibson PJ. Open access to innovative drugs: treatment substitutions or treatment expansion? Health Care Financ Rev 2004 Spring; 25 (3): 35–53

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Delate T, Mager DE, Sheth J, et al. Clinical and financial outcomes associated with a proton pump inhibitor prior-authorization program in a Medicaid population. Am J Manag Care 2005; 11: 29–36

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 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–SP42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Meissner B, Dickson M, Shinogle J, et al. Drug and medical cost effects of a drug formulary change with therapeutic interchange for statin drugs in a multistate managed medicaid organization. J Manag Care Pharmacy 2006; 12 (4): 331–340

    Google Scholar 

  41. Milne J. Evaluation of pharmacoeconomic literature. Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 6 (4): 337–345

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. True man P, Drummond M, Hutton J. Developing guidance for budget impact analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (6): 609–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Johanesson M. A note on the depreciation of societal perspective in economic evaluation of health care. Health Policy 1995; 33: 59–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Byford S, Palmer S. Common errors and controversies in pharmacoeconomic analyses. Pharmacoeconomics 1998 Jun; 13 (6): 659–666

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Perloff JM. Microeconomics. 3rd ed. Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley, 2004 Jun

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanjoy Roy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roy, S., Madhavan, S.S. Making a Case for Employing a Societal Perspective in the Evaluation of Medicaid Prescription Drug Interventions. Pharmacoeconomics 26, 281–296 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826040-00002

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826040-00002

Keywords

  • Prescription Drug
  • Drug Cost
  • Societal Perspective
  • Medicaid Programme
  • Drug Programme Intervention