• No results found

Measuring Generic Efficiency in Part D

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Measuring Generic Efficiency in Part D"

Copied!
9
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Measuring  Generic  Efficiency  

in  Part  D  

(2)

Generic  Efficiency  Rates  among  Medicare  Part  D  

§

Generic  efficiency  rate  is  a  measurement  of  the  total  number  of  prescrip=ons  filled  as  a  generic  for  

products  with  a  direct  generic  subs=tute  within  a  therapeu=c  area  of  interest  

§

Regardless  of  subsidy  status  or  therapeu=c  area,  pa=ents  almost  always  fill  a  generic  molecule  when  

it  is  available  (greater  than  94%  across  all  therapeu=c  areas  of  interest)  

§

There  is  liHle  difference  in  generic  efficiency  between  Low  Income  Subsidy  and  Non-­‐Low  Income  

Subsidy  Part  D  pa=ents  

Medicare  Part  D  Generic  Efficiency  Rate  by  Therapeu;c  Area:  LIS  vs.  Non-­‐LIS  

96.5%  

94.6%  

99.9%  

98.0%  

99.1%  

96.3%  

94.5%  

99.9%  

98.8%  

99.4%  

0%  

10%  

20%  

30%  

40%  

50%  

60%  

70%  

80%  

90%  

100%  

Hypertension  

Epilepsy  

Dyslipidemia  

An=psycho=cs  

An=-­‐Depressant  

Generic  Efficiency  Rate  

Th

er

ap

eu

;c

 Ar

ea

 

Non-­‐LIS  

LIS  

(3)

Generic  Fill  Rates  among  Medicare  Part  D  

§

Generic  fill  rate  is  a  measurement  of  the  total  number  of  prescrip=ons  filled  as  a  generic  for  all  

products  within  a  given  therapeu=c  area  of  interest  

§

While  overall  generic  fill  rate  varied  by  therapeu=c  area,  there  were  only  slight  varia=ons  in  rate  

between  Low  Income  Subsidy  and  Non-­‐Low  Income  Subsidy  pa=ents  

Medicare  Part  D  Generic  Fill  Rate  by  Therapeu;c  Area:  LIS  vs.  Non-­‐LIS  

89.9%  

93.6%  

76.8%  

32.7%  

81.2%  

88.6%  

95.5%  

73.5%  

36.1%  

82.6%  

0%  

10%  

20%  

30%  

40%  

50%  

60%  

70%  

80%  

90%  

100%  

Hypertension  

Epilepsy  

Dyslipidemia  

An=psycho=cs  

An=-­‐Depressant  

Generic  Fill  Rate  

Th

er

ap

eu

;c

 Ar

ea

 

Non-­‐LIS  

LIS  

(4)

Generic  Efficiency  by  Therapeu;c  Area:  An;-­‐depressant  

All  Part  D

LIS

Non-­‐LIS

AMITRIP  HCL/CHLORDIAZEPOXIDE

49.6%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

12,319

AMITRIPTYLINE  HCL

59.6%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

1,151,152

AMOXAPINE

52.2%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

3,979

CITALOPRAM  HYDROBROMIDE

54.9%

99.9%

99.9%

99.9%

2,345,803

CLOMIPRAMINE  HCL

71.3%

99.5%

99.4%

99.7%

25,034

DESIPRAMINE  HCL

49.6%

98.9%

99.1%

98.7%

23,940

DOXEPIN  HCL

60.1%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

212,815

FLUOXETINE  HCL

58.9%

99.6%

99.5%

99.6%

1,317,803

FLUVOXAMINE  MALEATE

75.4%

94.9%

95.1%

94.3%

44,929

IMIPRAMINE  HCL

52.4%

99.9%

99.9%

99.9%

108,111

IMIPRAMINE  PAMOATE

68.3%

96.3%

96.4%

96.1%

2,327

MAPROTILINE  HCL

46.4%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

2,966

MIRTAZAPINE

60.2%

99.8%

99.8%

99.8%

694,179

NORTRIPTYLINE  HCL

55.3%

99.9%

99.9%

99.9%

260,311

PAROXETINE  HCL

57.4%

99.5%

99.5%

99.5%

1,148,908

PERPHENAZINE/AMITRIPTYLINE  HCL

56.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

31,990

PROTRIPTYLINE  HCL

54.9%

95.8%

96.5%

95.0%

2,818

SERTRALINE  HCL

56.1%

99.6%

99.6%

99.6%

2,145,823

VENLAFAXINE  HCL

55.9%

94.3%

92.8%

96.1%

886,944

USC  Class  Total

57.1%

99.2%

99.1%

99.4%

10,422,149

USC  Class  Total

57.4%

81.8%

81.2%

82.6%

12,641,597

USC  Class  =  Anti-­‐Depressants  in  Combination,  Antidepressant-­‐Tricyclic/Tetracyclic,  SSRI  (SEL.  Serotonin  Reuptake  Inhibitor),  SNRI  (Serotonin/Norepi  Reuptake  Inhibit)

*Total  Volume  =  volume  present  in  representative  SHA  PTD  Dataset  (2011)

Generic  Efficiency

LIS  Share  of  Part  D  Prescriptions

Generic  Efficiency

Generic  Fill  Rate

(5)

Generic  Efficiency  by  Therapeu;c  Area:  An;psycho;c  

All  Part  D

LIS

Non-­‐LIS

CLOZAPINE

91.7%

91.0%

90.6%

95.1%

118,469

HALOPERIDOL

83.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

166,801

HALOPERIDOL  DECANOATE

92.6%

90.6%

90.6%

90.7%

27,423

HALOPERIDOL  LACTATE

79.9%

99.3%

99.3%

99.7%

5,839

LOXAPINE  SUCCINATE

83.6%

99.9%

99.9%

100.0%

15,389

RISPERIDONE

80.0%

99.3%

99.2%

99.6%

658,947

THIOTHIXENE

79.1%

97.3%

97.0%

98.1%

28,936

USC  Class  Total

82.2%

98.1%

98.0%

98.8%

1,021,804

USC  Class  Total

83.5%

33.3%

32.7%

36.1%

3,147,450

USC  Class  =  Antipsychotics,  Other

*Total  Volume  =  volume  present  in  representative  SHA  PTD  Dataset  (2011)

Generic  Efficiency

LIS  Share  of  Part  D  Prescriptions

Generic  Efficiency

Generic  Fill  Rate

(6)

Generic  Efficiency  by  Therapeu;c  Area:  Dyslipidemia  

All  Part  D

LIS

Non-­‐LIS

LOVASTATIN

51.3%

99.9%

99.9%

99.9%

2,263,713

PRAVASTATIN  SODIUM

47.9%

99.9%

99.9%

99.9%

3,104,877

SIMVASTATIN

50.7%

99.9%

99.9%

100.0%

12,398,875

USC  Class  Total

50.3%

99.9%

99.9%

99.9%

17,767,464

USC  Class  Total

49.0%

75.1%

76.8%

73.5%

23,959,755

USC  Class  =  HMG-­‐COA  Reductase  Inhibitors

*Total  Volume  =  volume  present  in  representative  SHA  PTD  Dataset  (2011)

Generic  Efficiency

LIS  Share  of  Part  D  Prescriptions

Generic  Efficiency

Generic  Fill  Rate

(7)

Generic  Efficiency  by  Therapeu;c  Area:  Epilepsy  

All  Part  D

LIS

Non-­‐LIS

CARBAMAZEPINE

72.5%

72.7%

74.3%

68.5%

378,089

DIVALPROEX  SODIUM

81.1%

95.6%

95.4%

96.5%

636,857

ETHOSUXIMIDE

81.3%

91.5%

93.8%

81.5%

3,231

FOSPHENYTOIN  SODIUM

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

24

GABAPENTIN

61.2%

99.7%

99.7%

99.8%

3,315,370

LAMOTRIGINE

74.7%

93.7%

93.2%

95.0%

526,269

LEVETIRACETAM

68.8%

91.8%

90.9%

93.9%

438,192

OXCARBAZEPINE

76.7%

95.5%

95.2%

96.5%

155,443

PHENYTOIN

81.2%

32.4%

35.7%

18.3%

43,249

PHENYTOIN  SODIUM

62.5%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

8

PHENYTOIN  SODIUM  EXTENDED

69.3%

79.1%

80.7%

75.5%

451,666

PRIMIDONE

52.7%

99.3%

99.0%

99.6%

199,867

TOPIRAMATE

74.9%

96.3%

95.9%

97.7%

430,494

VALPROATE  SODIUM

90.5%

97.8%

97.8%

98.4%

21,475

VALPROIC  ACID

67.7%

95.9%

94.9%

98.1%

25,170

ZONISAMIDE

71.9%

95.6%

94.8%

97.7%

57,488

USC  Class  Total

67.2%

94.6%

94.6%

94.5%

6,682,892

USC  Class  Total

66.4%

94.3%

93.6%

95.5%

7,111,892

USC  Class  =  Seizure  Disorders

*Total  Volume  =  volume  present  in  representative  SHA  PTD  Dataset  (2011)

Generic  Efficiency

LIS  Share  of  Part  D  Prescriptions

Generic  Efficiency

Generic  Fill  Rate

(8)

Generic  Efficiency  by  Therapeu;c  Area:  Hypertension  

All  Part  D

LIS

Non-­‐LIS

AMLODIPINE  BESYLATE

52.6%

99.7%

99.6%

99.7%

7,941,121

AMLODIPINE  BESYLATE/BENAZEPRIL

42.9%

96.0%

94.4%

97.2%

889,232

BENAZEPRIL  HCL

52.9%

99.8%

99.8%

99.7%

1,095,757

BENAZEPRIL/HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE

46.3%

99.8%

99.9%

99.7%

219,932

CAPTOPRIL

59.3%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

177,847

CAPTOPRIL/HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE

53.1%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

15,929

DILTIAZEM  HCL

47.1%

75.9%

78.3%

73.7%

2,310,648

DOXAZOSIN  MESYLATE

48.6%

99.8%

99.8%

99.8%

952,982

ENALAPRIL  MALEATE

58.1%

99.8%

99.8%

99.7%

1,484,275

ENALAPRIL/HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE

52.6%

99.6%

99.7%

99.5%

109,142

EPLERENONE

33.6%

97.6%

96.7%

98.0%

28,755

FELODIPINE

38.7%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

320,088

FOSINOPRIL  SODIUM

50.1%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

232,005

FOSINOPRIL/HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE

41.8%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

14,375

LISINOPRIL

51.9%

99.9%

99.9%

99.9%

9,593,282

LISINOPRIL/HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE

49.4%

99.9%

99.9%

99.9%

2,256,660

LOSARTAN  POTASSIUM

46.8%

99.4%

99.3%

99.4%

2,398,740

MOEXIPRIL  HCL

41.0%

98.7%

99.0%

98.5%

34,462

MOEXIPRIL/HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE

46.1%

98.7%

98.0%

99.2%

27,888

NICARDIPINE  HCL

44.7%

99.8%

99.9%

99.8%

6,007

NIFEDIPINE

56.8%

48.4%

48.3%

48.4%

1,136,228

NIMODIPINE

78.3%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

281

PERINDOPRIL  ERBUMINE

32.1%

90.0%

89.5%

90.3%

8,293

PRAZOSIN  HCL

62.6%

99.8%

99.8%

99.7%

64,634

QUINAPRIL  HCL

45.8%

99.4%

99.3%

99.5%

625,556

QUINAPRIL/HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE

35.6%

99.2%

99.1%

99.3%

53,805

RAMIPRIL

42.0%

99.3%

99.0%

99.4%

942,853

TERAZOSIN  HCL

45.6%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

743,756

TRANDOLAPRIL

41.1%

98.7%

98.7%

98.7%

61,645

TRANDOLAPRIL/VERAPAMIL  HCL

40.2%

77.5%

75.9%

78.5%

11,873

VERAPAMIL  HCL

48.3%

99.5%

99.6%

99.5%

992,541

USC  Class  Total

50.5%

96.4%

96.5%

96.3%

34,750,590

USC  Class  Total

50.2%

89.2%

89.8%

88.6%

37,583,007

USC  Class  =  ACE  INHIBITORS,  ACE  INHIBITORS  OTHER,  ACE  INHIBITORS  WITH  DIURETICS,  ACE  INHIBITORS,  ALONE,  ALPHA  BLOCKERS  ALONE  &  COMBO,  ANGIOTENSIN  II  ANTAGONIST,  

Generic  Efficiency

LIS  Share  of  Part  D  Prescriptions

Generic  Efficiency

Generic  Fill  Rate

(9)

ˆ

 

www.amundsengroup.com  

The  Amundsen  Group,  Inc.  

35  Corporate  Drive,  Suite  450  

Burlington,  MA  01803  

p:  781.863.1005  

References

Related documents

We have applied Alcomo and LogMap-Repair systems on the data sets and mapping results of the OAEI 2012 Large Biomed track to support two claims regarding the application

On the other hand, Bikker and Haaf (2002) have examined the competitive conditions for banks in 23 industrial countries using the Panzar and Rosse model; and they

In Rozvoj a uplatňovanie akademických kompetencií doktorandov technických vied : Recenzovaný zborník z medzinárodnej doktorandskej konferencie. DAI Dizertačné a

• Minor in Business Studies • Mineure in Linguistics • Minor in Hispanic Studies(*) • Minor in Italian Studies (*) • Minor in French Studies (*) • Minor in Latin Studies •

mental sciences. This research shows that the basic architecture of a child’s brain is constructed through an ongoing process that begins before birth and continues through

To better define the chemical profile of Campania autochthonous red grape varieties, we analysed the phenolic composition of Aglianico di Taur- asi, Aglianico del Vulture, Aglianico

Based on the results of our study, the main business-led indicators that have a positive and significant impact in attracting FDI in 16 European transition countries are: Starting

With regulations of emissions only in the future, cheaper renewables speed up extraction (the ‘green paradox’), whereas CCS cost reductions make fossil resources more attractive