Real World Health Care Blog

Tag Archives: treatment

Cleveland Clinic’s Value-Based Care Team Improves Patient Wait Times, Saves Costs

Cleveland Clinic CEO and President Toby Cosgrove, MD, believes that the medical center is ready to “lead the charge” in delivering better patient outcomes and faster care, all at a lower cost.

Dr. Toby Cosgrove

Toby Cosgrove, MD

To that end, the Cleveland Clinic has established a Value-Based Care Team, made up of physicians, nurses and other experts who will work together to translate “better, lower cost and faster” into everyday practice. Services are rationalized across the network, with multi-specialty teams using system-wide resources to deliver the right care at the right place for every patient, at the right time with the right cost.

“Value is the centerpiece of Cleveland Clinic’s strategy,” said Associate Chief of Staff for Clinical Integration Development, Dr. David Longworth, who heads the Clinic’s Value-Based Care Steering Committee. “We are focused on two areas. One is to eliminate unnecessary practice variation by developing evidence-based care paths across diseases. The other is comprehensive care coordination to allow patients to move seamlessly through the system so that we reduce unnecessary hospitalizations and ER visits.”

According to Dr. Longworth, the TeamCare model helps to:

  • Increase throughput.
  • Reduce the cost-per-unit of service.
  • Improve patient and provider satisfaction.

“In the past, each physician had one medical assistant who simply roomed the patient and took vitals,” he explained. “All the chart work was done by the physician, often at home in the evenings, adding several hours of work to their day and extra time to the entire process. Now, physicians go home at the end of the day with all their charts closed.”

The TeamCare model helps the Cleveland Clinic improve its Patient Experience ratings in a number of measured metrics, including:

  • 22.8 percent improvement in wait time at clinic.
  • 10.7 percent improvement in wait time in exam room to see provider.
  • 8.9 percent improvement in the time the provider spent with the patient.

While the Value-Based Care Team may be a concept borne of the new world of health care, the Cleveland Clinic has a rich history of improving patient outcomes. In 2000, the Clinic became the first hospital in the U.S. to publish its outcome measures and now publishes outcome books for every department, comparing itself to the best available benchmarks.

The Cleveland Clinic further changed the way it delivers care by developing Institutes to house medical and surgical specialties, working under one Institute leader and one budget. In some Institutes, inpatient and outpatient care are co-located, and Institute leadership is charged with defining what diseases and conditions each Institute cares for, developing a set of shared outcome measures for which the team is jointly accountable. Leaders also identify the skills that need to be brought together to care for patients with the sets of conditions the team treats.

Institutes are given autonomy to pursue different implementation approaches and are expected to share insights with others. For example, the Neurological Institute created a website so that others at the Clinic could learn how it was developing performance measures and decide whether to use a similar approach.

In the case of a primary care pilot program, Value-Based Care relies on a team approach that leads to a higher-efficiency practice style. Responsibilities are shared among two medical assistants and the physician, with each individual functioning to the highest level of their scope.

For each patient visit, a medical assistant brings the patient to a treatment room and obtains vitals and additional medical history information, which they immediately enter into the patient’s electronic medical record. The medical assistant remains in the room during the examination, acting as a real-time transcriber for the doctor’s notes and orders, which are also sent immediately to the physician’s inbox for verification and signature so the assistant can schedule any follow-up tests or procedures before the appointment is complete. At the same time, the physician’s second medical assistant is getting the doctor’s next patient set up in another treatment room.

Value-Based Care also helps the Clinic reduce costs. In fact, in just under a year, the direct cost per patient encounter dropped by 7.5 percent while the number of patient encounters per day increased by 16.4 percent.

The hospital lowers costs in other ways as well, such as avoiding 12,082 lab tests in 2011 and 2012 for a savings of $1.2 million and lowering the cost of lung transplant surgery by 11 percent. Cleveland Clinic also is getting patients into treatment faster, with the total number of same-day visits increasing by 14 percent and the average emergency room door-to-doctor time reduced to 17 minutes.

These strides are helping Cleveland Clinic reach the Top 20 of the University HealthSystem Consortium’s (UHC) quality index, earning UHC’s Rising Star award by improving inpatient centeredness, mortality, equity, efficiency, effectiveness and safety.

The Cleveland Clinic model is a good example of how health systems can develop evidence-based models to generate higher quality care at a lower cost. What are other hospitals and health systems doing to redesign care delivery paths? Let us know what’s working.

Categories: Cost-Savings

Targeted Therapies Open Door to Improved Outcomes and Lower Costs to Treat HCV

As we were reminded on World Hepatitis Day, early detection is critical to turning the tide of this “silent epidemic” that impacts millions. However, strategies to end the deadly effects of viral hepatitis don’t stop there. Personalized treatment is another essential tool that fuels better outcomes for patients with hepatitis C (HCV) while saving money in the long term for the health care system too. 

Paul DeMiglio

Paul DeMiglio

The importance of finding effective therapies for HCV is underscored by the reality that the disease often goes undetected, with an estimated 80 percent of Americans with HCV unaware of their status. Many HCV-positive people show mild to no symptoms, making it more likely for the illness to progress and become more expensive to treat as a result. 

Although safe and effective vaccines are available for hepatitis A and B, none exist for HCV. To help answer this need, Abbott created the fully automated RealTime HCV Genotype II Test – the first FDA-approved genotyping test in the United States for HCV patients – to facilitate targeted diagnosis and treatment that boosts desired outcomes.

This treatment-defining genotyping test empowers physicians to better pinpoint specific strains of HCV, determine which treatment option is best for the patient, and make more informed recommendations about when it should be administered. Available to individuals with chronic HCV, the test is not meant to act as a means to screen the blood prior to diagnosis.

So how does finding the right HCV treatment save money?

Targeted therapies like these are important for diseases like HCV because they reduce the “trial and error” of having to use additional treatments when the initial ones don’t work, saving money and time for patients and providers. Early detection, combined with follow-up care, can prevent patients from developing later stages of hepatitis that can mean more serious long-term conditions that are harder and more expensive to treat.

Treating HCV patients with end-stage liver disease, for example, is 2.5 times higher than treating those with early stage liver disease. Advanced HCV can also escalate to chronic hepatitis infection, a side effect of this being cirrhosis (scarring of the liver and poor liver function) and liver cancer. Treatment for these two conditions (which can include a liver transplant) can cost more than $30,000. Liver cancer treatment can be more than $62,000 for the first year, while the first-year cost of a liver transplant can be more than $267,000.

As more and more patients find themselves unable to afford treatments, HCV is becoming an increasingly larger financial burden on the health care system.

The annual costs of treating HCV in the United States could be up to $9 billion, and over the course of a lifetime the collective cost associated with treatments for chronic HCV is estimated to total $360 billion.

“As we see patients with more advanced liver disease, we see significantly more costs to the system,” says Dr. Stuart Gordon, author of the Henry Ford Study. “The key, therefore, is to treat and cure the infection early to prevent the consequences of more advanced disease and the associated economic burden.”  

Targeted therapies show great promise to improve outcomes while saving time and money by linking patients to the specific treatments they need at earlier points of diagnosis. But what can health systems do to make innovations like the HCV Genotype II Test accessible to more patients and increase the cost-savings benefit on a larger scale?

Companion Diagnostics Target Therapy to the Patients Most Likely to Respond

What cancer patient would want to use trial and error with various chemotherapies when he or she could know first from a diagnostic that one agent in particular would result in the most successful outcome?

David Sheon

David Sheon

A new field has emerged, companion diagnostics, to help predict a patient’s compatibility with chemotherapy or other cancer treatments.  This is a game changer to help ensure drugs are given only to the patients most likely to respond to them. 

According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), companion diagnostics already play an important role in determining which therapies are the safest and most effective for a particular patient.  By identifying treatments that work best for specific patients, less money is spent on those that do not work because patients no longer have to endure multiple treatments to find the one that is right for their case. Companion diagnostics, usually created in combination with targeted therapy, not only reduce cost and waste, but also reduce side effects for the patient.

Over the past several years, the FDA has approved the following five companion diagnostics: 

  • Zelboraf and the Cobas Test: The drug Zelboraf specifically treats the melanoma of patients whose tumors express a gene mutation called BRAF V600E. Alberto Gutierrez, Ph.D., Director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said that approval “is a great example of how companion diagnostics can be developed and used to ensure patients are exposed to highly effective, more personalized therapies in a safe manner.”
  • Vysis ALK Break Apart FISH Probe Kit: Developed along with the targeted therapy drug Xalkori for patients with late stage, non-small lung cancer who express the abnormal anaplatic lymphoma kinase gene. The test determines if a patient possesses that gene to ensure that the correct treatment is applied.
  • therascreen KRAS RGQ PCR Kit: For those with colorectal cancer who are determining whether the drug Erbitux is right for them. This provides information about the KRAS gene mutation in patients whose colorectal cancer has spread to other parts of the body. If the test shows that the patient does not have the gene mutation, this demonstrates that Erbitux is the correct choice, but not the right one for those with the gene mutation.
  • EGFR Mutation Test: Administered in conjunction with the targeted therapy drug Tarceva, which detects the epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutation in patients with lung cancer. If the patient has the genetic mutation that Tarveca targets, then they are “candidates for receiving Tarceva as first line therapy,” Dr. Gutierrez says. Because this gene is present in approximately 10 percent of patients who have non-small lung cancer, it would go far to help improve the treatment and success rate among these patients.
  • THxID BRAF: Approved alongside two drugs (Tafinlar and Mekinist) – which treat the most dangerous type of skin cancer – this detects the BRAF V600E or V600K gene mutations associated with the disease. If the tumor of the patient contains either of these genes, both drugs are effective. 

Have you – or someone you know – ever been treated with one or more companion diagnostics? What was the experience like and would you recommend it for someone else?

Categories: Cost-Savings

Juvenile Arthritis Awareness Month Underscores Efforts to Identify Causes and Develop Treatments

That’s right. Children get arthritis too. In fact, according to the Arthritis National Research Foundation (ANRF), nearly 300,000 children in the U.S. have been diagnosed with juvenile arthritis (JA) – one of the most common childhood diseases in the country.

Linda Barlow

Linda Barlow 

When Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis (JRA) first shows its symptoms in a child’s body, many parents write off swollen joints and fever as the flu, or think a sudden rash might have occurred from an allergic reaction. The symptoms might even recede slightly before showing up again, sometimes delaying diagnosis. 

Because a child’s immune system is not fully formed until about age 18, JRA can be especially virulent, compromising the body’s ability to fight normal diseases and leaving children open to complications that can adversely affect their eyes, bone growth and more.

Both the Arthritis Foundation and the ANRF are on the forefront of combatting this disease by supporting research into causes and treatments.

The ANRF’s Kelly Award is one example of how the organization dedicates part of its research effort toward treatment of JRA. The $75,000 grant is given annually to a researcher focused solely on JRA treatment and cures. For the past two years, the award went to Dr. Altan Ercan at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, whose work has the potential to provide novel targets for new therapies.

Another example is the Arthritis Foundation’s partnership with the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA). Through the partnership, the Foundation is working to create a network of pediatric rheumatologists and a registry of children with the disease, allowing researchers to identify and analyze differences and similarities between patients and their responses to treatment. Ultimately, the registry will help researchers cultivate personalized medicine, the ultimate weapon in battling the disease. The CARRA Registry has been launched at 60 clinical research sites and has enrolled 8,000 patients.

The Arthritis Foundation has also committed to providing more than $1.1 million in funding this year to researchers investigating a wide range of topics, including: 

  • Exploring how environmental and genomic factors might play a role in triggering juvenile arthritis; 
  • Collecting data and evaluating the efficacy of standardized treatment plans; and 
  • Developing and testing a smart phone app to help children cope with pain.

According to the Arthritis Foundation, there is no single test to diagnose JA. A diagnosis is based on a complete medical history and careful medical examination. Evaluation by a specialist and laboratory studies, including blood and urine tests, are often required. Imaging studies including X-rays or MRIs may also be needed to check for signs of joint or organ involvement.

“When joint pain, swelling or stiffness occurs in one or more of your child’s joints for at least six weeks, it’s important not to assume these symptoms are temporary, and to get a proper diagnosis from a pediatric arthritis specialist,” says Arthritis Foundation Vice President of Public Health Policy and Advocacy, Dr. Patience White. “Early medical treatment of juvenile arthritis can prevent serious, permanent damage to your child’s joints and enable her to live an active, full childhood.”  

Management of JA depends on the specific form of the disease but can include:

  • Care by a pediatric rheumatologist.
  • Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to control pain and swelling.
  • Corticosteroids such as prednisone to relieve inflammation, taken either orally or injected into inflamed joints.
  • Biologic Response Modifiers (BRMs), such as anti-TNF drugs to inhibit proteins called cytokines, which promote an inflammatory response. These are injected under the skin or given as an infusion into the vein.
  • Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs such as methotrexate, often used in conjunction with NSAIDs to treat joint inflammation and reduce the risk of bone and cartilage damage.

One promising therapy in the fight against juvenile arthritis has been recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration – Actemra (tocilizumab) – from Roche. Used to treat polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (PJIA), the medicine can be used in children ages 2 and older. It is also approved for the treatment of active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (SJIA).

How can organizations like the Arthritis Foundation and the ANRF increase awareness that arthritis happens to children, and build support to advance development of research and therapies?

Does More Data = More Accurate Results?

Every year U.S. News & World Report comes out with its “Best Hospitals” rankings, and providers wear them like a badge of honor. No doubt the recognition is prestigious. But how many people know why hospitals are ranked as they are? We decided to dig a little deeper and break down the methodology behind the rankings. What we found might surprise you.

Paul DeMiglio

Paul DeMiglio

“Best Hospitals” scores top hospitals across 16 specialties, from Cancer to Urology. For 12 of the 16 specialties, the rankings are based on performance measurements in structure, process and outcomes. Rankings in the remaining four specialties are based on hospital reputation as determined by a physician survey.

The methodology has evolved since the list was first published in 1990, transitioning from a heavy reliance on the reputation of hospitals (based on surveys of medical specialists) to incorporating more hard data to determine which providers make the cut. In an effort to increase accuracy and develop more objective, higher scoring methods, U.S. News & World Report moved away from expert opinion as a major factor of its criteria. Reputation now comprises only 32.5% of the overall score, except for hospitals in the areas of ophthalmology, psychiatry, rehabilitation and rheumatology.

The clinical data now used as the primary basis to rank hospitals measure patient outcomes and processes of care, based on factors including mortality, nurse staffing and advanced technologies. Hospitals also have to meet specific minimums for patient volume and are immediately considered high performing if they have a specialty like cancer or cardiology, among many others.

The power in this report lies in the objectivity as well as the information sharing from multiple, well-respected health care organizations and databases that exist as treasure troves for comprehensive patient information. The continuum of survey strategy — structure, process and outcome — defines essentially every step of the patient experience, from diagnosis to treatment to outcome.

For decades, much of patient care revolved around anecdotal teachings and recommendations. Hospital choices for individuals with complicated conditions often occurred subjectively and by word-of-mouth from both patients as well as caregivers. The strength in the “Best Hospitals” study design lies in the breadth of specialties, objectivity, number of hospitals, as well as the reachability and understandability of the results to the general public.  As the number of survey variables continues to increase by virtue of an aging population and the emergence of newer diseases and a greater number of treatment options, survey criteria will evolve and may correlate patient cost to outcome.  In other words, how much health care bang does one get for the buck?

For a detailed overview of the methodology behind “U.S. News & World Report’s Best Hospitals,” click here.

Is this system for ranking hospitals as objective as it could be? Does making the qualification guidelines more data-driven increase the reliability of the outcomes?

Patient Venture Philanthropies: Catalyzing the Development and Delivery of Therapeutic Breakthroughs

Linda Barlow

Linda Barlow

How are patient-focused organizations making tangible advances in creating life-saving and life-enhancing therapeutic innovations? The experiences of at least two foundations show that collaboration with stakeholders across industries – private, government, academia, insurers and clinicians – is a good place to start.

One example of success is JDRF (formerly the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation), the only global organization with a strategic plan to systematically eradicate the effects of type 1 diabetes (T1D) from people’s lives. As a foundation with cure, treatment and prevention strategies that drive the core of its mission, JDRF funds $530 million in scientific research across 17 countries. JDRF’s highest priority is funding research to deliver a cure for T1D and its complications. It is also committed to:

  • Developing better treatments that will transform the way people of all ages with T1D treat the disease at any stage, in order to help them live healthier lives; and
  • Preventing T1D, to keep future generations from developing the disease.

JDRF focuses its funding on therapies and devices that are truly impactful, either in the sense of bringing something to market more quickly or by reaching the largest possible number of patients.

“The challenge is bigger than we anticipated,” according to Jeffrey Brewer, President & CEO of JDRF. “We remain committed to a cure, but are also focused on helping patients live safely and well until a cure comes, through preventive and treatment strategies and treatments.”

Brewer says that JDRF has started working more with industry, noting that historically, the organization focused on academic-based research.

“Forty years of advances in the academic labs has given us the opportunity to translate developments in the labs to companies that will develop therapies to deliver to people,” he says. “Academic research is a critical early component in the pipeline, but company support is also a critical part of the pipeline. That’s why we incentivize companies to do things they otherwise wouldn’t have done.”

“JDRF is willing to take on more risk at an early stage than pharmaceutical companies,” adds Dr. Richard A. Insel, M.D., Chief Scientific Officer, JDRF. “We also are not driven by profit margins or market size. We act as a sort of virtual pharma or biotech company in the early stages of research, and our industry partners step in to bring therapies and devices to market.”

Brewer explains that once companies are able to successfully commercialize therapies and see a financial return, JDRF is “paid back” by those companies, with funds JDRF drives back into more therapeutic research.

“We also work closely with our industry partners and the government, particularly the National Institutes for Health, to make sure resources are being used most effectively and without duplication of effort,” says Insel. “And we work with regulatory agencies to help them better understand what it is like to live with type 1 diabetes so they can evaluate the risk and benefits of new therapies with an eye toward approving them as quickly as possible.”

The Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF) also focuses on prevention, treatment and cure. Using a venture philanthropy model to bridge the worldwide funding gap between basic research and later-stage drug development, ADDF leverages any return on investment to support new research.

The result? ADDF has granted more than $60 million to fund over 400 Alzheimer’s drug discovery programs and clinical trials in academic centers and biotechnology companies in 18 countries.

“Our biomedical venture philanthropy model adapts the operating principles of venture capital investing to the ADDF’s philanthropic mission to advance biomedical research in Alzheimer’s disease. We seek a return on investment for our grants based on the achievement of scientific and/or business milestones. When these milestones are met, funds come back to the Foundation to increase our ability to fund more research,” according to the Foundation.

Source: Parkinsons Action Network

Source: Parkinson’s Action Network

Dr. Insel argues that the participation of patients and families in clinical trials is crucial to translating funding research into impactful therapies.

Do you agree? What other ways can patients living with type 1 diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease or other chronic disease act as advocates for themselves and the disease in general? What other patient venture philanthropy models have you seen work?

New Drug Delivery Options that Help the Medicine Go Down

David Sheon

David Sheon

The water cooler talk for us at RWHC is frequently about improving treatment adherence (a patient’s ability and willingness to take his or her medicine consistently, as directed).  OK, so we don’t have the most exciting water cooler discussions.  But this happens to be important – for all of us because when patients stay on treatment, they get better faster.  This is almost universally true, regardless of the therapeutic category.

In some cases, improving adherence not only saves the life of the patient, but it can benefit an entire community.  In HIV, for example, taking antiretrovirals not only helps the patient to manage his or her viral load (the amount of HIV circulating in the blood), but it also lowers that patient’s ability to transmit the virus to someone else.

Sometimes, adherence can be improved by using a different delivery system.  This is the first post in a series on how drug delivery helps adherence.

Remember the first time you took a breath strip that dissolved on your tongue? The technology was invented in the 1970s, but only since July 2012 have pharmaceutical companies been able to win marketing approval to put a drug on the strip.  Two products have been cleared by the FDA.

Zuplenz (ondansetron) oral soluble film is an anti-nausea and vomiting product used by cancer patients who experience nausea and vomiting as a result of receiving chemotherapy and/or radiation as well as for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

“We know from market research that patients who are nauseated don’t necessarily like swallowing pills or using suppositories and that sometimes taking pills with water contributes to their nausea,” said John V. Aiken, M. Ed., Vice President, Corporate Operations, Marketing, and Training, Praelia Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  “Since launching the product in December 2012, a number of doctors are telling us that their patients prefer the dissolving strip.”

The second drug now available on an oral dissolving strip is Suboxone (Buprenorphine and Naloxone), from Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc.  For more information on this product, click here.

If the dosing is standardized and absorption is as good as more typical drug delivery methods, we see only an upside in terms of patient adherence to oral dissolving strips.  Please tell us what you think.  Also, if you know of a new drug delivery option that you’d like to see us cover, let us know!

Filling the Financial Gap When Health Insurance Isn’t Enough

You can’t escape the headlines: rising expenses and high unemployment. And even for the employed, a sharp reduction in health benefits – coupled with a steep increase in out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles, copayments and coinsurance – is making access to life-saving and life-sustaining therapies out of reach for many Americans.

For some individuals and families, these out-of-pocket expenses can total thousands of dollars each month – much more than many folks earn.

When people in these circumstances need help, many turn to Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs), while others apply for financial assistance through independent non-profits such as The HealthWell Foundation. PAPs – which are offered by state governments or drug makers – are designed for those who cannot afford the cost of medication. Groups like Partnership for Prescription Assistance, NeedyMeds, RxAssistRxOutreach, and the National Center for Benefits (provided by the National Council on Aging), empower individuals to sort out their options and get connected to the PAP that’s right for them, sometimes even helping applicants fill out their paperwork.

What do all these organizations have in common? They focus on addressing the financial strains confronting individuals with health insurance who need important medical treatments but cannot cover their associated out-of-pocket costs and premiums.

Individuals like Marianne of Tarpon Springs, Florida, for example. For Marianne, living frugally her whole life didn’t help. Even though she had health insurance, paid all her bills on time, and once earned a good living as a librarian, the 70-year-old breast cancer survivor could not afford the medicine she needed to keep the cancer from coming back.

With no other alternatives to the $500-a-month life-saving medicine, the fixed-income senior citizen didn’t know where to turn. Until her doctors pointed her to the HealthWell Foundation.

Two years later, and thanks to the financial assistance she received from HealthWell, the still-healthy Marianne travels, cycles, and enjoys the life that continues to “delight and amaze” her.

“I am so fortunate,” she says. “I’ve always been glad to give back to others, and now that I’ve needed the help, I know just how precious it is to receive the kindness and compassion of others.”

Marianne is one of many Americans who benefit from organizations like HealthWell, which has provided copayment assistance to more than 164,000 patients since 2004. Without these critical funds, many of those living with chronic and life-altering illnesses would not have the treatments they need in order to live healthier lives.

No child or adult in the U.S. should go without health care because he or she cannot afford it.

How can charitable copayment assistance organizations partner with businesses, government and other stakeholders to achieve lower costs for health care treatment?

The HealthWell Foundation sponsors this blog.

Get the conversation going in the comments section.

Categories: Cost-Savings

Why Aren’t Patients Taking Their Medication?

It’s a question with which many in the health care community grapple. In some cases, it’s a matter of affordability, as the high cost of certain therapies makes it difficult to pay for needed drugs AND to pay for essentials like rent or the mortgage, utilities and food. Even with medical insurance, the copays for these expensive therapies put them well out of reach for many Americans.

In other cases, it’s a matter of easy access to refills – a problem being solved, in part, by mail-order pharmacies. This was especially the case among 44,000 hypertension patients recently studied by Kaiser Permanente. Research found that making prescription refills more affordable and easier to access might reduce disparities in medicine-taking behaviors among racial and ethnic groups.

The study authors noted that as early as the first refill, some patients are forgoing their hypertension medication. The result? According to the CDC, hypertension can lead to heart attacks, strokes and deaths related to cardiovascular disease. The impact is devastating to communities of color, particularly among African Americans, where males have the highest hypertension death rates of any other racial, ethnic or gender group.

The research found that both mail-order pharmacy enrollment and lower copayments were associated with a significantly lower likelihood of being non-adherent.

Said the study authors, “Our findings suggest that while racial and ethnic differences in medication adherence persist – even in settings with high-quality care – interventions such as targeted copay reductions and mail order pharmacy incentives have the potential to reduce disparities in blood pressure.”

If you’re in the health care field, what ideas have you seen put in action that work to improve treatment compliance? As a patient, have you ever stopped taking your medication due to high cost or hassles getting refills? And have you turned to mail-order pharmacies or copay assistance programs for help?

Categories: Cost-Savings