Evidence mapPaperPMID 17609491Full record

ReviewJAMA2007

Prescription drug cost sharing: associations with medication and medical utilization and spending and health.

Dana P Goldman, Geoffrey F Joyce, Yuhui Zheng

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JAMA, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 291 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
291citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
33.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

291 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 873 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

231 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dana P GoldmanHealth Economics, Finance, and Organization, RAND, Santa Monica, California 90407-2138, USA. dgoldman@rand.org
Geoffrey F Joyce
Yuhui Zheng
RAND Corporation · US

Funding

USC-Yale Roybal Center for Behavioral Interventions in AgingP30AG024968 · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · 2004 to 2025
$1.8M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG024968
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextPrescription drugs are instrumental to managing and preventing chronic disease. Recent changes in US prescription drug cost sharing could affect access to them.

objectiveTo synthesize published evidence on the associations among cost-sharing features of prescription drug benefits and use of prescription drugs, use of nonpharmaceutical services, and health outcomes. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed for studies published in English between 1985 and 2006. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Among 923 articles found in the search, we identified 132 articles examining the associations between prescription drug plan cost-containment measures, including co-payments, tiering, or coinsurance (n = 65), pharmacy benefit caps or monthly prescription limits (n = 11), formulary restrictions (n = 41), and reference pricing (n = 16), and salient outcomes, including pharmacy utilization and spending, medical care utilization and spending, and health outcomes.

resultsIncreased cost sharing is associated with lower rates of drug treatment, worse adherence among existing users, and more frequent discontinuation of therapy. For each 10% increase in cost sharing, prescription drug spending decreases by 2% to 6%, depending on class of drug and condition of the patient. The reduction in use associated with a benefit cap, which limits either the coverage amount or the number of covered prescriptions, is consistent with other cost-sharing features. For some chronic conditions, higher cost sharing is associated with increased use of medical services, at least for patients with congestive heart failure, lipid disorders, diabetes, and schizophrenia. While low-income groups may be more sensitive to increased cost sharing, there is little evidence to support this contention.

conclusionsPharmacy benefit design represents an important public health tool for improving patient treatment and adherence. While increased cost sharing is highly correlated with reductions in pharmacy use, the long-term consequences of benefit changes on health are still uncertain.

Indexed as

Cost SharingDrug CostsInsurance, Pharmaceutical ServicesOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePrescription FeesDrug UtilizationHealth ServicesHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID17609491
PMCPMC6375697
OpenAlexW1984959392

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.