Person:

Soumerai, Stephen

In an attempt to contain costs, 27 Medicaid programs have implemented patient-level payment limits for medications, but the effects of these restrictions on quality of care, costs, and health status remain largely unknown. We measured the effect of one state's limit of three paid prescriptions per month and its replacement a year later by a $1 copayment. Using data on 48 months of claims in the study state (New Hampshire) and a comparison state (New Jersey), we employed time-series analysis to evaluate patient-level changes in the number of prescriptions filled for 16 drugs that varied in their clinical importance and cost. Among 10,734 continuously enrolled patients, the limit of three paid prescriptions per month caused a sudden, sustained drop of 30 percent in the number of prescriptions filled (from 1.10 to 0.77 prescriptions per patient per month); no change was observed in the comparison state. The 860 recipients of multiple drugs, who were predominantly female and elderly or disabled, were most severely affected; the number of prescriptions per month dropped from 5.2 to 2.8 (46 percent). The decrease was greatest for "ineffective drugs" (58 percent), but large drops were also observed for "essential" medications, such as insulin (28 percent), thiazides (28 percent), and furosemide (30 percent). Reductions in Medicaid prescriptions were minimally offset by increases in the size of the prescription or in out-of-pocket payments. When a $1 copayment replaced the three-prescription cap, prescriptions for most medications increased to just below precap levels. Medicaid's savings on drug costs resulting from both policies were comparable ($0.4 to $0.8 million annually), but the copayment policy had less effect on patients receiving multiple drugs. Because the clinical consequences of such policies cannot be assessed from prescription data alone, further study is needed to determine the effects of cost-containment strategies on health status and the use of other services among poor populations. (N Engl J Med 1987; 317:550–6.)

Rest homes have become a major component of the health care system for frail elderly persons and deinstitutionalized psychiatric patients. Although psychoactive medications are frequently used in rest homes, there is little detailed information about the extent of such use, its supervision, or its effects. In a survey of a random sample of 55 rest homes in Massachusetts, we found that 55 percent of the residents were taking at least one psychoactive medication. Antipsychotic medications were being administered to 39 percent; of these, 18 percent were receiving two or more such drugs. In a follow-up investigation, we studied 837 residents in 44 rest homes with particularly high levels of antipsychotic-drug use. About half the residents had no evidence of participation by a physician in decisions about their mental health during the year of the study. A third of the residents had performance deficits on mental-status testing that indicated serious cognitive impairment, although the causal relation of such impairment to medication use could not be determined. Six percent had evidence of moderate or severe tardive dyskinesia, probably as a side effect of medication. An assessment of staff competence revealed a low level of comprehension of the purpose and side effects of commonly used psychoactive drugs. We conclude that psychoactive drugs are widely used in rest homes, with little medical supervision or understanding by staff members of their possible side effects. (N Engl JMed 1989;320:227–32.)

Improving precision and economy in the prescribing of drugs is a goal whose importance has increased with the proliferation of new and potent agents and with growing economic pressures to contain healthcare costs. We implemented an office-based physician education program to reduce the excessive use of three drug groups: cerebral and peripheral vasodilators, an oral cephalosporin, and propoxyphene. A four-state sample of 435 prescribers of these drugs was identified through Medicaid records and randomly assigned to one of three groups. Physicians who were offered personal educational visits by clinical pharmacists along with a series of mailed "unadvertisements" reduced their prescribing of the target drugs by 14 per cent as compared with controls (P = 0.0001). A comparable reduction in the number of dollars reimbursed for these drugs was also seen between the two groups, resulting in substantial cost savings. No such change was seen in physicians who received mailed print materials only. The effect persisted for at least nine months after the start of the intervention, and no significant increase in the use of expensive substitute drugs was found. Academically based "detailing" may represent a useful and cost-effective way to improve the quality of drug-therapy decisions and reduce unnecessary expenditures. (N Engl J Med 1983; 308:1457–63.)

• Antibiotics are often used inappropriately in hospitals. We created a structured antibiotic order form designed to guide physicians toward correct therapeutic decisions without restricting their clinical options. Educational messages and graphic reminders were incorporated into a new form required to order parenteral antibiotics at a teaching hospital. Pharmacokinetic considerations were emphasized. The forms were supplemented with brief literature reviews and appropriate references. Before introduction of the form, pharmacokinetically incorrect orders for clindamycin, cefazolin sodium, and metronidazole hydrochloride accounted for 90%, 60%, and 75% of patient-days of therapy for these drugs, respectively. Immediately after implementation of the form, nonrecommended dosing schedules dropped to under 6% of patient-days for all three antibiotics. Savings from these drugs alone accounted for over $76 000 annually. We conclude that in a period of increasing constraints on hospital budgets and proliferating restrictions on physicians' clinical choices, educational intervention at the time orders are written can provide a cost-effective and noncoercive means of improving some forms of acute-care clinical decision making.

Despite the large number of elderly patients in nursing homes and the intensity of medication use there, few current data are available on patterns of medication use in this setting. We studied all medication use among 850 residents of 12 representative intermediate-care facilities in Massachusetts. Data on all prescriptions and patterns of actual use were recorded for all patients during one month. On average, residents were prescribed 8.1 medications during the month (interquartile range, 7.4 to 8.8) and actually received 4.7 (range, 4.2 to 5.4) medications during this period. More than half of all residents were receiving a psychoactive medication, with 26% receiving antipsychotic medication. Twenty-eight percent of patients were receiving sedative/hypnotics during the study month, primarily on a scheduled rather than an as-needed basis. Of patients receiving a sedative/hypnotic, 26% (range, 14% to 41%) were taking diphenhydramine hydrochloride, a strongly anticholinergic hypnotic. Of those receiving one of the benzodiazepines, 30% were receiving long-acting drugs, generally not recommended for elderly patients. The typical benzodiazepine dose was equivalent to 7.3 mg per patient per day of diazepam. The most commonly used antidepressant was amitriptyline hydrochloride, the most sedating and anticholinergic antidepressant in common use. These data indicate that despite growing evidence of the risks of psychoactive drug use in elderly patients, the nursing home population studied was exposed to high levels of sedative/hypnotic and antipsychotic drug use. Suboptimal choice of medication within a given class was common, and use of standing vs as-needed orders was often not in keeping with current concepts in geriatric psychopharmacology. Additional research is needed to assess the impact of such drug therapy on cognitive and physical functioning, as well as to determine how best to improve patterns of medication use in this vulnerable population.