Treating hypertension with single pill combinations: a simple strategy to save costs for the patients and payers.

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q1 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Miriam Pikkemaat, Emily R Atkins, Anthony Rodgers, Aletta E Schutte
{"title":"Treating hypertension with single pill combinations: a simple strategy to save costs for the patients and payers.","authors":"Miriam Pikkemaat, Emily R Atkins, Anthony Rodgers, Aletta E Schutte","doi":"10.1097/HJH.0000000000004050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Our aim was to compare direct costs for single pill combinations (SPCs) and free-drug combinations for hypertension treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We focused on Australia as a case study and reviewed total costs, and for the patient and government. We reviewed the Australian \"Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme item drug map\" considering different thresholds for the government safety net. Total costs included medicine costs and pharmacy fees.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For patients, SPCs always cost less than free-drug combinations, with greatest savings for general patients before reaching safety net (averaging 30%). For government, SPCs cost on average less than free-drug combinations, for Concession Card holders both before (averaging 11%) and after reaching safety net (averaging 26%) and in general patients after safety net (averaging 11%). There was a slight increase in costs (16%) for the government for patients before reaching safety net. All findings were driven by savings in dispensing fees, the main cost of supply, also after the recent introduction of 60-day dispensing.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Single pill combinations, instead of free-drug combinations, result in cost saving for both patient and government in almost all cases and often these savings are large. SPC cost savings should be factored into prescribing decisions, both for people receiving multiple pills and people starting treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":16043,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hypertension","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hypertension","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0000000000004050","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Our aim was to compare direct costs for single pill combinations (SPCs) and free-drug combinations for hypertension treatment.

Methods: We focused on Australia as a case study and reviewed total costs, and for the patient and government. We reviewed the Australian "Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme item drug map" considering different thresholds for the government safety net. Total costs included medicine costs and pharmacy fees.

Results: For patients, SPCs always cost less than free-drug combinations, with greatest savings for general patients before reaching safety net (averaging 30%). For government, SPCs cost on average less than free-drug combinations, for Concession Card holders both before (averaging 11%) and after reaching safety net (averaging 26%) and in general patients after safety net (averaging 11%). There was a slight increase in costs (16%) for the government for patients before reaching safety net. All findings were driven by savings in dispensing fees, the main cost of supply, also after the recent introduction of 60-day dispensing.

Conclusion: Single pill combinations, instead of free-drug combinations, result in cost saving for both patient and government in almost all cases and often these savings are large. SPC cost savings should be factored into prescribing decisions, both for people receiving multiple pills and people starting treatment.

用单一药物组合治疗高血压:为患者和付款人节省成本的简单策略。
目的:我们的目的是比较单药联合(SPCs)和无药联合治疗高血压的直接成本。方法:我们以澳大利亚为例,回顾了患者和政府的总成本。我们回顾了澳大利亚的“药品福利计划项目药物图”,考虑了政府安全网的不同阈值。总费用包括药费和药费。结果:对于患者而言,特殊药物组合的费用总是低于免费药物组合,在达到安全网之前,普通患者节省最多(平均30%)。对于政府而言,在达到安全网之前(平均11%)和达到安全网之后(平均26%)的特许卡持有者以及在安全网之后的一般患者(平均11%),SPCs的成本平均低于免费药物组合。在达到安全网之前,政府为患者支付的费用略有增加(16%)。所有调查结果都是由于配药费用的节省,这是供应的主要成本,也是在最近引入60天配药之后。结论:在几乎所有的情况下,单片联合用药,而不是免费药物联合用药,为患者和政府都节省了费用,而且节省的费用往往很大。对于接受多种药物治疗的人和开始治疗的人来说,SPC成本的节省应该考虑到处方决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Hypertension
Journal of Hypertension 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
6.10%
发文量
1389
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Hypertension publishes papers reporting original clinical and experimental research which are of a high standard and which contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field of hypertension. The Journal publishes full papers, reviews or editorials (normally by invitation), and correspondence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信