Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

C E Reeder

Publications and source records attributed to C E Reeder.

28 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1987

Nicotine chewing gum: effectiveness and the influence of patient education in a family practice.

The effectiveness of nicotine chewing gum in a family practice setting was evaluated. Ninety-nine subjects who were given a prescription for nicotine chewing gum were evaluated after one year to determine smoking status. Forty-nine subjects received only the gum, and 50 received the gum along with extensive personal instruction regarding its use. The two groups were compared with a third control group of 40 smokers who expressed no desire to stop smoking. At the end of one year, 12.2 percent of those receiving only gum and 10 percent receiving gum and instruction had stopped smoking, compared with a 20 percent cessation rate for the control group. The observed difference was not statistically significant (P greater than .05). Results of this study suggest that the use of nicotine gum alone may not be a viable alternative for family physicians whose patients desire to quit smoking.

Adult↗
PubMed1985

The differential impact of copayment on drug use in a Medicaid population.

In this study of the influence of copayment on drug utilization, we examined the prescription experience of 10 categories of drugs used by Medicaid beneficiaries in South Carolina over a four-year period. We observed an immediate and significant effect of copayment on the level of expenditures for all drug categories except analgesics and sedative/hypnotic drugs. The impact of copayment on the changes in the slopes of the series was not as dramatic. Only expenditures for cardiovascular, cholinergic, diuretic, and psychotherapeutic agents demonstrated a significant change in the long-term trend. We conclude that the imposition of a copayment for prescription services exerted a differential effect among therapeutic categories.

Deductibles and Coinsurance↗
PubMed1984

The effect of a Medicaid drug copayment program on the utilization and cost of prescription services.

The effect of a copayment for pharmaceutical services in a Medicaid program is presented. Data were collected from Medicaid claim files in South Carolina (experimental program) and Tennessee (control program) for a 4-year period, 1976-1979. Utilization rates and expenditures for 1 year prior to copayment and 3 years after copayment were computed from a stratified sample of 18 counties. Both the level of prescriptions per eligible recipient and the slope of the utilization function after copayment were found to have declined with the implementation of copayment in South Carolina. The level of the expenditure series after copayment also declined, but the series retained a positive trend. Subsequent analysis of prescription quantity concluded that the increasing expenditure function was attributed to the inflation in cost of ingredients rather than an increase in average prescription size. The study concluded that a small (50) copayment for prescription service is a successful mechanism to control the cost and assist in financing a Medicaid prescription drug program.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Effects of an increase in prescription copayment on utilization of low-sedating antihistamines and nasal steroids.

BACKGROUND: Health plans are using 3-tier copayment designs and other methods to control utilization that shifts drug costs to plan members. There is a need to determine the effects of increased member cost sharing on drug utilization and drug costs. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a 10 US dollars increase in prescription copayment in a public employer health plan for 2 classes of drugs used for allergic rhinitis. METHODS: Changes in the number of prescriptions dispensed for 2 therapeutic classes.low-sedating antihistamines (LSAs) and nasal steroids (NSs).were examined 1 year prior to and 1 year after copayment increase. Relative price effects were measured as arc price elasticity, the ratio of the percent change in prescription utilization over the percent change in price, an indicator of how responsive patients are to the copayment increase. RESULTS: Of 8,643 continuously enrolled health plan beneficiaries, 2,150 patients (24.8%) received at least 1 NS or LSA during the 2-year period of the study, from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1999. An average 10 US dollars increase in copayment per prescription was associated with no statistically significant change in utilization of combined LSA and NS prescriptions, 2.89 per patient in 1998 and 2.94 in 1999 (P = 0.597). Health plan costs for study drugs, unadjusted for inflation, decreased by 16.3% from 86.86 US dollars per patient in 1998 to 72.68 US dollars in 1999 (P = 0.004). Health plan costs per patient per month (PPPM) for all drugs for the 2,150 allergic rhinitis patients decreased by 13% from 41.33 US dollars PPPM in 1998 to 35.93 US dollars in 1999 (P<0.001), and health plan drug costs for all 8,643 members decreased by 13% from 14.93 US dollars per member per month (PMPM) in 1998 to 12.99 US dollars in 1999 (P<0.001). The actual average copayment increase was 7.23 US dollars (a 41% increase) for LSAs, which was associated with a 14.8% increase in utilization of LSAs and an 11.8% increase in the number of patients using LSAs; the number of LSA prescriptions per patient per year was unchanged at 2.68 in 1999 versus 2.61 in 1998 (P = 0.429). The actual average copayment increase was 10.98 US dollars (71%) for NSs, which was associated with an 11.3% decrease in utilization of NSs and a 10.2% decrease in the number of users of nasals steroids in 1999; the number of nasal steroid prescriptions per patient per year was unchanged at 2.05 in 1999 versus 2.07 in 1998 (P =.842). The combined utilization of LSA and NS prescriptions increased by 8.9% following the increase in copayments for these 2 therapeutically interchangeable drugs for allergic rhinitis. LSA prescriptions were less elastic, with an unadjusted arc elasticity of 0.39, while nasal steroid prescriptions were more responsive to the copayment change, with an unadjusted arc elasticity of.0.22. CONCLUSIONS: An average 10 US dollars increase in patient cost sharing per prescription (46.9% copayment increase) was associated with an increase in combined utilization of 2 drug classes used for allergic rhinitis (LSAs and NSs) but no change in the number of prescriptions per patient. Health plan costs decreased significantly for allergic rhinitis drugs, all drugs used by allergic rhinitis patients, and all drugs used by continuously enrolled health plan members. NSs exhibited a greater arc price elasticity compared with low-sedating oral antihistamines.

Administration, Intranasal↗
PubMedDate not supplied

A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of almotriptan and sumatriptan in the treatment of acute migraine using a composite efficacy/tolerability end point.

OBJECTIVE: To use a composite efficacy/tolerability end point to compare the cost-effectiveness, from the perspective of a U.S. health care payer, of almotriptan and sumatriptan in the treatment of an acute migraine attack. METHODS: The composite end point. Sustained pain free and No Adverse Events. (SNAE) was created from the sustained pain free and adverse event rates obtained in a meta-analysis of 53 placebo-controlled trials of oral triptans. The total direct cost of treating a single migraine attack was calculated from published sources. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the average cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) were 82 US dollars , 133 US dollars , and 138 US dollars (per attack at which SNAE is achieved, 2004 prices) for almotriptan 12.5 mg, sumatriptan 50 mg, and sumatriptan 100 mg, respectively; the incremental CERs for almotriptan 12.5 mg were 12 US dollars and 16 US dollars (compared with sumatriptan 50 mg and sumatriptan 100 mg, respectively) per incremental attack at which SNAE is achieved. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of (1) relaxing the base-case assumptions (independence of efficacy and tolerability, uniform apportionment of health service use costs across attacks, number of tablets used to treat 1 attack); (2) varying input costs; and (3) uncertainty in the efficacy and tolerability estimates from the meta-analysis. In all of these sensitivity analyses, almotriptan 12.5 mg remained cost effective compared with sumatriptan 50 mg and 100 mg. CONCLUSION: Almotriptan was economically superior to sumatriptan in the treatment of a migraine attack.

Acute Disease↗
PubMedDate not supplied

A literature review comparing the economic, clinical, and humanistic attributes of dihydroergotamine and sumatriptan.

The value of different pharmaceuticals in treating migraine is frequently based on clinical efficacy only. This article assumes a broader perspective and compares the clinical, economic, and humanistic attributes of two antimigraine medications, dihydroergotamine (DHE) and sumatriptan, based on a literature review. DHE is an established product with over 40 years of use in the treatment of migraine. Sumatriptan is a new product with a higher acquisition cost than DHE. Because sumatriptan costs more than DHE, the question must be asked. "Does sumatriptan provide advantages that offset this price differential?" This question reflects the growing concern among payers and patients over the cost and effectiveness of therapies. However, it is not easily answered. Direct comparative data are not available, and data sources are different for the two products. Moreover, the products are currently marketed in different dosage forms--intramuscular for DHE and subcutaneous for sumatriptan. The literature reviewed indicates that the clinical attributes of the two products are similar, with each having slightly different advantages and disadvantages. However, the DHE literature is generally limited to uncontrolled studies, whereas the sumatriptan literature reports the results of rigorously designed, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Published data on the products' economic and humanistic attributes are limited. We concluded that the literature does provide important, albeit limited, data on the economic, clinical, and humanistic attributes of DHE and sumatriptan that permit restricted comparisons. The limitations of the data highlight the need for comparative studies of these products' multidimensional attributes both in controlled clinical trials and under actual practice conditions.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Economic, clinical, and humanistic outcomes: a planning model for pharmacoeconomic research.

Medical, ethical, and societal concerns about costs, access, and quality of care are causing health care practitioners to consider a more comprehensive model for medical decision making. Consequently, interest in research to assess the outcomes of health care has been increasing. The purpose of this paper is to explicate a theoretical framework for identifying, collecting, and using outcomes data to assess the value of pharmaceutical treatment alternatives. Causal relationships between disease, health outcomes, and decisions about medical care interventions (eg, treatment with pharmaceutical products and services) are proposed to address limitations inherent in the traditional medical decision-making model. The Economic, Clinical, and Humanistic Outcomes (ECHO) model depicts the value of a pharmaceutical product or service as a combination of traditional clinical-based outcomes with more contemporary measures of economic efficiency and quality. This integrated approach provides a theoretical basis for considering potential trade-offs among economic, clinical, and humanistic variables in optimizing the allocation of health care resources. The ECHO model is a preliminary step to modeling outcomes from pharmaceutical treatments and services. Data collection instruments need to be developed, and the proposed relationships among outcomes variables should be established empirically. The ECHO model should assist health services researchers in planning, conducting, and evaluating pharmaceutical products and services from a multidimensional perspective.

Causality↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The financial impact of OBRA-90 on community pharmacies: an overview.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90) may be the most significant piece of legislation affecting the practice of pharmacy since the Durham-Humphrey amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. As part of the OBRA-90 legislation, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) was required to publish estimates of the impact of the act on states, Medicaid recipients, and pharmacies. Numerous stakeholders and researchers have commented on the HCFA estimates. We have summarized the estimates available in comments and studies and conducted a sensitivity analysis on these estimates. Our results demonstrate considerable variation in the factors important in estimating the impact of OBRA-90 on pharmacy operations. This variation indicates the scarcity of empirical data needed to produce reliable impact estimates. Demonstration projects are needed to scientifically evaluate the total impact of OBRA-90 on pharmacy practice. Moreover, further investigation of the impact of the legislation on program recipients and states is warranted.

Computers↗