The effects of copayment policies on adherence to prescription medicines in publicly insured populations

Introduction: Copayments for prescriptions are associated with decreased adherence to medicines resulting in increased health service utilisation, morbidity and mortality. In October 2010 a 50c copayment per prescription item was introduced on the General Medical Services (GMS) scheme in Ireland, the national public health insurance programme for low-income and older people. The copayment was increased to €1.50 per prescription item in January 2013. To date, the impact of these copayments on adherence to prescription medicines on the GMS scheme has not been assessed. Given that the GMS population comprises more than 40% of the Irish population, this presents an important public health problem. The aim of this thesis was to assess the impact of two prescription copayments, 50c and €1.50, on adherence to medicines.Methods: In Chapter 2 the published literature was systematically reviewed with meta-analysis to a) develop evidence on cost-sharing for prescriptions and adherence to medicines and b) develop evidence for an alternative policy option; removal of copayments. The core research question of this thesis was addressed by a large before and after longitudinal study, with comparator group, using the national pharmacy claims database. New users of essential and less-essential medicines were included in the study with sample sizes ranging from 7,007 to 136,111 individuals in different medication groups. Segmented regression was used with generalised estimating equations to allow for correlations between repeated monthly measurements of adherence. A qualitative study involving 24 individuals was conducted to assess patient attitudes towards the 50c copayment policy. The qualitative and quantitative findings were integrated in the discussion chapter of the thesis. The vast majority of the literature on this topic area is generated in North America, therefore a test of generalisability was carried out in Chapter 5 by comparing the impact of two similar copayment interventions on adherence, one in the U.S. and one in Ireland. The method used to measure adherence in Chapters 3 and 5 was validated in Chapter 6. Results: The systematic review with meta-analysis demonstrated an 11% (95% CI 1.09 to 1.14) increased odds of non-adherence when publicly insured populations were exposed to copayments. The second systematic review found moderate but variable improvements in adherence after removal/reduction of copayments in a general population. The core paper of this thesis found that both the 50c and €1.50 copayments on the GMS scheme were associated with larger reductions in adherence to less-essential medicines than essential medicines directly after the implementation of policies. An important exception to this pattern was observed; adherence to anti-depressant medications declined by a larger extent than adherence to other essential medicines after both copayments. The cross country comparison indicated that North American evidence on cost-sharing for prescriptions is not automatically generalisable to the Irish setting. Irish patients had greater immediate decreases of -5.3% (95% CI -6.9 to -3.7) and -2.8% (95% CI -4.9 to -0.7) in adherence to anti-hypertensives and anti-hyperlipidaemic medicines, respectively, directly after the policy changes, relative to their U.S. counterparts. In the long term, however, the U.S. and Irish populations had similar behaviours. The concordance study highlighted the possibility of a measurement bias occurring for the measurement of adherence to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in Chapter 3. Conclusions: This thesis has presented two reviews of international cost-sharing policies, an assessment of the generalisability of international evidence and both qualitative and quantitative examinations of cost-sharing policies for prescription medicines on the GMS scheme in Ireland. It was found that the introduction of a 50c copayment and its subsequent increase to €1.50 on the GMS scheme had a larger impact on adherence to less-essential medicines relative to essential medicines, with the exception of anti-depressant medications. This is in line with policy objectives to reduce moral hazard and is therefore demonstrative of the value of such policies. There are however some caveats. The copayment now stands at €2.50 per prescription item. The impact of this increase in copayment has yet to be assessed which is an obvious point for future research. Careful monitoring for adverse effects in socio-economically disadvantaged groups within the GMS population is also warranted. International evidence can be applied to the Irish setting to aid in future decision making in this area, but not without placing it in the local context first. Patients accepted the introduction of the 50c charge, however did voice concerns over a rising price. The challenge for policymakers is to find the ‘optimal copayment’ – whereby moral hazard is decreased, but access to essential chronic disease medicines that provide advantages at the population level is not deterred. This evidence presented in this thesis will be utilisable for future policy-making in Ireland.

Impact of economic, regulatory, and patent policies on innovation in cancer chemoprevention.

Chemoprevention agents are an emerging new scientific area that holds out the promise of delaying or avoiding a number of common cancers. These new agents face significant scientific, regulatory, and economic barriers, however, which have limited investment in their research and development (R&D). These barriers include above-average clinical trial scales, lengthy time frames between discovery and Food and Drug Administration approval, liability risks (because they are given to healthy individuals), and a growing funding gap for early-stage candidates. The longer time frames and risks associated with chemoprevention also cause exclusivity time on core patents to be limited or subject to significant uncertainties. We conclude that chemoprevention uniquely challenges the structure of incentives embodied in the economic, regulatory, and patent policies for the biopharmaceutical industry. Many of these policy issues are illustrated by the recently Food and Drug Administration-approved preventive agents Gardasil and raloxifene. Our recommendations to increase R&D investment in chemoprevention agents include (a) increased data exclusivity times on new biological and chemical drugs to compensate for longer gestation periods and increasing R&D costs; chemoprevention is at the far end of the distribution in this regard; (b) policies such as early-stage research grants and clinical development tax credits targeted specifically to chemoprevention agents (these are policies that have been very successful in increasing R&D investment for orphan drugs); and (c) a no-fault liability insurance program like that currently in place for children's vaccines.

Explanatory Model for the Use of Traditional Medicines in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania

Introduction: Traditional medicines are one of the most important means of achieving total health care coverage globally, and their importance in Tanzania extends beyond the impoverished rural areas. Their use remains high even in urban settings among the educated middle and upper classes. They are a critical component healthcare in Tanzania, but they also can have harmful side effects. Therefore we sought to understand the decision-making and reasoning processes by building an explanatory model for the use of traditional medicines in Tanzania.

Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study between December 2013 and June 2014 in the Kilimanjaro Region of Tanzania. Using purposive sampling methods, we conducted focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews of key informants, and the qualitative data were analyzed using an inductive Framework Method. A structured survey was created, piloted, and then administered it to a random sample of adults. We reported upon the reliability and validity of the structured survey, and we used triangulation from multiple sources to synthesize the qualitative and quantitative data.

Results: A total of five FGDs composed of 59 participants and 27 in-depth interviews were conducted in total. 16 of the in-depth interviews were with self-described traditional practitioners or herbal vendors. We identified five major thematic categories that relate to the decision to use traditional medicines in Kilimanjaro: healthcare delivery, disease understanding, credibility of the traditional practices, health status, and strong cultural beliefs.

A total of 473 participants (24.1% male) completed the structured survey. The most common reasons for taking traditional medicines were that they are more affordable (14%, 12.0-16.0), failure of hospital medicines (13%, 11.1-15.0), they work better (12%, 10.7-14.4), they are easier

to obtain (11%, 9.48-13.1), they are found naturally or free (8%, 6.56-9.68), hospital medicines have too many chemical (8%, 6.33-9.40), and they have fewer side effects (8%, 6.25-9.30). The most common uses of traditional medicines were for symptomatic conditions (42%), chronic diseases (14%), reproductive problems (11%), and malaria and febrile illnesses (10%). Participants currently taking hospital medicines for chronic conditions were nearly twice as likely to report traditional medicines usage in the past year (RR 1.97, p=0.05).

Conclusions: We built broad explanatory model for the use of traditional medicines in Kilimanjaro. The use of traditional medicines is not limited to rural or low socioeconomic populations and concurrent use of traditional medicines and biomedicine is high with frequent ethnomedical doctor shopping. Our model provides a working framework for understanding the complex interactions between biomedicine and traditional medicine. Future disease management and treatment programs will benefit from this understanding, and it can lead to synergistic policies with more effective implementation.

Patent litigation in Europe

We compare patent litigation cases across four European jurisdictions – Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the UK – covering cases filed during the period 2000-2008. For our analysis, we assemble a new dataset that contains detailed information at the case, litigant, and patent level for patent cases filed at the major courts in the four jurisdictions. We find substantial differences across jurisdictions in terms of case loads. Courts in Germany hear by far the largest number of cases in absolute terms, but also when taking country size into account. We also find important between-country differences in terms of outcomes, the share of cases that is appealed, as well as the characteristics of litigants and litigated patents. A considerable number of patents are litigated in multiple jurisdictions, but the majority of patents are subject to litigation only in one of the four jurisdictions.