School of Medicine and Health Sciences Poster Presentations
Influence of Pharmaceutical Marketing on Prescribing for Medicare patients in the District of Columbia
Poster Number
232
Document Type
Poster
Publication Date
3-2016
Abstract
Influence of Pharmaceutical Marketing on Prescribing for Medicare patients in the District of Columbia
Raveendran JA1, Podrasky JP2, McMonagle MA3, Fugh-Berman A4, Hogenmiller A5, Wood SF6
1The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences 2, 3, 6The George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health 4,5Georgetown University Medical Center (602) 738-6566, janani@gwu.edu, M2
Importance: Pharmaceutical marketing efforts may complicate the decision-making process for prescribers by influencing them to prefer newer, more expensive drugs that may have limited information on efficacy and adverse effects. Objective: Analyze the potential impact of pharmaceutical marketing on prescribing for Medicare patients in DC. Design: Analysis of correlation between pharmaceutical marketing gifts and Medicare Part D claims data in DC in 2013. Setting: Data accessed from: DC AccessRx database (gifts annually reported to the DC Department of Health, January-July); Open Payments database (gifts reported to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), August-December); and CMS database of Medicare Part D claims (January-December). Participants: Inclusion criteria were licensed healthcare providers in DC, who are Medicare Part D prescribers listed in CMS. Healthcare providers in specialties with five or less subjects were excluded. Of 2873 subjects, 1750 (60.9%) did not receive pharmaceutical marketing gifts reported in AccessRx or Open Payments (control), and 1123 (39.1%) did receive gifts reported in AccessRx or Open Payments (exposed). Main outcome(s) and measure(s): Two sample t-tests were run on average cost per Medicare Part D claim, number of total claims, number of claims per beneficiary, and frequency of branded claims for the control and exposed groups. Results: Compared to non-gift recipients, gift recipients spent an average of $56 more per claim (P=1.8E-9). Gift recipients also made an average of 503 more total claims (P=1.4E-17), 2.2 more claims per beneficiary (P=4.2E-12), and 8.4% more branded claims (P=1.4E-27). Conclusion and relevance: Results suggest that pharmaceutical marketing efforts in DC in 2013 influenced Medicare Part D prescribing by increasing average cost per claim, number of total claims, number of claims per beneficiary, and frequency of branded claims. Although this study does not establish causation, it is the first to analyze these datasets and provide unique insight into the potential impact of pharmaceutical marketing efforts on prescribing for Medicare patients in DC. We recommend: further research on the influence of pharmaceutical marketing on prescribing; continuous and robust pharmaceutical marketing requirements; and expanded public access to improve transparency of conflicts of interest in healthcare.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
Open Access
1
Influence of Pharmaceutical Marketing on Prescribing for Medicare patients in the District of Columbia
Influence of Pharmaceutical Marketing on Prescribing for Medicare patients in the District of Columbia
Raveendran JA1, Podrasky JP2, McMonagle MA3, Fugh-Berman A4, Hogenmiller A5, Wood SF6
1The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences 2, 3, 6The George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health 4,5Georgetown University Medical Center (602) 738-6566, janani@gwu.edu, M2
Importance: Pharmaceutical marketing efforts may complicate the decision-making process for prescribers by influencing them to prefer newer, more expensive drugs that may have limited information on efficacy and adverse effects. Objective: Analyze the potential impact of pharmaceutical marketing on prescribing for Medicare patients in DC. Design: Analysis of correlation between pharmaceutical marketing gifts and Medicare Part D claims data in DC in 2013. Setting: Data accessed from: DC AccessRx database (gifts annually reported to the DC Department of Health, January-July); Open Payments database (gifts reported to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), August-December); and CMS database of Medicare Part D claims (January-December). Participants: Inclusion criteria were licensed healthcare providers in DC, who are Medicare Part D prescribers listed in CMS. Healthcare providers in specialties with five or less subjects were excluded. Of 2873 subjects, 1750 (60.9%) did not receive pharmaceutical marketing gifts reported in AccessRx or Open Payments (control), and 1123 (39.1%) did receive gifts reported in AccessRx or Open Payments (exposed). Main outcome(s) and measure(s): Two sample t-tests were run on average cost per Medicare Part D claim, number of total claims, number of claims per beneficiary, and frequency of branded claims for the control and exposed groups. Results: Compared to non-gift recipients, gift recipients spent an average of $56 more per claim (P=1.8E-9). Gift recipients also made an average of 503 more total claims (P=1.4E-17), 2.2 more claims per beneficiary (P=4.2E-12), and 8.4% more branded claims (P=1.4E-27). Conclusion and relevance: Results suggest that pharmaceutical marketing efforts in DC in 2013 influenced Medicare Part D prescribing by increasing average cost per claim, number of total claims, number of claims per beneficiary, and frequency of branded claims. Although this study does not establish causation, it is the first to analyze these datasets and provide unique insight into the potential impact of pharmaceutical marketing efforts on prescribing for Medicare patients in DC. We recommend: further research on the influence of pharmaceutical marketing on prescribing; continuous and robust pharmaceutical marketing requirements; and expanded public access to improve transparency of conflicts of interest in healthcare.
Comments
Presented at: GW Research Days 2016