The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Effect of Incentive-Based Formularies on Prescription-Drug Utilization and Spending
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Many employers and health plans have adopted incentive-based formularies in an attempt to control prescription-drug costs. METHODS: We used claims data to compare the utilization of and spending on drugs in two employer-sponsored health plans that implemented changes in formulary administration with those in comparison groups of enrollees covered by the same insurers. One plan simultaneously switched from a one-tier to a three-tier formulary and increased all enrollee copayments for medications. The second switched from a two-tier to a three-tier formulary, changing only the copayments for tier-3 drugs. We examined the utilization of angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, proton-pump inhibitors, and 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins). RESULTS: Enrollees covered by the employer that implemented more dramatic changes experienced slower growth than the comparison group in the probability of the use of a drug and a major shift in spending from the plan to the enrollee. Among the enrollees who were initially taking tier-3 statins, more enrollees in the intervention group than in the comparison group switched to tier-1 or tier-2 medications (49 percent vs. 17 percent, P<0.001) or stopped taking statins entirely (21 percent vs. 11 percent, P=0.04). Patterns were similar for ACE inhibitors and proton-pump inhibitors. The enrollees covered by the employer that implemented more moderate changes were more likely than the comparison enrollees to switch to tier-1 or tier-2 medications but not to stop taking a given class of medications altogether. CONCLUSIONS: Different changes in formulary administration may have dramatically different effects on utilization and spending and may in some instances lead enrollees to discontinue therapy. The associated changes in copayments can substantially alter out-of-pocket spending by enrollees, the continuation of the use of medications, and possibly the quality of care.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Goldman, D. P., Joyce, G. F., & Zheng, Y. (2007) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.298.1.61 · Cited by 874
Cohen, J. D., Brinton, E. A., Ito, M. K., & Jacobson, T. A. (2012) · Journal of Clinical Lipidology · doi:10.1016/j.jacl.2012.03.003 · Cited by 486
Dhalla, I. A., Mamdani, M. M., Sivilotti, M. L. A., Kopp, A., Qureshi, O., & Juurlink, D. N. (2009) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.090784 · Cited by 438
The Role of Patient-Physician Trust in Moderating Medication Nonadherence Due to Cost Pressures
Piette, J. D., Heisler, M., Krein, S., & Kerr, E. A. (2005) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.165.15.1749 · Cited by 388
Impact of a prescription copayment increase on lipid-lowering medication adherence in veterans
Doshi, J. A., Zhu, J., Lee, B. Y., Kimmel, S. E., & Volpp, K. G. (2009) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.108.783944 · Cited by 184
Metadata
- Authors
- Huskamp, H. A., Deverka, P. A., Epstein, A. M., Epstein, R. S., McGuigan, K. A., & Frank, R. G.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2003-12-04
- Volume
- 349
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 2224-2232
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2041837876
- Cited by
- 334
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 69.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Effect of Incentive-Based Formularies on Prescription-Drug Utilization and Spending. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmsa030954
- The paper
- Huskamp, H. A., Deverka, P. A., Epstein, A. M., Epstein, R. S., McGuigan, K. A., & Frank, R. G. (2003). The Effect of Incentive-Based Formularies on Prescription-Drug Utilization and Spending. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsa030954
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.