Cited by 184Medication Adherence and ComplianceHealthcare Policy and ManagementPharmaceutical Economics and Policy

Impact of a prescription copayment increase on lipid-lowering medication adherence in veterans

Open access
Doshi, Jalpa A., Zhu, Jingsan, Lee, Bruce Y., Kimmel, Stephen E., Volpp, Kevin G.·2009·Circulation

Abstract

Background— In February 2002, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) increased copayments from $2 to $7 per 30-day drug supply of each medication for many veterans. We examined the impact of the copayment increase on lipid-lowering medication adherence. Methods and Results— This quasiexperimental study used electronic records of 5604 veterans receiving care at the Philadelphia VA Medical Center from November 1999 to April 2004. The all copayment group included veterans subject to copayments for all drugs with no annual cap. Veterans subject to copayments for drugs only if indicated for a non–service-connected condition with an annual cap of $840 for out-of-pocket costs made up the some copayment group. Veterans who remained copayment exempt formed a natural control group (no copayment group). Patients were identified as adherent if the proportion of days covered with lipid-lowering medications was ≥80%. Patients were identified as having a continuous gap if they had at least 1 continuous episode with no lipid-lowering medications for ≥90 days. A difference-in-difference approach compared changes in lipid-lowering medication adherence during the 24 months before and after copayment increase among veterans subject to the copayment change with those who were not. Adherence declined in all 3 groups after the copayment increase. However, the percentage of patients who were adherent (proportion of days covered ≥80%) declined significantly more in the all copayment (−19.2%) and some copayment (−19.3%) groups relative to the exempt group (−11.9%). The incidence of a continuous gap increased significantly at twice the rate in both copayment groups (all copayment group, 24.6%; some copayment group, 24.1%) as the exempt group (11.7%). Compared with the exempt group, the odds of having a continuous gap in the after relative to the before period were significantly higher in both the all copayment group (odds ratio, 3.04; 95% confidence interval, 2.29 to 4.03) and the some copayment group (odds ratio, 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.43 to 2.40). Similar results were seen in subgroups of patients at high risk for coronary heart disease, high medication users, and elderly veterans. Conclusion— The copayment increase adversely affected lipid-lowering medication adherence among veterans, including those at high coronary heart disease risk.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circulationaha.108.783944

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Doshi, J. A., Zhu, J., Lee, B. Y., Kimmel, S. E., & Volpp, K. G.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Venue
Circulation
Published
2009-01-27
Volume
119
Issue
3
Pages
390-397
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W1996754272
Cited by
184
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 20
FWCI
16.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Circulation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (KL2TR000146)
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG024451)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Keywords
medication adherence, lipid-lowering drugs, veterans, health care cost sharing, out-of-pocket costs, medication gaps, coronary artery disease, statins, cholesterol-lowering therapy, older veterans
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Hypolipidemic Agents, Female, Health Benefit Plans, Employee, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prescription Fees, United States, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans, Medication Adherence

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