IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0198004.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of potentially inappropriate medication on the development of health care costs and its moderation by the number of prescribed substances. Results of a retrospective matched cohort study

Author

Listed:
  • Dirk Heider
  • Herbert Matschinger
  • Andreas D Meid
  • Renate Quinzler
  • Jürgen-Bernhard Adler
  • Christian Günster
  • Walter E Haefeli
  • Hans-Helmut König

Abstract

Background: In the growing population of the elderly, drug-related problems are considered an important health care safety issue. One aspect of this is the prescription of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) which is considered to increase health care costs. Objective: Using data from the Health Economics of Potentially Inappropriate Medication (HEPIME) study, we aimed to analyze how the number of prescribed substances moderates the association of PIM use as defined by the German PRISCUS list and health care costs applying a longitudinal perspective. Methods: An initial number of 6,849,622 insurants aged 65+ of a large German health insurance company were included in a retrospective matched cohort study. Based on longitudinal claims data from the four separate quarters of a 12-month pre-period, 3,860,842 individuals with no exposure to PIM in 2011 were matched to 508,212 exposed individuals. Exposure effects of PIM use on health care costs and the number of prescribed substances were measured based on longitudinal claims data from the four separate quarters of the 12-month post-period. Results: After successful balancing for the development of numerous matching variables during the four quarters of the pre-period, exposed individuals consumed 2.1 additional prescribed substances and had higher total health care costs of 1,237 € when compared to non-exposed individuals in the 1st quarter of the post-period. Controlling for the number of prescribed substances, the difference in total health care costs between both study groups was 401 €. The average effect of one additionally prescribed substance (other than PIM) on total health care costs was increased by an amount of 137 € for those being exposed to a PIM. In quarters 2–4 of the post-period, the differences between both study groups tended to decrease sequentially. Conclusions: PIM use has an increasing effect on the development of health care costs. This cost-increasing effect of PIM use is moderated by the number of prescribed substances.

Suggested Citation

  • Dirk Heider & Herbert Matschinger & Andreas D Meid & Renate Quinzler & Jürgen-Bernhard Adler & Christian Günster & Walter E Haefeli & Hans-Helmut König, 2018. "The impact of potentially inappropriate medication on the development of health care costs and its moderation by the number of prescribed substances. Results of a retrospective matched cohort study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-12, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0198004
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0198004
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0198004&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0198004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hainmueller, Jens, 2012. "Entropy Balancing for Causal Effects: A Multivariate Reweighting Method to Produce Balanced Samples in Observational Studies," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 25-46, January.
    2. A. D. Roy, 1951. "Some Thoughts On The Distribution Of Earnings," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 135-146.
    3. Cathal A. Cadogan & Cristín Ryan & Carmel M. Hughes, 2016. "Appropriate Polypharmacy and Medicine Safety: When Many is not Too Many," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 109-116, February.
    4. Hainmueller, Jens & Xu, Yiqing, 2013. "ebalance: A Stata Package for Entropy Balancing," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 54(i07).
    5. Andrew C. Eggers & Anthony Fowler & Jens Hainmueller & Andrew B. Hall & James M. Snyder, 2015. "On the Validity of the Regression Discontinuity Design for Estimating Electoral Effects: New Evidence from Over 40,000 Close Races," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(1), pages 259-274, January.
    6. Heinz G Endres & Petra Kaufmann-Kolle & Valerie Steeb & Erik Bauer & Caroline Böttner & Petra Thürmann, 2016. "Association between Potentially Inappropriate Medication (PIM) Use and Risk of Hospitalization in Older Adults: An Observational Study Based on Routine Data Comparing PIM Use with Use of PIM Alternati," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chauvin, Pauline & Fustinoni, Sarah & Seematter-Bagnoud, Laurence & Herr, Marie & Santos Eggimann, Brigitte, 2021. "Potentially inappropriate prescriptions: Associations with the health insurance contract and the quality of the patient–physician relationship?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(9), pages 1146-1157.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhang, Li & Xie, Lunyu & Zheng, Xinye, 2023. "Across a few prohibitive miles: The impact of the Anti-Poverty Relocation Program in China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    2. Michael Weber, 2016. "The short-run and long-run effects of decentralizing public employment services," ifo Working Paper Series 209, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    3. Wolfgang Nagl & Michael Weber, 2016. "Stuck in a trap? Long-term unemployment under two-tier unemployment compensation schemes," ifo Working Paper Series 231, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    4. Daniel Fackler & Lisa Hölscher & Claus Schnabel & Antje Weyh, 2022. "Does working at a start-up pay off?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 2211-2233, April.
    5. Renata Baborska & Emilio Hernandez & Emiliano Magrini & Cristian Morales-Opazo, 2020. "The impact of financial inclusion on rural food security experience: A perspective from low-and middle-income countries," Review of Development Finance Journal, Chartered Institute of Development Finance, vol. 10(2), pages 1-18.
    6. Hetschko, Clemens & Schöb, Ronnie & Wolf, Tobias, 2020. "Income support, employment transitions and well-being," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    7. Agarwal, Vikas & Barber, Brad M. & Cheng, Si & Hameed, Allaudeen & Shanker, Harshini & Yasuda, Ayako, 2023. "Do investors overvalue startups? Evidence from the junior stakes of mutual funds," CFR Working Papers 23-04, University of Cologne, Centre for Financial Research (CFR).
    8. Schwettmann, Lars, 2015. "Decision solution, data manipulation and trust: The (un-)willingness to donate organs in Germany in critical times," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(7), pages 980-989.
    9. Müller, Tobias & Schmid, Christian & Gerfin, Michael, 2023. "Rents for Pills: Financial incentives and physician behavior," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    10. Shams, Syed & Bose, Sudipta & Gunasekarage, Abeyratna, 2022. "Does corporate tax avoidance promote managerial empire building?," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    11. Aboal, Diego & Tacsir, Ezequiel, 2016. "The impact of ex-ante subsidies to researchers on researcher's productivity: Evidence from a developing country," MERIT Working Papers 2016-019, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    12. Desai, Raj M. & Olofsgård, Anders, 2019. "Can the poor organize? Public goods and self-help groups in rural India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 33-52.
    13. Themann, Michael & Koch, Nicolas, 2021. "Catching up and falling behind: Cross-country evidence on the impact of the EU ETS on firm productivity," Ruhr Economic Papers 904, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    14. Everding, Jakob & Marcus, Jan, 2020. "The effect of unemployment on the smoking behavior of couples," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 29(2), pages 154-170.
    15. Clarkson, Peter & Gao, Ru & Herbohn, Kathleen, 2020. "The relationship between a firm’s information environment and its cash holding decision," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    16. Ehrenfried, Felix & Holzner, Christian, 2019. "Dynamics and endogeneity of firms’ recruitment behaviour," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 63-84.
    17. Vincenzo Carrieri & Apostolos Davillas & Andrew M. Jones, 2023. "Equality of opportunity and the expansion of higher education in the UK," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 69(4), pages 861-885, December.
    18. Best, Rohan & Sinha, Kompal, 2021. "Fuel poverty policy: Go big or go home insulation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    19. Abigail Allen & Melissa F. Lewis‐Western & Kristen Valentine, 2022. "The Innovation and Reporting Consequences of Financial Regulation for Young Life‐Cycle Firms," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 45-95, March.
    20. Kazuma Sato, 2020. "Does marriage improve subjective health in Japan?," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 247-286, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0198004. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.