IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v1y2017i2d10.1007_s41669-016-0007-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Utilization, Spending, and Price Trends for Quinolones in the US Medicaid Programs: 25 Years’ Experience 1991–2015

Author

Listed:
  • Ziyad S. Almalki

    (University of Cincinnati Academic Health Center)

  • Xiaomeng Yue

    (University of Cincinnati Academic Health Center)

  • Ying Xia

    (University of Cincinnati Academic Health Center)

  • Patricia R. Wigle

    (University of Cincinnati Academic Health Center)

  • Jeff Jianfei Guo

    (University of Cincinnati Academic Health Center)

Abstract

Background Given that the quinolones is one of the antibacterial classes most frequently used to treat patients with bacterial infections in the United States, any change in prescribing patterns of quinolones will impact Medicaid medical expenditures. Objectives This study was undertaken to examine trends in utilization, reimbursement, and prices of quinolone antibacterials for the US Medicaid population. Methods The publicly available Medicaid State Drug Utilization outpatient pharmacy files were used for this study. Quarterly and annual prescription counts and reimbursement amounts were calculated for each of the quinolones reimbursed by Medicaid from quarter 1, 1991 through quarter 2, 2015. Average per-prescription reimbursement, as a proxy for drug price, was calculated as the drug reimbursement divided by the number of prescriptions. Results The total annual number of quinolone prescriptions increased 402%, from 247,395 in the first quarter of 1991 to 1.2 million in the second quarter of 2015, peaking at 1.3 million in the first quarter of 2005. Similarly, the total reimbursement for quinolone agents increased by 245.5% over the same period. More than 80% of quinolone prescriptions reimbursed by Medicaid were for the second-generation agent, ciprofloxacin, and the third-generation agent, levofloxacin. The average payment per prescription for quinolones increased from US$43.8 in the first quarter of 1991 to US$87.6 in the second quarter of 2015. Conclusions A substantial rise in Medicaid expenditures on quinolones was observed during the 25-year study period, which was mainly because of rising utilization. Therefore, there is a need for additional research that has access to clinically relevant data with which to measure the rate of inappropriate quinolone use among the Medicaid population and associated clinical outcomes and healthcare costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Ziyad S. Almalki & Xiaomeng Yue & Ying Xia & Patricia R. Wigle & Jeff Jianfei Guo, 2017. "Utilization, Spending, and Price Trends for Quinolones in the US Medicaid Programs: 25 Years’ Experience 1991–2015," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 123-131, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:1:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-016-0007-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-016-0007-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-016-0007-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-016-0007-y?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. Mark Duggan & Fiona M. Scott Morton, 2006. "The Distortionary Effects of Government Procurement: Evidence from Medicaid Prescription Drug Purchasing," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(1), pages 1-30.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Juan Pablo Atal & José Ignacio Cuesta & Felipe González & Cristóbal Otero, 2024. "The Economics of the Public Option: Evidence from Local Pharmaceutical Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 114(3), pages 615-644, March.
    2. Roger Bate & Ginger Zhe Jin & Aparna Mathur, 2012. "In Whom We Trust: The Role of Certification Agencies in Online Drug Markets," NBER Working Papers 17955, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Nancy L. Rose, 2014. "Learning from the Past: Insights for the Regulation of Economic Activity," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Regulation and Its Reform: What Have We Learned?, pages 1-23, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Ridley, David B. & Zhang, Su, 2017. "Regulation of price increases," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 186-213.
    5. Alpert, Abby & Duggan, Mark & Hellerstein, Judith K., 2013. "Perverse reverse price competition: Average wholesale prices and Medicaid pharmaceutical spending," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 44-62.
    6. Darius Lakdawalla & Wesley Yin, 2015. "Insurers’ Negotiating Leverage and the External Effects of Medicare Part D," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(2), pages 314-331, May.
    7. Robert G. Valletta, 2007. "The costs and value of new medical technologies: symposium summary," FRBSF Economic Letter, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, issue jul6.
    8. Oriana Bandiera & Michael Carlos Best & Adnan Qadir Khan & Andrea Prat, 2021. "The Allocation of Authority in Organizations: A Field Experiment with Bureaucrats," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(4), pages 2195-2242.
    9. Kaufmann, Cornel & Schmid, Christian & Boes, Stefan, 2017. "Health insurance subsidies and deductible choice: Evidence from regional variation in subsidy schemes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 262-273.
    10. Jonathan Gruber, 2017. "Delivering Public Health Insurance through Private Plan Choice in the United States," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(4), pages 3-22, Fall.
    11. Leemore Dafny & David Dranove, 2009. "Regulatory Exploitation and Management Changes: Upcoding in the Hospital Industry," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(2), pages 223-250, May.
    12. Aidan R. Vining, 2016. "What Is Public Agency Strategic Analysis (PASA) and How Does It Differ from Public Policy Analysis and Firm Strategy Analysis?," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-31, December.
    13. Lakdawalla, Darius & Sood, Neeraj, 2009. "Innovation and the welfare effects of public drug insurance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(3-4), pages 541-548, April.
    14. Collins, J. Michael & Simon, Kosali I. & Tennyson, Sharon, 2013. "Drug withdrawals and the utilization of therapeutic substitutes: The case of Vioxx," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 148-168.
    15. Duggan, Mark, 2005. "Do new prescription drugs pay for themselves?: The case of second-generation antipsychotics," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 1-31, January.
    16. Mark G. Duggan & Fiona Scott Morton, 2011. "The Medium-Term Impact of Medicare Part D on Pharmaceutical Prices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(3), pages 387-392, May.
    17. Baker, Laurence C. & Bundorf, M. Kate & Kessler, Daniel P., 2015. "Does health plan generosity enhance hospital market power?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 54-62.
    18. Steve Cicala & Ethan M. J. Lieber & Victoria Marone, 2019. "Regulating Markups in US Health Insurance," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 71-104, October.
    19. Juan-José Ganuza & Gerard Llobet & Beatriz Domínguez, 2009. "R& D in the Pharmaceutical Industry: A World of Small Innovations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(4), pages 539-551, April.
    20. Mark Duggan & Fiona Scott Morton, 2010. "The Effect of Medicare Part D on Pharmaceutical Prices and Utilization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 590-607, March.

    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:spr:pharmo:v:1:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-016-0007-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.