General practitioners' views on the influence of cost on the prescribing of asthma preventer medicines: A qualitative study

Jacqueline Tudball, Helen K. Reddel, Tracey Lea Laba, Stephen Jan, Anthony Flynn, Michele Goldman, Kirsty Lembke, Elizabeth Roughead, Guy B. Marks, Nick Zwar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Out-of-pocket costs strongly affect patient adherence with medicines. For asthma, guidelines recommend that most patients should be prescribed regular low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone, but in Australia most are prescribed combination ICS-long-acting β2-agonists (LABA), which cost more to patients and government. The present qualitative study among general practitioners (GPs) explored the acceptability, and likely effect on prescribing, of lower patient copayments for ICS alone. Methods: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 15 GPs from the greater Sydney area; the interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed. Results: GPs reported that their main criteria for selecting medicines were appropriateness and effectiveness. They did not usually discuss costs with patients, had low awareness of out-of-pocket costs and considered that these were seldom prohibitive for asthma patients. GPs strongly believed that patient care should not be compromised to reduce cost to government. They favoured ICS-LABA combinations over ICS alone because they perceived that ICS-LABA combinations enhanced adherence and reduced costs for patients. GPs did not consider that lower patient copayments for ICS alone would affect their prescribing. Conclusion: The results suggest that financial incentives, such as lower patient copayments, would be unlikely to encourage GPs to preferentially prescribe ICS alone, unless accompanied by other strategies, including evidence for clinical effectiveness. GPs should be encouraged to discuss cost barriers to treatment with patients when considering treatment choices. What is known about the topic?: Australian guidelines recommend that most patients with asthma should be treated with low-dose ICS alone to minimise symptom burden and risk of flare ups. However, most patients in Australian general practice are instead prescribed combination ICS-LABA preventers, which are indicated if asthma remains uncontrolled despite treatment with ICS alone. It is not known whether GPs are aware that the combination preventers have a higher patient copayment and a higher cost to government. What does this paper add?: This qualitative study found that GPs favoured combination ICS-LABA inhalers over ICS alone because they perceived ICS-LABA combinations to have greater effectiveness and promote patient adherence. This aligned with GPs' views that their primary responsibility was patient care rather than generating cost savings for government. However, it emerged that GPs rarely discussed medicine costs with patients, had low knowledge of medicine costs to patients and the health system and reported that patients rarely volunteered cost concerns. GPs believed that lower patient copayments for asthma preventer medicines would have little effect on their prescribing practices. What are the implications for practitioners?: This study suggests that, when considering asthma treatment choices, GPs should empathically explore with the patient whether cost-related medication underuse is an issue, and should be aware of the option of lower out-of-pocket costs with guideline-recommended ICS alone treatment. Policy makers must be aware that differential patient copayments for ICS preventer medicines are unlikely to act as an incentive for GPs to preferentially prescribe ICS alone preventers, unless the position of these preventers in guidelines and evidence for their clinical effectiveness are also reiterated.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)246-253
Number of pages8
JournalAustralian Health Review
Volume43
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 14 May 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

General Practitioners
Asthma
Adrenal Cortex Hormones
Costs and Cost Analysis
Health Expenditures
Guidelines
Patient Compliance
Motivation
Patient Care
Medicine
Interviews
Therapeutics
Cost Savings
Nebulizers and Vaporizers
Administrative Personnel
General Practice

Cite this

Tudball, Jacqueline ; Reddel, Helen K. ; Laba, Tracey Lea ; Jan, Stephen ; Flynn, Anthony ; Goldman, Michele ; Lembke, Kirsty ; Roughead, Elizabeth ; Marks, Guy B. ; Zwar, Nick. / General practitioners' views on the influence of cost on the prescribing of asthma preventer medicines : A qualitative study. In: Australian Health Review. 2018 ; Vol. 43, No. 3. pp. 246-253.
@article{75138aa53fae4abcbafc773549087d07,
title = "General practitioners' views on the influence of cost on the prescribing of asthma preventer medicines: A qualitative study",
abstract = "Objective: Out-of-pocket costs strongly affect patient adherence with medicines. For asthma, guidelines recommend that most patients should be prescribed regular low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone, but in Australia most are prescribed combination ICS-long-acting β2-agonists (LABA), which cost more to patients and government. The present qualitative study among general practitioners (GPs) explored the acceptability, and likely effect on prescribing, of lower patient copayments for ICS alone. Methods: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 15 GPs from the greater Sydney area; the interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed. Results: GPs reported that their main criteria for selecting medicines were appropriateness and effectiveness. They did not usually discuss costs with patients, had low awareness of out-of-pocket costs and considered that these were seldom prohibitive for asthma patients. GPs strongly believed that patient care should not be compromised to reduce cost to government. They favoured ICS-LABA combinations over ICS alone because they perceived that ICS-LABA combinations enhanced adherence and reduced costs for patients. GPs did not consider that lower patient copayments for ICS alone would affect their prescribing. Conclusion: The results suggest that financial incentives, such as lower patient copayments, would be unlikely to encourage GPs to preferentially prescribe ICS alone, unless accompanied by other strategies, including evidence for clinical effectiveness. GPs should be encouraged to discuss cost barriers to treatment with patients when considering treatment choices. What is known about the topic?: Australian guidelines recommend that most patients with asthma should be treated with low-dose ICS alone to minimise symptom burden and risk of flare ups. However, most patients in Australian general practice are instead prescribed combination ICS-LABA preventers, which are indicated if asthma remains uncontrolled despite treatment with ICS alone. It is not known whether GPs are aware that the combination preventers have a higher patient copayment and a higher cost to government. What does this paper add?: This qualitative study found that GPs favoured combination ICS-LABA inhalers over ICS alone because they perceived ICS-LABA combinations to have greater effectiveness and promote patient adherence. This aligned with GPs' views that their primary responsibility was patient care rather than generating cost savings for government. However, it emerged that GPs rarely discussed medicine costs with patients, had low knowledge of medicine costs to patients and the health system and reported that patients rarely volunteered cost concerns. GPs believed that lower patient copayments for asthma preventer medicines would have little effect on their prescribing practices. What are the implications for practitioners?: This study suggests that, when considering asthma treatment choices, GPs should empathically explore with the patient whether cost-related medication underuse is an issue, and should be aware of the option of lower out-of-pocket costs with guideline-recommended ICS alone treatment. Policy makers must be aware that differential patient copayments for ICS preventer medicines are unlikely to act as an incentive for GPs to preferentially prescribe ICS alone preventers, unless the position of these preventers in guidelines and evidence for their clinical effectiveness are also reiterated.",
author = "Jacqueline Tudball and Reddel, {Helen K.} and Laba, {Tracey Lea} and Stephen Jan and Anthony Flynn and Michele Goldman and Kirsty Lembke and Elizabeth Roughead and Marks, {Guy B.} and Nick Zwar",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "14",
doi = "10.1071/AH17030",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
pages = "246--253",
journal = "Australia and New Zealand Health Policy",
issn = "1743-8462",
publisher = "CSIRO Publishing",
number = "3",

}

Tudball, J, Reddel, HK, Laba, TL, Jan, S, Flynn, A, Goldman, M, Lembke, K, Roughead, E, Marks, GB & Zwar, N 2018, 'General practitioners' views on the influence of cost on the prescribing of asthma preventer medicines: A qualitative study' Australian Health Review, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 246-253. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH17030

General practitioners' views on the influence of cost on the prescribing of asthma preventer medicines : A qualitative study. / Tudball, Jacqueline; Reddel, Helen K.; Laba, Tracey Lea; Jan, Stephen; Flynn, Anthony; Goldman, Michele; Lembke, Kirsty; Roughead, Elizabeth; Marks, Guy B.; Zwar, Nick.

In: Australian Health Review, Vol. 43, No. 3, 14.05.2018, p. 246-253.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - General practitioners' views on the influence of cost on the prescribing of asthma preventer medicines

T2 - A qualitative study

AU - Tudball, Jacqueline

AU - Reddel, Helen K.

AU - Laba, Tracey Lea

AU - Jan, Stephen

AU - Flynn, Anthony

AU - Goldman, Michele

AU - Lembke, Kirsty

AU - Roughead, Elizabeth

AU - Marks, Guy B.

AU - Zwar, Nick

PY - 2018/5/14

Y1 - 2018/5/14

N2 - Objective: Out-of-pocket costs strongly affect patient adherence with medicines. For asthma, guidelines recommend that most patients should be prescribed regular low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone, but in Australia most are prescribed combination ICS-long-acting β2-agonists (LABA), which cost more to patients and government. The present qualitative study among general practitioners (GPs) explored the acceptability, and likely effect on prescribing, of lower patient copayments for ICS alone. Methods: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 15 GPs from the greater Sydney area; the interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed. Results: GPs reported that their main criteria for selecting medicines were appropriateness and effectiveness. They did not usually discuss costs with patients, had low awareness of out-of-pocket costs and considered that these were seldom prohibitive for asthma patients. GPs strongly believed that patient care should not be compromised to reduce cost to government. They favoured ICS-LABA combinations over ICS alone because they perceived that ICS-LABA combinations enhanced adherence and reduced costs for patients. GPs did not consider that lower patient copayments for ICS alone would affect their prescribing. Conclusion: The results suggest that financial incentives, such as lower patient copayments, would be unlikely to encourage GPs to preferentially prescribe ICS alone, unless accompanied by other strategies, including evidence for clinical effectiveness. GPs should be encouraged to discuss cost barriers to treatment with patients when considering treatment choices. What is known about the topic?: Australian guidelines recommend that most patients with asthma should be treated with low-dose ICS alone to minimise symptom burden and risk of flare ups. However, most patients in Australian general practice are instead prescribed combination ICS-LABA preventers, which are indicated if asthma remains uncontrolled despite treatment with ICS alone. It is not known whether GPs are aware that the combination preventers have a higher patient copayment and a higher cost to government. What does this paper add?: This qualitative study found that GPs favoured combination ICS-LABA inhalers over ICS alone because they perceived ICS-LABA combinations to have greater effectiveness and promote patient adherence. This aligned with GPs' views that their primary responsibility was patient care rather than generating cost savings for government. However, it emerged that GPs rarely discussed medicine costs with patients, had low knowledge of medicine costs to patients and the health system and reported that patients rarely volunteered cost concerns. GPs believed that lower patient copayments for asthma preventer medicines would have little effect on their prescribing practices. What are the implications for practitioners?: This study suggests that, when considering asthma treatment choices, GPs should empathically explore with the patient whether cost-related medication underuse is an issue, and should be aware of the option of lower out-of-pocket costs with guideline-recommended ICS alone treatment. Policy makers must be aware that differential patient copayments for ICS preventer medicines are unlikely to act as an incentive for GPs to preferentially prescribe ICS alone preventers, unless the position of these preventers in guidelines and evidence for their clinical effectiveness are also reiterated.

AB - Objective: Out-of-pocket costs strongly affect patient adherence with medicines. For asthma, guidelines recommend that most patients should be prescribed regular low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone, but in Australia most are prescribed combination ICS-long-acting β2-agonists (LABA), which cost more to patients and government. The present qualitative study among general practitioners (GPs) explored the acceptability, and likely effect on prescribing, of lower patient copayments for ICS alone. Methods: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 15 GPs from the greater Sydney area; the interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed. Results: GPs reported that their main criteria for selecting medicines were appropriateness and effectiveness. They did not usually discuss costs with patients, had low awareness of out-of-pocket costs and considered that these were seldom prohibitive for asthma patients. GPs strongly believed that patient care should not be compromised to reduce cost to government. They favoured ICS-LABA combinations over ICS alone because they perceived that ICS-LABA combinations enhanced adherence and reduced costs for patients. GPs did not consider that lower patient copayments for ICS alone would affect their prescribing. Conclusion: The results suggest that financial incentives, such as lower patient copayments, would be unlikely to encourage GPs to preferentially prescribe ICS alone, unless accompanied by other strategies, including evidence for clinical effectiveness. GPs should be encouraged to discuss cost barriers to treatment with patients when considering treatment choices. What is known about the topic?: Australian guidelines recommend that most patients with asthma should be treated with low-dose ICS alone to minimise symptom burden and risk of flare ups. However, most patients in Australian general practice are instead prescribed combination ICS-LABA preventers, which are indicated if asthma remains uncontrolled despite treatment with ICS alone. It is not known whether GPs are aware that the combination preventers have a higher patient copayment and a higher cost to government. What does this paper add?: This qualitative study found that GPs favoured combination ICS-LABA inhalers over ICS alone because they perceived ICS-LABA combinations to have greater effectiveness and promote patient adherence. This aligned with GPs' views that their primary responsibility was patient care rather than generating cost savings for government. However, it emerged that GPs rarely discussed medicine costs with patients, had low knowledge of medicine costs to patients and the health system and reported that patients rarely volunteered cost concerns. GPs believed that lower patient copayments for asthma preventer medicines would have little effect on their prescribing practices. What are the implications for practitioners?: This study suggests that, when considering asthma treatment choices, GPs should empathically explore with the patient whether cost-related medication underuse is an issue, and should be aware of the option of lower out-of-pocket costs with guideline-recommended ICS alone treatment. Policy makers must be aware that differential patient copayments for ICS preventer medicines are unlikely to act as an incentive for GPs to preferentially prescribe ICS alone preventers, unless the position of these preventers in guidelines and evidence for their clinical effectiveness are also reiterated.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049232057&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1071/AH17030

DO - 10.1071/AH17030

M3 - Article

VL - 43

SP - 246

EP - 253

JO - Australia and New Zealand Health Policy

JF - Australia and New Zealand Health Policy

SN - 1743-8462

IS - 3

ER -