Pink Sheet is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This site is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction

TRIPLICATE Rx REG SAVED NEW YORK MEDICAID $25 MIL

Executive Summary

TRIPLICATE Rx REG SAVED NEW YORK MEDICAID $25 MIL in benzodiazepine expenditures in 1990 and $ 37 mil. during the period 1989-1990, according to a May 15 memorandum by the state's Social Services Department. The memo, written by the department's Assistant Pharmacy Consultant Karen Rocco, reports that "there was over $ 37 mil. cost avoidance to the addition of benzodiazepines to drugs that must be prescribed on triplicate prescriptions." Addressed to the department's Assistant Commissioner-Medical Assistance Division Judy Meagher, the memo reports on New York Medicaid's analysis of the effect of the regulation during the first two years it has been operational. The regulation added benzodiazepines to the list of controlled substances requiring triplicate prescription forms in New York State. New York Medicaid data show that the number of benzodiazepine claims paid by the state was 1.6 mil. in 1988 and dropped to 633,194 in 1989 and to 480,397 in 1990. Expenditures paid by the state for benzodiazepines plummeted from $ 22.7 mil. in 1988 to $ 11.6 mil in 1989 and rose only slightly to $ 13.1 mil. in 1990. New York attributed the lower benzodiazepine expenditures in 1989-1990 to the triplicate prescription regulation. If the number of claims had remained constant at 1988 levels, the state projected that 1989 expenditures would have risen from $ 22.7 mil. in 1988 to $ 27.7 mil. in 1989 and to $ 40.4 mil. in 1990. The memo notes that the projection "was calculated by multiplying the average cost per prescription for a particular agent during that year by the number of 1988 prescriptions for that agent." By subtracting the actual state Medicaid expenditures in 1989 and 1990 from the projected costs, the state calculated savings from the triplicate program of $ 16 mil. in 1989 and $ 27.3 mil. in 1990. A moderating effect on savings was caused by an increase in claims for other anxiolytics and hypnotics with the drop in benzodiazepine prescriptions. Claims for drugs in the "other" category -- which include buspirone, hydroxyzine, meprobamate, phenobarbital, chloral hydrate, talbutal and mephobarbital - totaled 393,250 in 1988, 581,892 in 1989 and 501,360 in 1990. Expenditures for non-benzodiazepine anxiolytics and hypnotics increased from $ 4.5 mil. in 1988 to $ 8.5 mil. in 1989 and dipped slightly to $ 8.2 mil. in 1990. Without the triplicate program, the memo estimates, costs would have been lower: $ 4.7 mil. in 1989 and $ 6 mil. in 1990. Consequently, the triplicate regulation caused an increase in New York Medicaid expenditures for non-benzodiazepine anxiolytics of $ 3.8 mil. in 1989 and of $ 2.2 mil. in 1990. By subtracting the projected increase in expenditures for other drugs from the projected savings on expenditures for benzodiazepines, the state realized a "net cost avoidance" of $ 12.2 mil. in 1989 and $ 25.1 mil. in 1990. Programs to monitor prescriptions of controlled drugs were reviewed at a May 30-June 1 conference convened by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Even before that conference got under way, however, Rep. Stark (D-Calif.), who is developing an electronic prescription tracing proposal, questioned its objectivity. In a May 23 letter to NIDA Director Charles Schuster, Stark asserted: "I suspect the pressure from the pharmaceutical drug industry on NIDA will be too much, and NIDA will eventually publish an official document opposed to both multiple-copy prescription programs and electronic data transfer monitoring programs." Contending that "almost all the NIDA seminar participants opposed to [multiple-copy prescription programs] . . . have a long history of taking substantial amounts of money from a few pharmaceutical drug companies," Stark urged that speakers disclose relationships with industry or with law enforcement groups. Adding that California, Illinois and New York have had multiple-copy programs in place for two decades or more, he also asked why it has taken "NIDA until 1991 . . . to only 'study' the issue?"

You may also be interested in...



Part D Discount Liability Coming Into Focus: CMS Releases Drug Cost Data

Newly released Medicare Part D data sheds light on the sales hit that branded pharmaceutical manufacturers will face when the coverage gap discount program gets under way in 2011

FDA Skin Infections Guidance Spurs Debate On Endpoint Relevance

FDA appears headed for a showdown with clinicians and the pharmaceutical industry over the proposed new clinical trial endpoints for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, the guidance's approach for justifying a non-inferiority margin and proposed changes in the types of patients that should be enrolled in trials

Shire Hopes To Sow Future Deals With $50M Venture Fund

Specialty drug maker Shire has quietly begun scouting deals with a brand-new $50 million venture fund, the latest of several in-house investment arms to launch with their parent company's pipelines, not profits, as the measure of their worth

Latest Headlines
See All
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

PS019275

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel