Comments on: Prescription medication pay for performance, and the rationale behind it http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/04/prescription-medication-pay-for.html Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:56:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Aubrey Blumsohnhttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/04/prescription-medication-pay-for.html#comment-91295 Aubrey Blumsohn Sun, 10 May 2009 22:36:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2009/04/prescription-medication-pay-for-performance-and-the-rationale-behind-it.html#comment-91295 The above makes it clear what a good gamble this is for P&G. In fact the paradox is that the whole reason this gimmick works is not because Actonel is good, but because it is so non-cost effective. <br /><br />We could reasonably assume that 100 people would be treated for 3 years to prevent one hip fracture and to activate this claim for hip fracture prevention (P&G requires a decent use of the drug to activate a claim). <br /><br />At $105.11 from per month x 36 months x 200 people = a drug spend of £756,000 (for a payback of 30K). Given that part of the aim is to prevent users from changing to a generic, and also to provide some free misleading advertising <br /><br />it's a great deal.....<br /><br />But the advertisement backfires badly given that it is such an admission of poor cost effectiveness. <br /><br />Aubrey Blumsohn<br />http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com The above makes it clear what a good gamble this is for P&G. In fact the paradox is that the whole reason this gimmick works is not because Actonel is good, but because it is so non-cost effective.

We could reasonably assume that 100 people would be treated for 3 years to prevent one hip fracture and to activate this claim for hip fracture prevention (P&G requires a decent use of the drug to activate a claim).

At $105.11 from per month x 36 months x 200 people = a drug spend of £756,000 (for a payback of 30K). Given that part of the aim is to prevent users from changing to a generic, and also to provide some free misleading advertising

it's a great deal…..

But the advertisement backfires badly given that it is such an admission of poor cost effectiveness.

Aubrey Blumsohn
http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/04/prescription-medication-pay-for.html#comment-91067 Anonymous Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:41:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2009/04/prescription-medication-pay-for-performance-and-the-rationale-behind-it.html#comment-91067 I'm not sure this is an idea that physicians should support. It gives a wrong idea about what medicines (and by extension the health care) do. Actonel (and other bisphosponates) have not been shown to prevent fractures completely, only reduce the risks of getting a fracture. Hence a fracture on Actonel is not a "failure". It seems that pharmaceutical companies should reduce the cost of drugs instead Imagine how much actonel you can buy with $30,000: at $105.11 from drugstore.com for a month for 35mg #4, you can buy 285 monthly courses, or enough for one year for 23 people; alendronate 70mg #4 costs $32.99 a month means you can cover 75 people for a year. I’m not sure this is an idea that physicians should support. It gives a wrong idea about what medicines (and by extension the health care) do. Actonel (and other bisphosponates) have not been shown to prevent fractures completely, only reduce the risks of getting a fracture. Hence a fracture on Actonel is not a “failure”. It seems that pharmaceutical companies should reduce the cost of drugs instead Imagine how much actonel you can buy with $30,000: at $105.11 from drugstore.com for a month for 35mg #4, you can buy 285 monthly courses, or enough for one year for 23 people; alendronate 70mg #4 costs $32.99 a month means you can cover 75 people for a year.

]]>