P046 FIRST-LINE TREATMENT OF HYPERTENSION WITH SINGLE PILL COMBINATIONS: A SIMPLE STRATEGY TO SAVE COSTS FOR THE PATIENT AND GOVERNMENT

Background: Single pill combinations (SPCs) of blood pressure (BP) lowering medicines contribute to improved BP control by reducing treatment inertia and improving medication adherence. But high out-of-pocket payments reduce adherence. We compared the costs for SPCs and free-drug combinations for the patient and government in Australia. Methods: We reviewed the “Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme item drug map” to identify all BP lowering SPCs, their free-drug combinations, and their costs in March 2024. We reviewed costs before and after reaching the “Safety Net” – a threshold where people access medicines at lower rates, differing for general patients and Concession Card holders (typically pensioners or low paid workers). We also calculated the total cost per mmHg systolic BP (SBP) reduction based on a mean reduction of 9, 16 and 23 mmHg for treatment with one, two or three drugs at standard dose. The main outcome measures were the total costs for patients and the government in Australian Dollars. Results: For patients, SPCs always cost less than free drugs with the greatest savings for general patients before reaching the safety net, averaging 30%. For the government SPCs cost less than free drugs for Concession Card holders both before (11%) and after reaching the safety net (26%) and in general patients after the safety net (11%). There was a slight increase in costs (16%) for the government for patients before reaching the safety net. The mean cost per mmHg SBP reduction was 27% lower in SPCs compared to free drugs. Dual SPCs cost little more than monotherapy but provide a much lower cost per mmHg SBP reduction. Conclusion: In Australia, SPCs, instead of free-drug combinations, result in cost savings, for both patient and government. These are the direct costs, and do not factor in the expected benefits from improved adherence and BP control. The large cost savings of SPCs should be considered when prescribing multiple separate pills or starting treatment.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Hypertension
Published
2024-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hjh.0001063056.83563.ef
Primary Topic
Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

P046 FIRST-LINE TREATMENT OF HYPERTENSION WITH SINGLE PILL COMBINATIONS: A SIMPLE STRATEGY TO SAVE COSTS FOR THE PATIENT AND GOVERNMENT

Emily Atkins, Anthony Rodgers, Miriam Pikkemaat, Aletta Elisabeth Schutte
Journal of Hypertension
Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
article

P046 FIRST-LINE TREATMENT OF HYPERTENSION WITH SINGLE PILL COMBINATIONS: A SIMPLE STRATEGY TO SAVE COSTS FOR THE PATIENT AND GOVERNMENT

Emily Atkins, Anthony Rodgers, Miriam Pikkemaat, Aletta Elisabeth Schutte
article en

Abstract

Background: Single pill combinations (SPCs) of blood pressure (BP) lowering medicines contribute to improved BP control by reducing treatment inertia and improving medication adherence. But high out-of-pocket payments reduce adherence. We compared the costs for SPCs and free-drug combinations for the patient and government in Australia. Methods: We reviewed the “Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme item drug map” to identify all BP lowering SPCs, their free-drug combinations, and their costs in March 2024. We reviewed costs before and after reaching the “Safety Net” – a threshold where people access medicines at lower rates, differing for general patients and Concession Card holders (typically pensioners or low paid workers). We also calculated the total cost per mmHg systolic BP (SBP) reduction based on a mean reduction of 9, 16 and 23 mmHg for treatment with one, two or three drugs at standard dose. The main outcome measures were the total costs for patients and the government in Australian Dollars. Results: For patients, SPCs always cost less than free drugs with the greatest savings for general patients before reaching the safety net, averaging 30%. For the government SPCs cost less than free drugs for Concession Card holders both before (11%) and after reaching the safety net (26%) and in general patients after the safety net (11%). There was a slight increase in costs (16%) for the government for patients before reaching the safety net. The mean cost per mmHg SBP reduction was 27% lower in SPCs compared to free drugs. Dual SPCs cost little more than monotherapy but provide a much lower cost per mmHg SBP reduction. Conclusion: In Australia, SPCs, instead of free-drug combinations, result in cost savings, for both patient and government. These are the direct costs, and do not factor in the expected benefits from improved adherence and BP control. The large cost savings of SPCs should be considered when prescribing multiple separate pills or starting treatment.

Journal of HypertensionVol. 42(Suppl 3)
Malmö University (SE), Lund University (SE), UNSW Sydney (AU), The George Institute for Global Health (AU), Skåne University Hospital (SE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 80%
Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.