Skip to main content
Top
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 1/2004

01-01-2004 | Original Research Article

Why did drug spending increase during the 1990s?

A decomposition based on Swedish data

Authors: Dr Ulf-G. Gerdtham, Douglas Lundin

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 1/2004

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective: To decompose drug spending in Sweden between the years 1990 and 2000. This paper updates a previous study, which looked at the period 1990–1995, by providing an additional 5 years of data (1995–2000) and extending the previous analysis in a number of ways.
Methods: The paper builds on the earlier work that showed that changes in drug spending could be decomposed into three components: price, quantity and a residual. The size of the residual is a measure of the impact of changes in drug treatment patterns on drug spending. The data set used in this paper was collected from Apoteket AB (The National Corporation of Swedish Pharmacies) and was based on comprehensive information (inpatients as well as outpatients) on drug deliveries from wholesalers to pharmacies. Data were obtained for aggregate drug spending (from 1990–2000) and for spending according to anatomical therapeutic chemical (ATC) classification system group.
Results: Real drug spending increased by 119% during the study period. The residual rose by 67% indicating the switch from cheaper to more innovative and expensive drug therapies was a major cost driver. Real drug spending would have increased by about 31% if there had been no changes in treatment patterns. The second driver of drug spending was the quantity of drugs consumed, which increased by 41%. The main reason for the larger quantity sold appears to be increases in the intensity of medication in terms of defined daily doses per patient, rather than a larger number of patients starting drug treatment. Real prices decreased during the 10-year study period.
We found large differences between ATC groups in terms of spending growth. The ATC groups that have contributed the most to the increase in spending are: drugs that affect the CNS (N), the alimentary tract and metabolism (A) and the cardiovascular system (C), which are also the three largest groups in terms of sales. For all three groups, it was the residual that mainly drove costs.
Conclusion: This study indicates very clearly that the main driving force behind the increase in drug costs in Sweden between 1990 and 2000 was the change in drug therapy from old to new and more innovative and expensive drug therapies. This shows the importance of carrying out economic evaluations of new more costly drugs in order to make an assessment of the social benefits of a switch from a cheaper to a more expensive drug.
Footnotes
1
See Dubois et al.[3] for a similar decomposition and also Crown et al.[4] for an examination of methodological approaches that have been used to analyse trends in medical and pharmaceutical expenditures.
 
2
For drugs used at hospitals, which make up approximately 10% of total expenditure, prices are slightly lower than official prices, due to discounts given to the county councils. Because we do not have information on these discounts, we get a slight upward bias in our price index calculations.
 
3
The total increases in real drug spending for total prescription drugs is 132%, and for the different ATC groups A, B, C, N, R and the rest are 150%, 235%, 96%, 294%, 50% and 109%, respectively.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Gerdtham UG, Johannesson M, Jonsson B. Drug spending and new drug introductions: the Swedish experience. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 13 (2): 215–25CrossRef Gerdtham UG, Johannesson M, Jonsson B. Drug spending and new drug introductions: the Swedish experience. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 13 (2): 215–25CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Gerdtham UG, Johannesson M, Gunnarsson B, et al. The effect on drug spending of changes in treatment patterns. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (1 Pt 2): 127–34CrossRef Gerdtham UG, Johannesson M, Gunnarsson B, et al. The effect on drug spending of changes in treatment patterns. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (1 Pt 2): 127–34CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Dubois RW, Chawla AJ, Neslusan CA, et al. Explaining drug spending trends: does perception match reality. Health Aff 2000; 19: 231–9CrossRef Dubois RW, Chawla AJ, Neslusan CA, et al. Explaining drug spending trends: does perception match reality. Health Aff 2000; 19: 231–9CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Crown W, Ling D, Berndt E. Measuring the costs and benefits of pharmaceutical expenditures. Exp Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2002; 2: 89–97CrossRef Crown W, Ling D, Berndt E. Measuring the costs and benefits of pharmaceutical expenditures. Exp Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2002; 2: 89–97CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Hjortsberg C, Ghatnekar O. Health care in transition. Copenhagen: European Observervatory on Health Care Systems, 2001 Hjortsberg C, Ghatnekar O. Health care in transition. Copenhagen: European Observervatory on Health Care Systems, 2001
6.
go back to reference Gerdtham UG, Johannesson M, Gunnarsson B, et al. Price indices of drugs and the switching to new drugs. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 13: 71–80CrossRef Gerdtham UG, Johannesson M, Gunnarsson B, et al. Price indices of drugs and the switching to new drugs. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 13: 71–80CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Svensk läkemedelsstatistik. Stockholm: Apoteket AB, 2000 Svensk läkemedelsstatistik. Stockholm: Apoteket AB, 2000
8.
go back to reference Outimagen - metoder för diagnos och behandling av dyspepsi [in Swedish]. Stockholm: SBU, 2000 Outimagen - metoder för diagnos och behandling av dyspepsi [in Swedish]. Stockholm: SBU, 2000
9.
go back to reference Schweitzer S. Pharmaceutical economics and policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997 Schweitzer S. Pharmaceutical economics and policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997
10.
go back to reference Ekelund M, Persson M. Pharmaceutical pricing in a regulated market. In: I Ekelund M. Competition and innovation in the Swedish pharmaceutical market. Doktorsavhandling: Handelshögskolan i Stockholm, 2001 Ekelund M, Persson M. Pharmaceutical pricing in a regulated market. In: I Ekelund M. Competition and innovation in the Swedish pharmaceutical market. Doktorsavhandling: Handelshögskolan i Stockholm, 2001
11.
go back to reference Coscelli A, Shum M. Empirically characterising informational barriers to entry in the anti-ulcer drug market. Toronto: Department of Economics, University of Toronto, 1998 Coscelli A, Shum M. Empirically characterising informational barriers to entry in the anti-ulcer drug market. Toronto: Department of Economics, University of Toronto, 1998
12.
go back to reference Lichtenberg F. Pharmaceutical innovation, mortality reduction, and economic growth. Working paper 6569. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1998 Lichtenberg F. Pharmaceutical innovation, mortality reduction, and economic growth. Working paper 6569. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1998
13.
go back to reference Lichtenberg F. Are the benefits of newer drugs worth their cost: evidence from the 1996 MEPS. Health Aff 2001; 5: 241–51CrossRef Lichtenberg F. Are the benefits of newer drugs worth their cost: evidence from the 1996 MEPS. Health Aff 2001; 5: 241–51CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Lichtenberg F. Pharmaceutical innovation as a process of creative destruction. New York: Columbia University and National Bureau of Economic Research, 1998 Feb Lichtenberg F. Pharmaceutical innovation as a process of creative destruction. New York: Columbia University and National Bureau of Economic Research, 1998 Feb
15.
go back to reference Jonsson B, Gerdtham UG. Cost-sharing for pharmaceuticals: The Swedish reimbursement system. In: Mattison N, editor. Sharing the costs of health: a multi-country perspective. Basel: The Pharmaceutical Partners for Better Healthcare, 1995: 3–71 Jonsson B, Gerdtham UG. Cost-sharing for pharmaceuticals: The Swedish reimbursement system. In: Mattison N, editor. Sharing the costs of health: a multi-country perspective. Basel: The Pharmaceutical Partners for Better Healthcare, 1995: 3–71
16.
go back to reference Geweke J, Weisbrod BA. Expenditure effects of technological change: the case of a drug. Eval Rev 1984; 8: 74–92CrossRef Geweke J, Weisbrod BA. Expenditure effects of technological change: the case of a drug. Eval Rev 1984; 8: 74–92CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Jönsson B, Carlsson P. The effects of cimetidine on the cost of ulcer disease in Sweden. Soc Sci Med 1991; 33: 275–82CrossRef Jönsson B, Carlsson P. The effects of cimetidine on the cost of ulcer disease in Sweden. Soc Sci Med 1991; 33: 275–82CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Ädelroth E, Thompson S. Högdosinhalationssteroider vid astma: analys av kostnader och vårdutnyttjande. Lakartidningen 1984, 81; 4285–4288PubMed Ädelroth E, Thompson S. Högdosinhalationssteroider vid astma: analys av kostnader och vårdutnyttjande. Lakartidningen 1984, 81; 4285–4288PubMed
19.
go back to reference Ädelroth E, Thompson S. Advantages of high-dose inhaled budesonide. Lancet 1988, II; 476CrossRef Ädelroth E, Thompson S. Advantages of high-dose inhaled budesonide. Lancet 1988, II; 476CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Gerdtham UG, Hertzman P, Boman G, et al. Impact of inhaled corticosteroids on asthma hospitalization in Sweden. Appl Econ 1996; 15: 1591–9CrossRef Gerdtham UG, Hertzman P, Boman G, et al. Impact of inhaled corticosteroids on asthma hospitalization in Sweden. Appl Econ 1996; 15: 1591–9CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Gerdtham UG, Hertzman P, Boman G, et al. Impact of inhaled corticosteroids on acute asthma hospitalization in Sweden, 1978-1991. Med Care 1996; 34: 1188–98CrossRef Gerdtham UG, Hertzman P, Boman G, et al. Impact of inhaled corticosteroids on acute asthma hospitalization in Sweden, 1978-1991. Med Care 1996; 34: 1188–98CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Why did drug spending increase during the 1990s?
A decomposition based on Swedish data
Authors
Dr Ulf-G. Gerdtham
Douglas Lundin
Publication date
01-01-2004
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 1/2004
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422010-00003

Other articles of this Issue 1/2004

PharmacoEconomics 1/2004 Go to the issue