Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial board
    • Open access
    • Contact
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ Open
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ Open

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial board
    • Open access
    • Contact
  • RSS feeds
Research

Catastrophic drug coverage: utilization insights from the Ontario Trillium Drug Program

Mina Tadrous, Simon Greaves, Diana Martins, Muhammad M. Mamdani, David N. Juurlink and Tara Gomes
March 26, 2018 6 (1) E132-E138; DOI: https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20170132
Mina Tadrous
Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Tadrous, Gomes), St. Michael's Hospital; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Tadrous, Greaves, Martins, Mamdani, Juurlink, Gomes); Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy (Tadrous, Mamdani, Gomes), University of Toronto; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Mamdani, Juurlink, Gomes), University of Toronto; Li Ka Shing Centre for Healthcare Analytics Research and Training (Mamdani), St. Michael's Hospital; Sunnybrook Research Institute (Juurlink), Toronto, Ont.
PharmDPhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Simon Greaves
Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Tadrous, Gomes), St. Michael's Hospital; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Tadrous, Greaves, Martins, Mamdani, Juurlink, Gomes); Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy (Tadrous, Mamdani, Gomes), University of Toronto; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Mamdani, Juurlink, Gomes), University of Toronto; Li Ka Shing Centre for Healthcare Analytics Research and Training (Mamdani), St. Michael's Hospital; Sunnybrook Research Institute (Juurlink), Toronto, Ont.
MSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Diana Martins
Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Tadrous, Gomes), St. Michael's Hospital; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Tadrous, Greaves, Martins, Mamdani, Juurlink, Gomes); Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy (Tadrous, Mamdani, Gomes), University of Toronto; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Mamdani, Juurlink, Gomes), University of Toronto; Li Ka Shing Centre for Healthcare Analytics Research and Training (Mamdani), St. Michael's Hospital; Sunnybrook Research Institute (Juurlink), Toronto, Ont.
MSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Muhammad M. Mamdani
Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Tadrous, Gomes), St. Michael's Hospital; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Tadrous, Greaves, Martins, Mamdani, Juurlink, Gomes); Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy (Tadrous, Mamdani, Gomes), University of Toronto; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Mamdani, Juurlink, Gomes), University of Toronto; Li Ka Shing Centre for Healthcare Analytics Research and Training (Mamdani), St. Michael's Hospital; Sunnybrook Research Institute (Juurlink), Toronto, Ont.
PharmDMPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David N. Juurlink
Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Tadrous, Gomes), St. Michael's Hospital; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Tadrous, Greaves, Martins, Mamdani, Juurlink, Gomes); Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy (Tadrous, Mamdani, Gomes), University of Toronto; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Mamdani, Juurlink, Gomes), University of Toronto; Li Ka Shing Centre for Healthcare Analytics Research and Training (Mamdani), St. Michael's Hospital; Sunnybrook Research Institute (Juurlink), Toronto, Ont.
MDPhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tara Gomes
Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Tadrous, Gomes), St. Michael's Hospital; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Tadrous, Greaves, Martins, Mamdani, Juurlink, Gomes); Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy (Tadrous, Mamdani, Gomes), University of Toronto; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Mamdani, Juurlink, Gomes), University of Toronto; Li Ka Shing Centre for Healthcare Analytics Research and Training (Mamdani), St. Michael's Hospital; Sunnybrook Research Institute (Juurlink), Toronto, Ont.
MHScPhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Tables

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Rate of Ontario Trillium Drug Program beneficiaries per 1000 and total program spending from 2000 to 2016, by year and quarter.

  • Figure 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2

    Percentage of Ontario Trillium beneficiaries from 2000 to 2016 with any single claim over $1000, by year and quarter.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1: Characteristics of the Ontario Trillium Drug Plan and its beneficiaries in calendar years 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015
    CharacteristicYear
    2000200520102015
    No. of TDP recipients55 57195 296162 301176 299
    No. of TDP recipients surpassing deductible, n (%)51 320 (92.4)90 564 (95.0)150 229 (92.6)163 140 (92.5)
    Total TDP spending, $65 717 445170 049 300281 546 814416 019 977
    Average annual cost per recipient surpassing deductible, $1281187818742550
    Median age, yr (Q1-Q3)53 (43-63)53 (43-63)52 (41-63)52 (40-64)
    Age category, yr, n (%)
        0-247507 (13.5)14 099 (14.8)27 020 (16.6)30 943 (17.6)
        25-34 3387 (6.1)5554 (5.8)10 633 (6.6)13 504 (7.7)
        35-4911 849 (21.3)20 286 (21.3)34 194 (21.1)35 024 (19.9)
        50-6432 828 (59.1)55 357 (58.1)90 454 (55.7)96 828 (54.9)
    No. of drugs, n (%)
        15,773 (11.2)10 942 (12.1)21 460 (14.3)29 662 (18.2)
        25,765 (11.2)10 373 (11.5)18 115 (12.1)19 731 (12.1)
        ≥ 339 782 (77.5)69 249 (76.5)110 654 (73.7)113 747 (69.7)
    Sex, male, n (%)22 767 (41.0)39 801 (41.8)69 976 (43.1)77 551 (44.0)
    Income quintile, n (%)
        1 (lowest)14 838 (26.7)26 628 (27.9)44 417 (27.4)45 789 (26.0)
        213 465 (24.2)22 366 (23.5)37 289 (23.0)40 225 (22.8)
        310 856 (19.5)18 212 (19.1)32 319 (19.9)35 898 (20.4)
        49183 (16.5)15 751 (16.5)27 847 (17.2)31 493 (17.9)
        5 (highest)7127 (12.8)12 123 (12.7)20 082 (12.4)22 492 (12.8)
    Charlson Comorbidity Index score, n (%)
        No hospital admission35 058 (68.3)66 600 (73.5)117 491 (78.2)131 290 (80.5)
        07869 (15.3)12 514 (13.8)16 238 (10.8)15 572 (9.6)
        13873 (7.6)5242 (5.8)6886 (4.6)6523 (4.0)
        ≥ 24520 (8.8)6208 (6.9)9614 (6.4)9755 (6.0)
    Single claims > $10001757 (3.4)5170 (5.7)10 021 (6.7)17 015 (10.4)
    Any biologic use4119 (8.0)8397 (9.3)15 985 (10.6)21 779 (13.4)
    High-cost biologics807 (1.6)2711 (3.0)5061 (3.4)8952 (5.5)
    Deductible, n (%)
        Low (< $350)50 180 (97.8)86 055 (95.0)139 489 (92.9)150 092 (92.0)
        Med ($351-499)699 (1.4)2468 (2.7)5595 (3.7)5895 (3.6)
        High (> $500)441 (0.9)2041 (2.3)5145 (3.4)7153 (4.4)
    Median deductible, $42656958

    Note: All characteristics were found to be statistically significant for tests of trend from 2000 to 2015 (p < 0.05). TDP = Trillium Drug Plan.

      • View popup
      Table 2: Top 10 drugs by use and cost in calendar years 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015
      RankYear
      2000200520102015
      Top drugs by frequency of use, n* (%)
      1APAP, caffeine and codeine
      9119 (16.4)
      Atorvastatin
      18 014 (18.9)
      Metformin
      26 486 (16.3)
      Rosuvastatin
      27 452 (15.6)
      2Amoxicillin
      7367 (13.3)
      APAP, caffeine and codeine
      14 069 (14.8)
      Atorvastatin
      24 940 (15.4)
      Amoxicillin
      24 686 (14.0)
      3Estrogen
      7097 (12.8)
      Amoxicillin
      13 437 (14.1)
      Amoxicillin
      23 214 (14.3)
      Metformin
      23 990 (13.6)
      4Atorvastatin
      6293 (11.3)
      Metformin
      13 321 (14.0)
      Rosuvastatin
      22 419 (13.8)
      Atorvastatin
      19 859 (11.3)
      5Ranitidine
      6260 (11.3)
      Ramipril
      13 207 (13.9)
      APAP, caffeine and codeine
      18 459 (11.4)
      Albuterol
      19 571 (11.1)
      6Albuterol
      5575 (10.0)
      Albuterol
      10 226 (10.7)
      Ramipril
      17 330 (10.7)
      Levothyroxine
      16 865 (9.6)
      7Lorazepam
      5427 (9.8)
      Hydrochlorothiazide
      10 023 (10.5)
      Albuterol
      17 016 (10.5)
      APAP, caffeine and codeine
      14 435 (8.2)
      8Levothyroxine
      5283;(9.5)
      Levothyroxine
      9141 (9.6)
      Levothyroxine
      15 297 (9.4)
      Amlodipine
      14 258 (8.1)
      9Metformin
      4862 (8.7)
      Lorazepam
      8183 (8.6)
      Rabeprazole
      13 904 (8.6)
      Pantoprazole
      13 868 (7.9)
      10Glyburide
      4292 (7.7)
      Amlodipine
      7702 (8.1)
      Amlodipine
      13 418 (8.3)
      Ramipril
      12 380 (7.0)
      Top drugs by total spending, $† (%)
      1Atorvastatin 
      2 600 000 (4.0)
      Infliximab
      10 450 000 (6.1)
      Infliximab
      31 830 000 (11.3)
      Infliximab
      55 370 000 (13.3)
      2Interferon α2b and ribavirin
      2 240 000 (3.4)
      Atorvastatin 
      7 900 000 (4.6)
      Etanercept
      11 070 000 (3.9)
      Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir 
      24 620 000 (5.9)
      3Interferon β 
      2 080 000 (3.2)
      Interferon β1a 
      7 000 000 (4.1)
      Interferon β1a 
      9 339 000 (3.3)
      Adalimumab
      23 520 000 (5.7)
      4Interferon β1a 
      2 050 000 (3.1)
      Imatinib
      4 980 000 (2.9)
      Oxycodone
      8 180 000 (2.9)
      Etanercept
      14 340 000 (3.4)
      5Omeprazole
      1 970 000 (3.0)
      Etanercept
      4 700 000 (2.8)
      Adalimumab 
      8 100 000 (2.9)
      Tenofovir
      10 900 000 (2.6)
      6Olanzapine
      1 710 000 (2.6)
      Olanzapine
      3 920 000 (2.3)
      Imatinib
      $6 900 000 (2.5)
      Eculizumab
      10 040 000 (2.4)
      7Lamivudine
      1 700 000 (2.6)
      Lamivudine and zidovudine 3 280 000 (1.9)Rosuvastatin 
      6 500 000 (2.3)
      Interferon β1a 
      73 760 000 (1.8)
      8Nelfinavir
      1 420 000 (2.2)
      Oxycodone
      3 250 000 (1.9)
      Atorvastatin 
      6 420 000 (2.3)
      Efavirenz, emtricitabine and tenofovir
      71 010 000 (1.7)
      9Stavudine
      1 400 000 (2.1)
      Ramipril
      3 060 000 (1.8)
      Efavirenz, emtricitabine and tenofovir
      6 350 000 (2.3)
      Sofosbuvir
      6 740 000 (1.6)
      10Lamivudine and zidovudine 
      1 360 000 (2.1)
      Omeprazole
      3 040 000 (1.8)
      Abacavir and lamivudine 
      5 000 000 (1.8)
      Lenalidomide
      6 720 000 (1.6)

      Note: APAP = acetaminophen.*No. of users.†Dollar values reported to the nearest $10 000.

      PreviousNext
      Back to top

      In this issue

      CMAJ Open: 6 (1)
      Vol. 6, Issue 1
      1 Jan 2018
      • Table of Contents
      • Index by author

      Article tools

      Respond to this article
      Print
      Download PDF
      Article Alerts
      To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
      Email Article

      Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ Open.

      NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

      Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
      Catastrophic drug coverage: utilization insights from the Ontario Trillium Drug Program
      (Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ Open
      (Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ Open web site.
      CAPTCHA
      This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
      Citation Tools
      Catastrophic drug coverage: utilization insights from the Ontario Trillium Drug Program
      Mina Tadrous, Simon Greaves, Diana Martins, Muhammad M. Mamdani, David N. Juurlink, Tara Gomes
      Jan 2018, 6 (1) E132-E138; DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20170132

      Citation Manager Formats

      • BibTeX
      • Bookends
      • EasyBib
      • EndNote (tagged)
      • EndNote 8 (xml)
      • Medlars
      • Mendeley
      • Papers
      • RefWorks Tagged
      • Ref Manager
      • RIS
      • Zotero
      Share
      Catastrophic drug coverage: utilization insights from the Ontario Trillium Drug Program
      Mina Tadrous, Simon Greaves, Diana Martins, Muhammad M. Mamdani, David N. Juurlink, Tara Gomes
      Jan 2018, 6 (1) E132-E138; DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20170132
      Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
      • Tweet Widget
      • Facebook Like

      Related Articles

      • PubMed
      • Google Scholar

      Cited By...

      • Projected impact of biosimilar substitution policies on drug use and costs in Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional time series analysis
      • Characteristics of high-drug-cost beneficiaries of public drug plans in 9 Canadian provinces: a cross-sectional analysis
      • Google Scholar

      Similar Articles

      Collections

      • Nonclinical
        • Health Policy
          • Health care funding outside of medicare
        • Health Economics - see also Medicare
      • Clinical
        • Drugs
          • Other drug use

      Content

      • Current issue
      • Past issues
      • Collections

      About

      • General Information
      • Staff
      • Editorial Board
      • Advisory Panel
      • Contact Us
      • Reprints
      • Copyright and Permissions
      CMAJ Group

      Copyright 2025, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 2291-0026

      All editorial matter in CMAJ OPEN represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

      To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected].

      CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

       

       

      Powered by HighWire