Correction to “Estimating the effects of prescription drug coverage for medicare beneficiaries”
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10915468 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify the effect of insurance coverage on prescription utilization by Medicare beneficiaries.Data sources/study settingSecondary data from the 1999 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) Cost and Use files, a nationally representative survey of Medicare enrollees.Study designThe paper uses a cross-sectional design with (1) a standard regression framework to estimate the impact of prescription coverage on utilization controlling for potential selection bias with covariate control based on the Diagnostic Cost Group/Hierarchical Condition Category (DCG/HCC) risk adjuster, and (2) a multistage residual inclusion method using instrumental variables to control for selection bias and identify the insurance coverage effect.Data collection/extraction methodsData were extracted from the 1999 MCBS. Study inclusion criteria are community-dwelling MCBS respondents with full-year Medicare enrollment and supplemental medical insurance with or without full-year drug benefits. The final sample totaled 5,270 Medicare beneficiaries.Principal findingsBoth the model using the DCG/HCC risk adjuster and the model using the residual inclusion method produced similar results. The estimated price elasticity of demand for prescription drugs for the Medicare beneficiaries in our sample was -0.54.ConclusionsOur results confirm that selection into prescription coverage is predictable based on observable health. Our results further confirm prior estimates of price sensitivity of prescription drug demand for Medicare beneficiaries, though our estimate is slightly above prior results.
| S-EPMC1955253 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify determinants of drug coverage among elderly Medicare beneficiaries and to investigate the impact of drug coverage on drug expenditures with and without taking selection bias into account.Data sources/study settingThe primary data were from the 2000 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) Cost and Use file, linked to other data sources at the county or state-level that provided instrumental variables. Community-dwelling elderly Medicare beneficiaries who completed the survey were included in the study (N=7,525). A probit regression to predict the probability of having drug coverage and the effects of drug coverage on drug expenditures was estimated by a two-part model, assuming no correlation across equations. In addition, the discrete factor model estimated choice of drug coverage and expenditures for prescription drugs simultaneously to control for self-selection into drug coverage, allowing for correlation of error terms across equations.Principal findingsFindings indicated that unobservable characteristics leading elderly Medicare beneficiaries to purchase drug coverage also lead them to have higher drug expenditures on conditional use (i.e., adverse selection), while the same unobservable factors do not influence their decisions whether to use any drugs. After controlling for potential selection bias, the probability of any drug use among persons with drug coverage use was 4.5 percent higher than among those without, and drug coverage led to an increase in drug expenditures of $308 among those who used prescription drugs.ConclusionsGiven significant adverse selection into drug coverage before the implementation of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act, it is essential that selection effects be monitored as beneficiaries choose whether or not to enroll in this voluntary program.
| S-EPMC2442248 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We investigate prescription drug use, and information and enrollment intentions for the new Medicare Part D drug insurance program, using a sample of Medicare-eligible subjects surveyed before open enrollment began for this program. We find that, despite the complexity of competing plans offered by private insurers under Part D, a majority of the Medicare population had information on this program and a substantial majority planned to enroll. We find that virtually all elderly, even those with no current prescription drug use, can expect to benefit from enrollment in a Part D Standard plan at the low premiums available in the current market. However, there is a significant risk that many eligible seniors, particularly low-income elderly with poor health or cognitive impairment, will make poor enrollment and plan choices.
| S-EPMC1472547 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare drug costs and adherence among Medicare beneficiaries with the standard Part D coverage gap versus supplemental gap coverage in 2006.Data sourcesPharmacy data from Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) plans.Study designParallel analyses comparing beneficiaries aged 65+ with diabetes in an integrated MAPD with a gap versus no gap (n=28,780); and in a network-model MAPD with a gap versus generic-only coverage during the gap (n=14,984).Principal findingsDrug spending was 3 percent (95 percent confidence interval [CI]: 1-4 percent) and 4 percent (CI: 1-6 percent) lower among beneficiaries with a gap versus full or generic-only gap coverage, respectively. Out-of-pocket expenditures were 189 percent higher (CI: 185-193 percent) and adherence to three chronic drug classes was lower among those with a gap versus no gap (e.g., odds ratio=0.83, CI: 0.79-0.88, for oral diabetes drugs). Annual out-of-pocket spending was 14 percent higher (CI: 10-17 percent) for beneficiaries with a gap versus generic-only gap coverage, but levels of adherence were similar.ConclusionsAmong Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes, having the Part D coverage gap resulted in lower total drug costs, but higher out-of-pocket spending and worse adherence compared with having no gap. Having generic-only coverage during the gap appeared to confer limited benefits compared with having no gap coverage.
| S-EPMC2838150 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo determine the prevalence of opioid prescriptions among U.S. Medicare beneficiaries by diabetes status, and predictors of opioid prescription among those with diabetes.MethodsThis retrospective study used claims data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services among beneficiaries age ≥ 65 years who were continuously enrolled in Part A, Part B, and Part D Medicare between 2017 and 2019 (N = 709,374). Logistic regression was used to determine the odds of opioid prescription among those with vs without diabetes; and, among those with diabetes, significant predictors of opioid prescription.ResultsOverall, the prevalence of any opioid prescription was 30.8 % among persons with diabetes and 24.2 % in those without diabetes (p < 0.001); chronic use was 8.0 % and 7.4 %, respectively (p < 0.001). Those with diabetes had a 45 % higher odds of having an opioid prescription compared to those without diabetes after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics (OR = 1.45, 1.44-1.47). After adjustment for comorbidities/complications, the association reversed (OR = 0.83, 0.82-0.84). Persons with diabetes who had hypertension, obesity, CVD, neuropathy, amputation, liver disease, COPD, cancer, osteoporosis, depression, or alcohol/drug abuse had a 20 %-140 % higher odds of opioid prescription compared to those without these conditions.ConclusionsComorbidities and complications accounted for the higher odds of opioid prescriptions among those with diabetes.
| S-EPMC9974602 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To determine whether prescription drug benefits are associated with the use of guideline recommended medications by older persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM).Cross-sectional study.A national sample of Medicare beneficiaries with DM aged 65 and older and an indication for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin II-receptor blocker (ARB) use or high risk of coronary heart disease (hypertension or current smoking) who participated in the 2003 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey.Prescription drug coverage was measured according to self-report and verified according to insurance claims. Outcome variables were use of an ACEI or an ARB (ACEI/ARB) or a statin or use of an ACEI/ARB and a statin. Survey-weighted multinomial logistic regression was used to identify the independent effect of drug coverage on one of two categories of recommended medication use (ACEI/ARB or statin or ACEI/ARB and statin) compared with the reference category of none after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and health status.The final study sample was 1,181 (weighted N=4.0 million). Overall, 23% had no drug coverage, 16% Medicaid coverage, 43% employer coverage, 9% Medigap coverage, and 9% Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) or state-sponsored low-income coverage. Overall, 33% received a statin and an ACEI/ARB, 44% only an ACEI/ARB or a statin, and 23% neither. After adjustment, VA and state-sponsored drug benefits were most strongly associated with combined ACEI/ARB and statin use (relative risk ratio (RRR)=4.83, 95% confidence interval (CI)=2.24-10.4)), followed by employer-sponsored coverage (RRR=2.60, 95% CI=1.67-4.03)).Prescription drug benefits from VA and state-sponsored drug programs are strongly associated with use of recommended medications by older adults with DM.
| S-EPMC2742307 | biostudies-other
Project description:The objective is to estimate the take-up of the Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy (LIS) among Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes and examine differences in out-of-pocket costs and prescription drug use between LIS enrollees and LIS-eligible non-enrollees. The LIS reduces out-of-pocket drug costs for low-income beneficiaries; however, not all LIS-eligible individuals are enrolled. Take-up of the LIS, and consequences of forgoing this benefit among beneficiaries with diabetes, remains unknown. Health and Retirement Study linked to Medicare administrative data from 2008 to 2016. We conducted two analyses among beneficiaries with diabetes. First, we estimated LIS take-up stratified by income (≤100% of the Federal Poverty Level [FPL] and >100% to ≤150% of FPL). Second, to assess the consequences of forgoing the LIS among near-poor beneficiaries (incomes >100% to ≤150% of FPL), we conducted propensity score-weighted regression analyses to compare out-of-pocket costs, the prescription drug use, and cost-related medication non-adherence among LIS enrollees and LIS-eligible non-enrollees. N/A. Among Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes, 68.1% of those with incomes >100% to ≤150% of FPL received the LIS, while 90.3% with incomes ≤100% of FPL received the LIS. Among near-poor beneficiaries, LIS-eligible non-enrollees incurred higher annual out-of-pocket drug spending ($518; 95 [in USD]% CI: $370 [in USD], $667 [in USD]; p < 0.001), filled 7.3 fewer prescriptions for diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia drugs (95% CI: -11.1, -3.5; p < 0.001), and were 8.9 percentage points more likely to report skipping drugs due to cost (95% CI: 0.3, 18.0; p = 0.04), all compared to LIS enrollees. Despite providing substantial financial assistance with prescription drug costs, the LIS is under-utilized among beneficiaries with chronic conditions requiring routine medication use. As policy makers discuss Part D reforms to address rising out-of-pocket drug costs, they should consider strategies to increase participation in existing programs that alleviate cost burdens among low-income Medicare beneficiaries.
| S-EPMC9441281 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedicare Part D prescription drug plans (PDPs) implemented in January 2006 are designed to improve beneficiaries' access to pharmaceuticals and use market competition to yield affordable drug costs. Variations in estimated PDP costs for beneficiaries living in different states have not previously been characterized.ObjectiveTo describe variations in the estimated costs of PDPs (plan premium, copays, and coinsurance) within and across states.DesignTo estimate PDP costs based on 4 actual patient cases that exemplify common conditions and prescription drug combinations for Medicare beneficiaries, we used the online tool provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.MeasurementsPrincipal study outcomes included (a) variation across states in the estimated annual cost of the lowest-cost PDP for each case and (b) variation in the estimated affordability of the lowest-cost PDPs across states, based on cost-of-living-adjusted median income for zero-earner households.ResultsFor all 4 patient cases, we found substantive within-state and between-state differences in the estimated costs of Medicare PDPs incurred by beneficiaries. The estimated annual costs to beneficiaries of the lowest-cost PDPs varied across states by as much as $320 for medications in the least expensive scenario, and by as much as $13,000 for the most expensive scenario. On average across states, a beneficiary with cost-of-living-adjusted median income would expect to spend 3%-28% of annual income to pay for medications in the lowest-cost PDPs in the 4 patient cases. The affordability of the lowest-cost plans varied across states, and for 2 of the 4 cases the lowest-cost PDP estimates were negatively correlated with cost-of-living-adjusted median income.ConclusionsSubstantive differences in estimated PDP costs are evident across states for patients with common Medicare conditions. Importantly, the lowest-cost plans were not proportionally affordable with respect to state-specific cost-of-living-adjusted median income. Refinement of the Medicare drug program may be needed to improve national balance in PDP affordability for beneficiaries living in different states.
| S-EPMC1824717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the effect of Part D on 65-78-year-old noninstitutionalized dual eligibles' prescription utilization and expenditures.Data sourceRandom sample of unique pharmacy customers of a national retail pharmacy chain who filled at least one prescription during both 2005 and 2006. For each subject, we obtained claims data for every prescription filled between January 1, 2005, and April 31, 2007.Study designGeneralized estimating equations were used to examine the experience of a "treatment" group (dual eligibles between 65 and 78 years on January 1, 2005) with that of a "control" group (near-elderly patients with Medicaid coverage between 60 and 63 years on January 1, 2005) during the first 18 months after Part D implementation.Principal findingsExpenditures for the treatment and control groups tracked each other closely in the pre-Part D period. Immediately following the implementation of Part D, expenditures for both groups decreased and then leveled off. There were no significant changes in trends in the dual eligibles' out-of-pocket expenditures, total monthly expenditures, pill-days, or total number of prescriptions due to Part D.ConclusionsWe find no evidence that Part D adversely affected pharmaceutical utilization or out-of-pocket expenditures of dual eligibles during the transition period, nor during the 16 months subsequent to Part D implementation.
| S-EPMC2813441 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess changes in physicians' provision of care to duals (low-income individuals with Medicare and Medicaid) in response to a policy that required Medicaid to fully pay Medicare's cost sharing for office visits with these patients. This policy-a provision of the Affordable Care Act-effectively increased payments for office visits with duals by 0%-20%, depending on the state, in 2013 and 2014.Data sourcesFee-for-service claims for a 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries in 2010-2016.Study designWe conducted a difference-in-differences analysis to compare changes in office visits among Qualified Medicare Beneficiaries (QMBs)-the largest subpopulation of duals for whom payment rates were affected by this policy-to changes among other low-income Medicare beneficiaries for whom payment rates were unaffected (pooled across all states). Next, we conducted a triple-differences analysis that compared changes between QMBs and other low-income beneficiaries in 33 states with payment rate increases of approximately 20% to analogous changes in 14 states without payment increases.Data collectionThe study included administrative Medicare enrollment and claims data for QMBs and a comparison group of other low-income Medicare beneficiaries (1 914 073 beneficiary-years from 2010 to 2016).Principal findingsNationally, we did not find a differential increase in office visits among QMBs versus other low-income beneficiaries that coincided with this payment change. In the triple-differences analysis, we did not observe a greater increase in visits among QMBs vs other low-income beneficiaries in states where the policy resulted in large (approximately 20%) increases in payment rates vs states where payment rates were unaffected (triple-differences estimate: -0.12 annual visits, 95% CI: -0.28, 0.04; P = 0.15).ConclusionsPhysicians' provision of care to low-income Medicare beneficiaries may not be responsive to short-run payment changes.
| S-EPMC8143678 | biostudies-literature