Medicare prescription drug coverage: consumer information and preferences.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Winter J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC1472547 | biostudies-literature | 2006 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Medicare prescription drug coverage: consumer information and preferences.
Winter Joachim J Balza Rowilma R Caro Frank F Heiss Florian F Jun Byung-hill BH Matzkin Rosa R McFadden Daniel D
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 20060508 20
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 n ...[more]
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: Not available
| S-EPMC10915468 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDespite unprecedented injuries and deaths from prescription opioids, little is known regarding medication coverage policies for the treatment of chronic noncancer pain among US insurers.ObjectiveTo assess medication coverage policies for 62 products used to treat low back pain.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional study of health plan documents from 15 Medicaid, 15 Medicare Advantage, and 20 commercial health plans in 2017 from 16 US states representing more than half the US population and 20 interviews with more than 43 senior medical and pharmacy health plan executives from representative plans. Data analysis was conducted from April 2017 to January 2018.Main outcomes and measuresFormulary coverage, utilization management, and patient out-of-pocket costs.ResultsOf the 62 products examined, 30 were prescription opioids and 32 were nonopioid analgesics, including 10 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 10 antidepressants, 6 muscle relaxants, 4 anticonvulsants, and 2 topical analgesics. Medicaid plans covered a median of 19 opioids examined (interquartile range [IQR], 12-27; median, 63%; IQR, 40%-90%) and a median of 22 nonopioids examined (IQR, 21-27; median, 69%; IQR, 66%-83%). Medicare Advantage plans covered similar proportions (median [IQR], opioids: 17 [15-22]; 57% [50%-73%]; nonopioids: 22 [22-26]; 69% [69%-81%]), while commercial plans covered more opioids (median [IQR], 23 [21-25]; 77% [70%-84%]) and nonopioids (median [IQR], 26 [24-27]; 81% [74%-85%]). Utilization management strategies were common for opioids in Medicaid plans (median [IQR], 15 [11-20] opioids; 91% [74%-97%]), Medicare Advantage plans (median [IQR], 15 [9-18] opioids; 100% [100%-100%]), and commercial plans (median [IQR], 16 [11-20] opioids; 74% [53%-94%]), generally relying on 30-day quantity limits rather than prior authorization. Step therapy was especially uncommon. Many of the nonopioids examined also were subject to utilization management, especially quantity limits (24%-32% of products across payers) and prior authorization (median [IQR], commercial plans: 2 [0-3] nonopioids; 9% [0%-11%]; Medicare Advantage plans: 4 [3-5] nonopioids; 19% [10%-23%]; Medicaid plans: 6 [1-13] nonopioids; 38% [2%-52%]). Among commercial plans, the median plan placed 18 opioids (74%) and 20 nonopioids (81%) in tier 1, which was associated with a median out-of-pocket cost of $10 (IQR, $9-$10) per 30-day supply. Key informant interviews revealed an emphasis on increasing opioid utilization management and identifying high-risk prescribers and patients, rather than promoting comprehensive strategies to improve treatment of chronic pain or better integrating pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic alternatives to opioids.Conclusions and relevanceGiven the effect of coverage policies on drug utilization and health outcomes, these findings provide an important opportunity to evaluate how formulary placement, utilization management, copayments, and integration of nonpharmacologic treatments can be optimized to improve pain care while reducing opioid-related injuries and deaths.
| S-EPMC6324424 | 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:Background. Previous research found that adding a single piece of quantitative information about prescription drug benefits to direct-to-consumer (DTC) ads helps consumers understand how well the drug works. However, drug information often includes quantitative information on multiple benefit outcomes and risks. Thus, we examined whether consumer understanding was similarly improved when DTC television ads include varying amounts of quantitative information. Methods. We randomly assigned participants (945 Internet panelists ≥ 60 years old) to view 1 of 9 fictitious prescription drug television ads that varied the presentation of quantitative information for benefits (none, single outcome, 2 outcomes) and risks (none, 1 risk category, 3 risk categories) and then measured gist and verbatim recall/estimation and drug perceptions. Results. Adding a single benefit outcome and a single risk category replicated past results. Compared with an ad containing no quantitative information, presenting 2 benefit outcomes and multiple risk categories increased gist and verbatim recall and affected drug perceptions. Compared with presenting a single benefit outcome, presenting 2 benefit outcomes increased verbatim recall for the second outcome but decreased verbatim recall for the first outcome. Likewise, compared with presenting a single risk category, presenting multiple risk categories increased gist and verbatim recall for the multiple risk categories but decreased gist recall for a concept more closely associated with the single risk category. Adding multiple risk categories decreased risk perceptions even more than did the single risk category. Limitations. This study may have limited generalizability because it examined an ad for only 1 medical condition. Conclusions. There are tradeoffs to adding multiple quantitative benefit outcomes in DTC ads. However, presenting multiple quantitative risk categories helps consumers better understand a drug's risks.
| S-EPMC7289316 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare the use of guideline-recommended prescription medications for diabetes among Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in stand-alone prescription drug plans (PDPs) with Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans (MAPDs) in the presence of potential selection bias.Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Chronic Condition Data Warehouse (2006, 2007).Retrospective cross-sectional comparison of drug use and proportion of days covered (PDC) for oral-antidiabetics, ACE-inhibitors/ARBs, and antihyperlipidemics among PDP and MAPD enrollees with diabetes. We estimated "naïve" regression models assuming exogenous plan choice and two-stage residual inclusion (2SRI) models to study endogeneity in choice of Part D plan type.We identified 111,290 diabetics based on ICD-9 codes in Medicare claims from a random 5 percent sample of Medicare beneficiaries in 2005 excluding dual eligibles.The naïve regression models indicated lower probability of drug use for oral-antidiabetics (-4 percent; p < .001) and ACE-inhibitors/ARBS (-2 percent; p = .004) among PDP enrollees, but their PDC was higher (3-5 percent) for all drug classes (p < .001). 2SRI models produced no significant differences in any-use equations, but significantly higher PDC values for PDP enrollees for oral-antidiabetics and ACE-inhibitors/ARBs.We found similar overall use of recommended drugs in diabetes treatment and no consistent evidence of favorable or adverse selection into PDPs and MAPDs.
| S-EPMC3681243 | biostudies-other
Project description:OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of prescription drug insurance on health, as measured by self-reported poor health status, functional disability, and hospitalization among the elderly. DATA: Analyses are based on a nationally representative sample of noninstitutionalized elderly (?65 years of age) from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) for years 1992-2000. STUDY DESIGN: Estimates are obtained using multivariable regression models that control for observed characteristics and unmeasured person-specific effects (i.e., fixed effects). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In general, prescription drug insurance was not associated with significant changes in self-reported health, functional disability, and hospitalization. The lone exception was for prescription drug coverage obtained through a Medicare HMO. In this case, prescription drug insurance decreased functional disability slightly. Among those elderly with chronic illness and older (71 years or more) elderly, prescription drug insurance was associated with slightly improved functional disability. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that prescription drug coverage had little effect on health or hospitalization for the general population of elderly, but may have some health benefits for chronically ill or older elderly.
| S-EPMC2653897 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportancePrescription drug spending is a topic of increased interest to the public and policymakers. However, prior assessments have been limited by focusing on retail spending (Part D-covered drugs), omitting clinician-administered (Part B-covered) drug spending, or focusing on all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of their enrollment into prescription drug coverage.ObjectiveTo estimate the proportion of health care spending contributed by prescription drugs and to assess spending for retail and clinician-administered prescriptions.Design, setting, and participantsDescriptive, serial, cross-sectional analysis of a 20% random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the United States from 2008 to 2019 who were continuously enrolled in Parts A (hospital), B (medical), and D (prescription drug) benefits, and not in Medicare Advantage.ExposureCalendar year.Main outcomes and measuresNet spending on retail (Part D-covered) and clinician-administered (Part B-covered) prescription drugs; prescription drug spending (spending on Part B-covered and Part D-covered drugs) as a percentage of total per-capita health care spending. Measures were adjusted for inflation and for postsale rebates (for Part D-covered drugs).ResultsThere were 3 201 284 beneficiaries enrolled in Parts A, B, and D in 2008 and 4 502 718 in 2019. In 2019, beneficiaries had a mean (SD) age of 71.7 (12.0) years, documented sex was female for 57.7%, and 69.5% had no low-income subsidies. Total per-capita spending was $16 345 in 2008 and $20 117 in 2019. Comparing 2008 with 2019, per-capita Part A spending was $7106 (95% CI, $7084-$7128) vs $7120 (95% CI, $7098-$7141), Part B drug spending was $720 (95% CI, $713-$728) vs $1641 (95% CI, $1629-$1653), Part B nondrug spending was $5113 (95% CI, $5105-$5122) vs $6702 (95% CI, $6692-$6712), and Part D net spending was $3122 (95% CI, $3117-$3127) vs $3477 (95% CI, $3466-$3489). The proportion of total annual spending attributed to prescription drugs increased from 24.0% in 2008 to 27.2% in 2019, net of estimated rebates and discounts.Conclusions and relevanceIn 2019, spending on prescription drugs represented approximately 27% of total spending among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part D, even after accounting for postsale rebates.
| S-EPMC9579917 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAvoiding food allergens when eating outside the home presents particular difficulties for food allergic (FA) and intolerant (FI) consumers and a lack of allergen information in restaurants and takeaways causes unnecessary restrictions. Across Europe, legislation effective from December 2014, aims to improve allergen information by requiring providers of non-prepacked foods to supply information related to allergen content within their foods.MethodsUsing in-depth interviews with 60 FA/FI adults and 15 parents/carers of FA/FI children, we aimed to identify FA/FI consumers' preferences for written and/or verbal allergen information when eating out or ordering takeaway food.ResultsA complex and dynamic set of preferences and practices for written and verbal allergen information was identified. Overwhelmingly, written information was favoured in the first instance, but credible personal/verbal communication was highly valued and essential to a good eating out experience. Adequate written information facilitated implicit trust in subsequent verbal information. Where written information was limited, FA/FIs depended on social cues to assess the reliability of verbal information resources, and defaulted to tried and tested allergen avoidance strategies when these were deemed unreliable.ConclusionUnderstanding the subtle negotiations and difficulties encountered by FA/FIs when eating out can serve as a guide for legislators and food providers; by encouraging provision of clear written and verbal allergen information, and training of proactive, allergen-aware staff. This, in tandem with legal requirements for allergen information provision, paves the way for FA/FIs to feel more confident in eating out choices; and to experience improved eating out experiences.
| S-EPMC4880205 | biostudies-literature