Dataset Information

Drug benefit changes under Medicare Advantage Part D: heterogeneous effects on pharmaceutical use and expenditures.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although Medicare Part D improved drug benefits for many beneficiaries, its impact on the coverage of Medicare Advantage Part D (MAPD) enrollees depended on their pre-existing benefits and whether they had gap coverage under Part D.

Objective

To examine changes in prescription drug utilization and expenditures associated with drug benefit changes resulting from the implementation of Part D.

Patients

We studied 248,773 continuously enrolled MAPD patients in eight states. Patients whose insurance product or Census block could not be identified or who had atypical benefits, low-income subsidies or Medicaid coverage were excluded.

Main measures

The main outcomes were changes in prescription drug days supply and expenditures from 2005 to 2006 and 2005 to 2007.

Design

We linked Census data with 2005-7 MAPD claims, encounter, enrollment, and benefits data and estimated associations of the outcomes with changes in drug benefits, controlling for 2005 comorbidities, demographics, and Census population characteristics.

Key results

MAPD enrollees whose drug benefits became potentially less generous after Part D had the smallest increases in drug utilization and expenditures (e.g., drug expenditures increased by $130 between 2005 and 2006), while those who potentially gained the most from Part D experienced the largest increases ($302). The differences in benefit design changes had a stronger association with drug utilization and outcomes among patients at high risk of gap entry than among the entire sample.

Conclusions

Although Medicare Part D unambiguously improved drug coverage for many elderly, it led to heterogeneous changes in drug benefits among MAPD enrollees, who already had generic and sometimes branded drug benefits. After 2006, benefits were worse for individuals who had branded drug coverage in 2005 but now had a coverage gap, but benefits may have improved for individuals who acquired branded drug coverage. Commensurate with these differential changes in benefits following Part D, changes in drug utilization and expenditures varied substantially as well.

SUBMITTER: Ettner SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3181315 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Drug benefit changes under Medicare Advantage Part D: heterogeneous effects on pharmaceutical use and expenditures.

Ettner Susan L SL Steers W Neil WN Turk Norman N Quiter Elaine S ES Mangione Carol M CM

Journal of general internal medicine 20110628 10

<h4>Background</h4>Although Medicare Part D improved drug benefits for many beneficiaries, its impact on the coverage of Medicare Advantage Part D (MAPD) enrollees depended on their pre-existing benefits and whether they had gap coverage under Part D.<h4>Objective</h4>To examine changes in prescription drug utilization and expenditures associated with drug benefit changes resulting from the implementation of Part D.<h4>Patients</h4>We studied 248,773 continuously enrolled MAPD patients in eight ...[more]

PMID: 21710313

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Benzodiazepines, which are associated with safety-related harms for older adults, were not covered when the US Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit began. Coverage was extended to benzodiazepines in 2013. Objective:To examine whether the expansion of benzodiazepine coverage among Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries was associated with increases in fall-related injuries or overdoses among older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants:This ecological study used interrupted time-series with comparison-series analyses of MA claims data from 4?635?312 age-eligible MA beneficiaries and 940?629 commercially insured individuals (comparison group) stratified by age (65-69, 70-74, 75-79, and ?80 years) to separately compare trends in fall-related injury and overdose before (January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2012) and after (January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2015) coverage expansion for benzodiazepines. Data analysis was performed from September 1, 2018, to August 31, 2019. Exposures:Expansion of benzodiazepine coverage in Medicare Part D in 2013. Main Outcomes and Measures:Monthly rate of fall-related injury and overdose. Results:In 2012 (the year before the policy change), women constituted 57.5% of the MA group and 47.4% of the comparison group. A total of 25.8% of individuals in the MA group were aged 65 to 69 years, and 29.3% were 80 years or older (mean [SD], 75.1 [6.4] years); 56.7% of individuals in the comparison group were aged 65 to 69 years, and 15.1% were 80 years or older (mean [SD] age, 70.9 [6.5] years). In the MA group, 4?635?312 individuals contributed 156?754?749 person-months from 2010 through 2015; in the comparison group, 940?629 individuals contributed 25?104?534 person-months. After coverage of benzodiazepines began, the rate (ie, slope) of fall-related injury among MA beneficiaries increased from before to after coverage among all age groups. Compared with the comparison group, the increase in rate was statistically significant for those 80 years or older (rate changes for the MA vs comparison groups: 0.12 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.17] vs -0.01 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.10]; P?=?.04 for interaction). The overdose trend changed from decreasing to increasing among MA beneficiaries after coverage for all age groups, with a statistically significant increase compared with the comparison group among those aged 65 to 69 years (rate changes for the MA vs comparison groups: 0.23 [95% CI, 0.17 to 0.30] vs 0.02 [95% CI, -0.06 to 0.11]; P?<?.001 for interaction) and among those 80 years or older (rate changes for the MA vs comparison groups: 0.07 [95% CI, 0.00 to 0.14] vs -0.20 [95% CI, -0.35 to -0.05]; P?=?.002 for interaction). Results among MA beneficiaries were consistent when stratified by sex and when limited to those prescribed opioids. Conclusions and Relevance:Medicare's expansion of benzodiazepine coverage may have been associated with increases in the rates of overdose among adults ages 65 to 69 years and in the rates of overdose and fall-related injury among those 80 years or older.

Project description:ImportancePrescription drug spending in the US requires policy intervention to control costs and improve the value obtained from pharmaceutical spending. One such intervention is to apply cost-effectiveness evidence to decisions regarding drug coverage and pricing, but this intervention depends on the existence of such evidence to guide decisions.ObjectiveTo characterize the availability and quality of cost-effectiveness studies for prescription drugs with the greatest Medicare Part D spending.Design, setting, and participantsIn this national cross-sectional analysis, publicly available 2016 Medicare drug spending records were merged with 2016 US Food & Drug Administration Orange Book data and the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry. All studies published through 2015 that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the 250 drugs for which Medicare Part D spending was the greatest in US-based adult patient populations were included. Data were analyzed from September 2018 to June 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThe presence and quality of published cost-effectiveness analyses for the 250 drugs for which Medicare Part D spending was greatest in 2016 were assessed based on the inclusion of key cost-effectiveness analysis elements and global ratings by independent reviewers for the Tufts CEA Registry.ResultsMedicare Part D spending on the 250 drugs in the sample totaled $122.8 billion in 2016 (84.1% of total spending). Of these 250 drugs, 91 (36.4%) had a generic equivalent and 159 (63.6%) retained some patent exclusivity. There were 280 unique cost-effectiveness analyses for these drugs, representing data on 135 (54.0%) of the 250 drugs included and 67.0% of Part D spending on the top 250 drugs. The 115 drugs (46.0%) without cost-effectiveness studies accounted for 33.0% of Part D spending on the top 250 drugs. Of the 280 available studies, 128 (45.7%) were industry sponsored. A large proportion of the studies (250 [89.3%]) did not meet the minimum quality requirements.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, a substantial proportion of 2016 Medicare Part D spending was for drugs with absent or low-quality cost-effectiveness analyses. The lack of quality analyses may present a challenge in efforts to develop policies addressing drug spending in terms of value.

Project description:ImportanceThe 2018 Chronic Care Act allowed Medicare Advantage plans to have greater flexibility in offering supplemental benefits, such as meals and services, to address unmet needs of beneficiaries with certain chronic conditions. Based on earlier studies of community-based nutritional support, such programs may result in reduced use.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of a 4-week posthospitalization home-delivered meals benefit with 30-day all-cause rehospitalization and mortality in patients admitted for heart failure (HF) and other acute medical conditions (non-HF).Design, setting, and participantsIn this cohort study, patients who received meals (the meals group) were compared with 2 controls: (1) no meals in the 2019 historical cohort who would have been eligible for the benefit (the no meals-2019 group) and (2) no meals in the 2021 and 2022 concurrent cohort who were referred but did not receive the meals due to unsuccessful contacts and active declines (the no meals-2021/2022 group). This study took place in a large integrated health care system in southern California among Medicare Advantage members with a hospitalization for HF or other acute medical conditions at 15 Kaiser Permanente hospitals discharged to home.ExposureThe exposure was receipt of at least 1 and up to 4 shipments of home-delivered meals (total of 56 to 84 meals) after hospital discharge.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were 30-day all-cause composite rehospitalization and death.ResultsA total of 4032 adults with admission to the hospital for HF (mean [SD] age, 79 [9] years; 1951 [48%] White; 2001 [50%] female) and 7944 with non-HF admissions (mean [SD] age, 78 [8] years; 3890 [49%] White; 4149 [52%] female) were included in the analyses. Unadjusted rates of 30-day death and rehospitalization for the meals, no meals-2019, and no meals-2021/2022 cohorts were as follows: HF: 23.3%, 30.1%, and 38.5%; non-HF: 16.5%, 22.4%, and 32.9%, respectively. For HF, exposure to meals was significantly associated with lower odds of 30-day death and rehospitalization compared with the no meals-2021/2022 cohort (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.43-0.71; P < .001) but was not significant compared with the no meals-2019 cohort (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72-1.04; P = .12). For non-HF, exposure to meals was associated with significantly lower odds of 30-day death and rehospitalization when compared with the no meals-2019 (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.79; P < .001) and the no meals-2021/2022 (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.62; P < .001) cohorts.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, exposure to posthospitalization home-delivered meals was associated with lower 30-day rehospitalization and mortality; randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Project description:BackgroundIncome-related inequality measures such as the concentration index are often used to describe the unequal distribution of health, health care access, or expenditure in a single measure. This study demonstrates the use of such measures to evaluate the distributional impact of changes in health insurance coverage. We use the example of Medicare Part D in the United States, which increased access to prescription medications for Medicare beneficiaries from 2006.MethodsUsing pooled cross-sectional samples from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey for 1997-2011, we estimated income-related inequality in drug expenditures over time using the concentration and generalised concentration indices. A difference-in-differences analysis investigated the change in inequality in drug expenditures, as measured using the concentration index and generalised concentration index, between the elderly (over 65 years) and near-elderly (54-63 years) pre- and post-implementation of Medicare Part D.ResultsMedicare Part D increased public drug expenditure while out-of-pocket and private spending fell. Public drug expenditures favoured the poor during all study periods, but the degree of pro-poorness declined in the years immediately following the implementation of Part D, with the poor gaining less than the rich in both relative and absolute terms. Part D also appeared to result in a fall in the pro-richness of private insurance drug expenditure in absolute terms but have minimal distributional impact on out-of-pocket expenditure. These effects appeared to be short lived, with a return to the prevailing trends in both concentration and generalised concentration indices several years following the start of Part D.ConclusionsThe implementation of Medicare Part D significantly reduced the degree of pro-poorness in public drug expenditure. The poor gained less of the increased public drug expenditure than the rich in both relative and absolute terms. This study demonstrates how income-related inequality measures can be used to estimate the impact of health system changes on inequalities in health expenditure and provides a guide for future evaluations.

Dataset Information

Drug benefit changes under Medicare Advantage Part D: heterogeneous effects on pharmaceutical use and expenditures.

Background

Objective

Patients

Main measures

Design

Key results

Conclusions

Publications

Drug benefit changes under Medicare Advantage Part D: heterogeneous effects on pharmaceutical use and expenditures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets