Dataset Information

Association of Medicare Part D medication out-of-pocket costs with utilization of statin medications.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To examine the association between statin out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and utilization among the Medicare Part D population.

Data sources/study setting

2006-2008 administrative claims and enrollment data for the 5 percent Medicare sample.

Study design

Sample included 346,583 beneficiary-year observations of statin users enrolled in stand-alone prescription drug plans, excluding low-income subsidy recipients. We estimated the association between a plan's OOP statin costs and statin utilization using an instrumental variable approach to account for potential bias due to plan selection. Adherence was defined as percentage of days covered (PDC) of at least 80 percent. Plan OOP costs were constructed for a representative market basket of statin medications. Analyses controlled for demographic characteristics, cardiovascular disease risk, co-morbidity presence, and regional characteristics.

Principal findings

About 67 percent of the sample had a PDC of at least 80 percent. An increase in annual statin OOP from $200 (50th percentile) to $240 (75th percentile) was associated with a reduction in the rate of adherent beneficiaries from 67 percent to 56 percent (p < .001).

Conclusions

Greater OOP costs for statins are associated with reductions in statin utilization.

SUBMITTER: Karaca-Mandic P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3725527 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association of Medicare Part D medication out-of-pocket costs with utilization of statin medications.

Karaca-Mandic Pinar P Swenson Tami T Abraham Jean M JM Kane Robert L RL

Health services research 20121226 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>To examine the association between statin out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and utilization among the Medicare Part D population.<h4>Data sources/study setting</h4>2006-2008 administrative claims and enrollment data for the 5 percent Medicare sample.<h4>Study design</h4>Sample included 346,583 beneficiary-year observations of statin users enrolled in stand-alone prescription drug plans, excluding low-income subsidy recipients. We estimated the association between a plan's OOP statin c ...[more]

PMID: 23278369

Similar Datasets

Project description:Information is limited regarding utilization patterns and costs for chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD) medications in Medicare Part D-enrolled dialysis patients.Retrospective cohort study.Annual cohorts of dialysis patients, 2007-2010.Cohort year, low-income subsidy status, and dialysis provider.Utilization and costs of prescription phosphate binders, oral and intravenous vitamin D analogues, and cinacalcet.Using logistic regression, we calculated adjusted odds of medication use for low-income subsidy versus non-low-income subsidy patients and for patients from various dialysis organizations, and we report per-member-per-month and average out-of-pocket costs.Phosphate binders (?83%) and intravenous vitamin D (77.5%-79.3%) were the most commonly used CKD-MBD medications in 2007 through 2010. The adjusted odds of prescription phosphate-binder, intravenous vitamin D, and cinacalcet use were significantly higher for low-income subsidy than for non-low-income subsidy patients. Total Part D versus CKD-MBD Part D medication costs increased 22% versus 36% from 2007 to 2010. For Part D-enrolled dialysis patients, CKD-MBD medications represented ?50% of overall net Part D costs in 2010.Inability to describe utilization and costs of calcium carbonate, an over-the-counter agent not covered under Medicare Part D; inability to reliably identify prescriptions filled through a non-Part D reimbursement or payment mechanism; findings may not apply to dialysis patients without Medicare Part D benefits or with Medicare Advantage plans, or to pediatric dialysis patients; could identify only prescription drugs dispensed in the outpatient setting; inability to adjust for MBD laboratory values.Part D net costs for CKD-MBD medications increased at a faster rate than costs for all Part D medications in dialysis patients despite relatively stable use within medication classes. In a bundled environment, there may be incentives to shift to generic phosphate binders and reduce cinacalcet use.

Project description:ImportancePrior research has documented the increase in prescription drug rebates and the coincident increase in out-of-pocket burden for patients paying coinsurance tied to list prices.ObjectiveTo describe the out-of-pocket burden on patients with coinsurance and assess its association with pharmaceutical competition, which increases payers' leverage to seek higher rebates.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used branded prescription drugs with US sales reported by publicly traded companies. The study included drugs with nonmissing, nonnegative rebates between 2014 and 2018 from SSR Health. Data analysis was conducted from June to December 2020.ExposuresLevel of branded and generic competition and calendar year.Main outcomes and measuresRetail price markup (ie, the ratio of rebate to net price) paid by patients at the point of sale and effective out-of-pocket share (ie, coinsurance multiplied by list price divided by net price) of a standard Part D plan. Trends in these outcomes were examined and then stratified by degree of competition.ResultsThere were 3322 unique National Drug Codes in the analysis, representing 232 distinct molecules from 138 therapeutic classes in 34 disease areas. The ratio of rebate to net prices was higher and increased faster for drugs with branded and generic competitors (from 83% to 172%) than for drugs with only branded competitors (from 61% to 115%) and those without generic equivalents (from 33% to 49%). Hypothetical patients paying standard Part D coinsurance on drug list prices would have experienced an effective out-of-pocket share increase from 48% to 64% in the initial coverage phase, and from 10% to 13% in the catastrophic coverage phase between 2014 and 2018. In the coverage gap, the share increased from 92% in 2014 to 98% in 2016 and then decreased to 90% in 2018. Compared with drugs with no competition, effective out-of-pocket share paid by patients grew 50% faster for drugs with branded competitors and 100% faster for those with branded and generic competitors.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found substantial increases in cost-sharing burden for patients paying coinsurance on drug list prices between 2014 and 2018, especially in markets with more pharmaceutical competition. Payers passing rebates through to patients at the point of sale could restore the benefits of competition and rebates.

Project description:ImportanceOne-third of US residents have trouble paying their medical bills. They often turn to their physicians for help navigating health costs and insurance coverage.ObjectiveTo determine whether physicians can accurately estimate out-of-pocket expenses when they are given all of the necessary information about a drug's price and a patient's insurance plan.Design, setting, and participantsThis national mail-in survey used a random sample of US physicians. The survey was sent to 900 outpatient physicians (300 each of primary care, gastroenterology, and rheumatology). Physicians were excluded if they were in training, worked primarily for the Veterans Administration or Indian Health Service, were retired, or reported 0% outpatient clinical effort. Analyses were performed from July to December 2020.Main outcomes and measuresIn a hypothetical vignette, a patient was prescribed a new drug costing $1000/month without insurance. A summary of her private insurance information was provided, including the plan's deductible, coinsurance rates, copays, and out-of-pocket maximum. Physicians were asked to estimate the drug's out-of-pocket cost at 4 time points between January and December, using the plan's 4 types of cost-sharing: (1) deductibles, (2) coinsurance, (3) copays, and (4) out-of-pocket maximums. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess differences in performance by specialty, adjusting for attitudes toward cost conversations, demographics, and clinical characteristics.ResultsThe response rate was 45% (405 of 900) and 371 respondents met inclusion criteria. Among the respondents included in this study, 59% (n = 220) identified as male, 23% (n = 84) as Asian, 3% (n = 12) as Black, 6% (n = 24) as Hispanic, and 58% (n = 216) as White; 30% (n = 112) were primary care physicians, 35% (n = 128) were gastroenterologists, and 35% (n = 131) were rheumatologists; and the mean (SD) age was 49 (10) years. Overall, 52% of physicians (n = 192) accurately estimated costs before the deductible was met, 62% (n = 228) accurately used coinsurance information, 61% (n = 224) accurately used copay information, and 57% (n = 210) accurately estimated costs once the out-of-pocket maximum was met. Only 21% (n = 78) of physicians answered all 4 questions correctly. Ability to estimate out-of-pocket costs was not associated with specialty, attitudes toward cost conversations, or clinic characteristics.Conclusions and relevanceThis survey study found that many US physicians have difficulty estimating out-of-pocket costs, even when they have access to their patients' insurance plans. The mechanics involved in calculating real-time out-of-pocket costs are complex. These findings suggest that increased price transparency and simpler insurance cost-sharing mechanisms are needed to enable informed cost conversations at the point of prescribing.

Project description:PURPOSE:To quantify costs of eye care providers' Medicare Part D prescribing patterns for ophthalmic medications and to estimate the potential savings of generic or therapeutic drug substitutions and price negotiation. DESIGN:Retrospective cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS:Eye care providers prescribing medications through Medicare Part D in 2013. METHODS:Medicare Part D 2013 prescriber public use file and summary file were used to calculate medication costs by physician specialty and drug. Savings from generic or therapeutic drug substitutions were estimated for brand drugs. The potential savings from price negotiation was estimated using drug prices negotiated by the United States Veterans Administration (USVA). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Total cost of brand and generic medications prescribed by eye care providers. RESULTS:Eye care providers accounted for $2.4 billion in total Medicare part D prescription drug costs and generated the highest percentage of brand name medication claims compared with all other providers. Brand medications accounted for a significantly higher proportion of monthly supplies by volume, and therefore, also by total cost for eye care providers compared with all other providers (38% vs. 23% by volume, P < 0.001; 79% vs. 56% by total cost, P < 0.001). The total cost attributable to eye care providers is driven by glaucoma medications, accounting for $1.2 billion (54% of total cost; 72% of total volume). The second costliest category, dry eye medications, was attributable mostly to a single medication, cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion (Restasis, Allergan, Irvine, CA), which has no generic alternative, accounting for $371 million (17% of total cost; 4% of total volume). If generic medications were substituted for brand medications when available, $148 million would be saved (7% savings); if generic and therapeutic substitutions were made, $882 million would be saved (42% savings). If Medicare negotiated the prices for ophthalmic medications at USVA rates, $1.09 billion would be saved (53% savings). CONCLUSIONS:Eye care providers prescribe more brand medications by volume than any other provider group. Efforts to reduce prescription expenditures by eye care providers should focus on increasing the use of generic medications, primarily through therapeutic substitutions. Policy changes enabling Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices could decrease costs to Medicare.

Project description:ImportanceLittle is known about how out-of-pocket burden differs between Medicare and commercial insurance for ultra-expensive drugs.ObjectiveTo investigate out-of-pocket spending for ultra-expensive drugs in the Medicare Part D program vs commercial insurance.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a retrospective, population-based cohort study of individuals using ultra-expensive drugs included in a 20% nationally random sample of prescription drug claims from Medicare Part D and individuals aged 45 to 64 years using ultra-expensive drugs included in a large national convenience sample of outpatient pharmaceutical claims from commercial insurance plans. Claims data from 2013 through 2019 were used, and data were analyzed in February 2023.Main outcomes and measuresClaims-weighted mean out-of-pocket spending per beneficiary per drug by insurance type, plan, and age.ResultsIn 2019, 37 324 and 24 159 individuals using ultra-expensive drugs were identified in the 20% Part D and commercial samples, respectively (mean [SD] age, 66.2 [11.7] years; 54.9% female). A statistically significant higher share of commercial enrollees vs Part D beneficiaries were female (61.0% vs 51.0%; P < .001), and a statistically significantly lower share were using 3 or more branded medications (28.7% vs 42.6%; P < .001). Mean out-of-pocket spending per beneficiary per drug in 2019 was $4478 in Part D (median [IQR], $4169 [$3369-$5947]) compared with $1821 for commercial (median [IQR], $1272 [$703-$1924]); these differences were statistically significant every year. Differences in out-of-pocket spending comparing commercial enrollees aged 60 to 64 years and Part D beneficiaries aged 65 to 69 years exhibited similar magnitudes and trends. By plan, mean out-of-pocket spending per beneficiary per drug in 2019 was $4301 (median [IQR], $4131 [$3000-$6048]) in Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MAPD) plans, $4575 (median [IQR], $4190 [$3305-$5799]) in stand-alone prescription drug plans (PDPs), $1208 (median [IQR], $752 [$317-$1240]) in health maintenance organization plans, $1569 (median [IQR], $838 [$481-$1472]) in preferred provider organization plans, and $4077 (median [IQR], $2882 [$1075-$4226]) in high-deductible health plans. There were no statistically significant differences between MAPD plans and stand-alone PDPs in any study year. Mean out-of-pocket spending was statistically significantly higher in MAPD plans compared with health maintenance organization plans and in stand-alone PDPs compared with preferred provider organization plans in each study year.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study demonstrated that the $2000 out-of-pocket cap included in the Inflation Reduction Act may substantially moderate the potential increase in spending faced by individuals who use ultra-expensive drugs when moving from commercial insurance to Part D coverage.

Dataset Information

Association of Medicare Part D medication out-of-pocket costs with utilization of statin medications.

Objectives

Data sources/study setting

Study design

Principal findings

Conclusions

Publications

Association of Medicare Part D medication out-of-pocket costs with utilization of statin medications.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets