Dataset Information

Responses to Medicare drug costs among near-poor versus subsidized beneficiaries.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:There is limited information on the protective value of Medicare Part D low-income subsidies (LIS). We compared responses to drug costs for LIS recipients with near-poor (?200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level) and higher income beneficiaries without the LIS. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING:Medicare Advantage beneficiaries in 2008. STUDY DESIGN:We examined three drug cost responses using multivariate logistic regression: cost-reducing behaviors (e.g., switching to generics), nonadherence (e.g., not refilling prescriptions), and financial stress (e.g., going without necessities). DATA COLLECTION:Telephone interviews in a stratified random sample (N = 1,201, 70 percent response rate). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:After adjustment, a comparable percentage of unsubsidized near-poor (26 percent) and higher income beneficiaries reported cost-reducing behaviors (23 percent, p = .63); fewer LIS beneficiaries reported cost-reducing behaviors (15 percent, p = .019 vs near-poor). Unsubsidized near-poor beneficiaries were more likely to reduce adherence (8.2 percent) than higher income (3.5 percent, p = .049) and LIS beneficiaries (3.1 percent, p = .027). Near-poor beneficiaries also more frequently experienced financial stress due to drug costs (20 percent) than higher income beneficiaries (11 percent, p = .050) and LIS beneficiaries (11 percent, p = .015). CONCLUSIONS:Low-income subsidies provide protection from drug cost-related nonadherence and financial stress. Beneficiaries just above the LIS income threshold are most at risk for these potentially adverse behaviors.

SUBMITTER: Fung V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3796106 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Responses to Medicare drug costs among near-poor versus subsidized beneficiaries.

Fung Vicki V Reed Mary M Price Mary M Brand Richard R Dow William H WH Newhouse Joseph P JP Hsu John J

Health services research 20130513 5

<h4>Objective</h4>There is limited information on the protective value of Medicare Part D low-income subsidies (LIS). We compared responses to drug costs for LIS recipients with near-poor (≤200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level) and higher income beneficiaries without the LIS.<h4>Data sources/study setting</h4>Medicare Advantage beneficiaries in 2008.<h4>Study design</h4>We examined three drug cost responses using multivariate logistic regression: cost-reducing behaviors (e.g., switching to g ...[more]

PMID: 23663197

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:IntroductionTargeted DMARD (tDMARD) use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) may increase whole-body insulin sensitivity. Evidence comparing the T2DM-related clinical and economic impact of abatacept versus other tDMARDs is limited. This study compared differences in T2DM-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in patients with RA and T2DM.MethodsThis retrospective study used 100% Medicare Fee-for-Service claims (parts A/B/D) to identify patients ≥ 65 age, diagnosed with RA and T2DM, and were either TNFi-experienced (switched from a TNFi to another tDMARD) or tDMARD-naïve, initiating their first tDMARD (abatacept, TNFi, or non-TNFi) between 2010 and 2017. Abatacept users were propensity-score (PS) matched to TNFi and other non-TNFi users separately on baseline demographics, comorbidities, medications, T2DM-related HCRU, and costs. Post-index follow-up: until discontinuation of index treatment, disenrollment, death, or end of study period, whichever occurred first. T2DM-related complications and HCRU were assessed. Costs were normalized to per-patient-per-month (PPPM) and inflated to 2019 US$.ResultsThe TNFi-experienced group included 2169 abatacept/TNFi and 2118 abatacept/other non-TNFi PS-matched pairs; the tDMARD-naïve group included 2667 abatacept/TNFi and 2247 abatacept/other non-TNFi PS-matched pairs. For TNFi-experienced patients, T2DM-related complication rates for inpatient settings PPPM trended lower for abatacept than TNFi (21 vs. 24, p = 0.046) and other non-TNFi groups (21 vs. 26; p < 0.0001). T2DM-related total costs PPPM for TNFi-experienced patients demonstrated lower trends for abatacept than TNFi ($489 vs. $594, p = 0.016) and other non-TNFi users ($493 vs. $606, p = 0.012).ConclusionsMedicare beneficiaries with RA and T2DM who switch to/initiate abatacept as their first tDMARD have directionally lower rates and costs of T2DM-related complications compared with patients switching to/initiating other tDMARDs. Abatacept treatment may help reduce clinical and economic burdens associated with T2DM in patients with RA.

Project description:Importance:The persistent shortage of dermatologists in the United States affects access to care and patient outcomes. Objective:To characterize the effect of geographic variations in dermatologist density on the provision of dermatology procedures within Medicare. Design, Setting, and Participants:This was a cross-sectional study using the 2013 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Database. Dermatology-related procedures were defined by the top 50 billing codes accounting for more than 95% of procedures billed by dermatologists. Billing codes corresponding to evaluation and monitoring visits and dermatopathology were excluded. Total costs were estimated from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services physician fee schedule, based on the nonfacility national payment amount with no modifiers. Nationally representative administrative database that includes 100% of charges billed by noninstitutional clinicians covered under Medicare Part B. A total of 10?391 dermatologists practicing within the 50 states and Washington, DC, were included. The Medicare-eligible population was defined as all persons 65 years or older. Exposures:Density of dermatologists, categorized into first (5.3 per 100?000 persons ?65 years) through fifth (54.8 per 100?000 persons ?65 years) quintiles. Main Outcomes and Measures:Utilization of dermatology procedures (mean volume per 100?000 persons ?65 years) and total cost (mean amount billed per person ?65 years) by clinician type across quintiles of dermatologist density. Results:In 2013, dermatologists billed Medicare for 28 million procedures costing $2.21 billion. Mean billed amount by dermatologists per person 65 years or older was $15.87 in the lowest-density quintile vs $92.02 in the highest-density quintile. This trend suggests that each interval increase of 10 dermatologists per 100?000 persons 65 years or older is correlated with a $14.81 increase in Medicare spending on dermatology procedures (95% CI, 8.28-21.34; P?=?.005). Utilization of these procedures differed among clinician types, with dermatologists largely performing destruction of premalignant lesions and PCPs primarily doing injections. Conclusions and Relevance:There is evidence of supply-sensitive variation in the provision of dermatology procedures for the Medicare-eligible population; higher dermatologist density is correlated with increased utilization of dermatology procedures and subsequent billed charges to Medicare. Further research is needed to determine the effect of such variations on outcomes and whether incentives can better align dermatologists with areas of clinical need.

Dataset Information

Responses to Medicare drug costs among near-poor versus subsidized beneficiaries.

Publications

Responses to Medicare drug costs among near-poor versus subsidized beneficiaries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure