Dataset Information

Has Medicare Part D reduced racial/ethnic disparities in prescription drug use and spending?

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate whether Medicare Part D has reduced racial/ethnic disparities in prescription drug utilization and spending.

Data

Nationally representative data on white, African American, and Hispanic Medicare seniors from the 2002-2009 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey are analyzed. Five measures are examined: filling any prescriptions during the year, the number of prescriptions filled, total annual prescription spending, annual out-of-pocket prescription spending, and average copay level.

Study design

We apply the Institute of Medicine's definition of a racial/ethnic disparity and adopt a difference-in-difference-in-differences (DDD) estimator using a multivariate regression framework. The treatment group consists of Medicare seniors, the comparison group, adults without Medicare aged 55-63 years.

Principal findings

Difference-in-difference-in-differences estimates suggest that for African Americans Part D increased the disparity in annual spending on prescription drugs by $258 (p=.011), yet had no effect on other measures of prescription drug disparities. For Hispanics, DDD estimates suggest that the program reduced the disparities in annual number of prescriptions filled, annual total and out-of-pocket spending on prescription drugs by 2.9 (p=.077), $282 (p=.019) and $143 (p<.001), respectively.

Conclusion

Medicare Part D had mixed effects. Although it reduced Hispanic/white disparities related to prescription drugs among seniors, it increased the African American/white disparity in total annual spending on prescription drugs.

SUBMITTER: Mahmoudi E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3976184 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Has Medicare Part D reduced racial/ethnic disparities in prescription drug use and spending?

Mahmoudi Elham E Jensen Gail A GA

Health services research 20130918 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate whether Medicare Part D has reduced racial/ethnic disparities in prescription drug utilization and spending.<h4>Data</h4>Nationally representative data on white, African American, and Hispanic Medicare seniors from the 2002-2009 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey are analyzed. Five measures are examined: filling any prescriptions during the year, the number of prescriptions filled, total annual prescription spending, annual out-of-pocket prescription spending, and ave ...[more]

PMID: 24102408

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidy (LIS) program provides millions of beneficiaries with drug plan premium and cost-sharing assistance. The extent to which LIS recipients experience subsidy losses with annual redetermination cycles and the resulting associations with prescription drug affordability and use are unknown.ObjectiveTo examine how frequently annual LIS benefits are lost among Medicare Part D beneficiaries and how this is associated with prescription drug use and out-of-pocket costs.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cohort study of Medicare Part D beneficiaries from 2007 to 2018, annual changes in LIS recipients among those automatically deemed eligible (eg, due to dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid) and nondeemed beneficiaries who must apply for LIS benefits were analyzed using Medicare enrollment and Part D event data. Subsidy losses were classified in 4 groups: temporary losses (<1 year); extended losses (≥1 year); subsidy reductions (change to partial LIS); and disenrollment from Medicare Part D after subsidy loss. Temporary losses could more likely represent subsidy losses among eligible beneficiaries. Multinomial logit models were used to examine associations between beneficiary characteristics and subsidy loss; linear regression models were used to compare changes in prescription drug cost and use in the months after subsidy losses vs before. Analyses were conducted between November 2022 and November 2023.ExposureSubsidy loss at the beginning of each year among subsidy recipients in December of the prior year.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were out-of-pocket costs and prescription drug fills overall and for 4 classes: antidiabetes, antilipid, antidepressant, and antipsychotic drugs.ResultsIn 2008, 731 070 full LIS beneficiaries (17%) were not deemed automatically eligible (39% were aged <65 years; 59% were female). Nearly all beneficiaries deemed automatically eligible (≥99%) retained the subsidy annually from 2007 to 2018, compared with 78% to 84% of nondeemed beneficiaries. Among nondeemed beneficiaries, disabled individuals younger than 65 years and racial and ethnic minority groups were more likely to have temporary subsidy losses vs none. Temporary losses were associated with an average 700% increase in out-of-pocket drug costs (+$52.72/mo [95% CI, 52.52-52.92]) and 15% reductions in prescription fills (-0.58 fills/mo [95% CI, -0.59 to -0.57]) overall. Similar changes were found for antidiabetes, antilipid, antidepressant, and antipsychotic prescription drug classes. Beneficiaries who retained their subsidy had few changes.Conclusions and relevanceThe conclusions of this cohort study suggest that efforts to help eligible beneficiaries retain Medicare Part D subsidies could improve drug affordability, treatment adherence, and reduce disparities in medication access.

Project description:BackgroundSubstantial research has documented inequalities between US minorities and whites in meeting the eligibility criteria for the Medicare Part D medication therapy management (MTM) program. Even though the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services attempted to relax the eligibility criteria, a critical barrier to effective MTM reform is a lack of stronger evidence about the effects of MTM on minorities' health outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine the effects of comprehensive medication review (CMR), an MTM core component, on racial and ethnic disparities in adherence to diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia medications among Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years.MethodsThis study used full-year 2017 Medicare Parts A, B, and D claims data, including MTM data, linked to the Area Health Resources Files. Racial and ethnic disparities in nonadherence to diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia medications were compared between CMR recipients and nonrecipients matched by their propensity scores. To determine the changes in racial and ethnic disparities after receiving CMR, a difference-in-differences framework was applied, by including in logistic regression analyses interaction terms between dummy variables for CMR receipt and each racial or ethnic minority group.ResultsCompared with CMR nonrecipients, CMR recipients had significantly lower racial and ethnic disparities across the 3 outcome measures, with the exception of the difference between whites and blacks in nonadherence to diabetes medications. For example, compared with CMR nonrecipients, among CMR recipients the differences in the odds of nonadherence to hypertension medications were reduced, respectively, by 8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-0.96) between whites and blacks; by 18% (95% CI, 0.78-0.86) between whites and Hispanics; by 16% (95% CI, 0.77-0.91) between whites and Asians; and by 9% (95% CI, 0.85-0.98) between whites and other racial and ethnic groups.ConclusionReceiving a CMR reduced the racial and ethnic disparities in adherence to diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia medications among Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years. These findings provide critical empirical evidence that may inform the future design of the Medicare Part D MTM program, which is valuable for improving pharmacotherapy outcomes and could further realize its potential when additional people from racial and ethnic minorities are enrolled.

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.

Project description:BackgroundDifferences in the control of blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose among the various racial and ethnic groups of Medicare enrollees may contribute to persistent disparities in health outcomes.MethodsAmong elderly enrollees in Medicare Advantage health plans in 2011 who had hypertension (94,171 persons), cardiovascular disease (112,039), or diabetes (105,848), we compared the respective age-and-sex-adjusted proportions with blood pressure lower than 140/90 mm Hg, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels below 100 mg per deciliter (2.6 mmol per liter), and a glycated hemoglobin value of 9.0% or lower, according to race or ethnic group. Comparisons were made nationally and within regions and health plans, and changes since 2006 were assessed.ResultsBlack enrollees in 2006 and 2011 were substantially less likely than white enrollees to have adequate control of blood pressure (adjusted absolute differences in proportions of enrollees in the 2 years, 7.9 percentage points and 10.3 percentage points, respectively), cholesterol (11.4 percentage points and 10.2 percentage points, respectively), and glycated hemoglobin (10.1 percentage points and 9.4 percentage points, respectively) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Differing distributions of enrollees among health plans accounted for 39 to 59% of observed disparities in 2011. These differences persisted in 2011 in the Northeast, Midwest, and South (6.9 to 14.1 percentage points, P<0.001 for all comparisons) but were eliminated in the West for all three measures (<1.5 percentage points, P≥0.15). Hispanic enrollees were less likely than whites in 2011 to have adequate control of blood pressure (adjusted difference, 1.6 percentage points), cholesterol (adjusted difference, 1.0 percentage points), and glycated hemoglobin (adjusted difference, 3.4 percentage points) (P≤0.02 for all comparisons). Asians and Pacific Islanders were more likely than whites to have adequate control of blood pressure (difference, 4.4 percentage points; P<0.001) and cholesterol (5.5 percentage points, P<0.001) and had similar control of glycated hemoglobin (0.3 percentage points, P=0.63).ConclusionsDisparities in control of blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose have not improved nationally for blacks in Medicare Advantage plans, but these disparities were eliminated in the West in 2011. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging.).

Project description:BackgroundSources of regional variation in spending for prescription drugs under Medicare Part D are poorly understood, and such variation may reflect differences in health status, use of effective treatments, or selection of branded drugs over lower-cost generics.MethodsWe analyzed 2008 Medicare data for 4.7 million beneficiaries for prescription-drug use and expenditures overall and in three drug categories: angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins), and selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). Differences in per capita expenditures across hospital-referral regions (HRRs) were decomposed into annual prescription volume and cost per prescription. The ratio of prescriptions filled as branded drugs to all prescriptions filled was calculated. We adjusted all measures for demographic, socioeconomic, and health-status differences.ResultsMean adjusted per capita pharmaceutical spending ranged from $2,413 in the lowest to $3,008 in the highest quintile of HRRs. Most (75.9%) of that difference was attributable to the cost per prescription ($53 vs. $63). Regional differences in cost per prescription explained 87.5% of expenditure variation for ACE inhibitors and ARBs and 56.3% for statins but only 36.1% for SSRIs and SNRIs. The ratio of branded-drug to total prescriptions, which correlated highly with cost per prescription, ranged across HRRs from 0.24 to 0.45 overall and from 0.24 to 0.55 for ACE inhibitors and ARBs, 0.29 to 0.60 for statins, and 0.15 to 0.51 for SSRIs and SNRIs.ConclusionsRegional variation in Medicare Part D spending results largely from differences in the cost of drugs selected rather than prescription volume. A reduction in branded-drug use in some regions through modification of Part D plan benefits might lower costs without reducing quality of care. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others.).

Dataset Information

Has Medicare Part D reduced racial/ethnic disparities in prescription drug use and spending?

Objective

Data

Study design

Principal findings

Conclusion

Publications

Has Medicare Part D reduced racial/ethnic disparities in prescription drug use and spending?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets