Dataset Information

Changes in use of lipid-lowering medications among black and white dual enrollees with diabetes transitioning from Medicaid to Medicare Part D drug coverage.

ABSTRACT: The use of lipid-lowering agents is suboptimal among dual enrollees, particularly blacks.To determine whether the removal of restrictive drug caps under Medicare Part D reduced racial differences among dual enrollees with diabetes.An interrupted time series with comparison series design (ITS) cohort study.A total of 8895 black and white diabetes patients aged 18 years and older drawn from a nationally representative sample of fee-for-service dual enrollees (January 2004-December 2007) in states with and without drug caps before Part D.We examined the monthly (1) proportion of patients with any use of lipid-lowering therapies; and (2) intensity of use. Stratification measures included age (less than 65, 65 y and older), race (white vs. black), and sex.At baseline, lipid-lowering drug use was higher in no drug cap states (drug cap: 54.0% vs. nondrug cap: 66.8%) and among whites versus blacks (drug cap: 58.5% vs. 44.9%, no drug cap: 68.4% vs. 61.9%). In strict drug cap states only, Part D was associated with an increase in the proportion with any use [nonelderly: +0.07 absolute percentage points (95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.09), P<0.001; elderly: +0.08 (0.06-0.10), P<0.001] regardless of race. However, we found no evidence of a change in the white-black gap in the proportion of users despite the removal of a significant financial barrier.Medicare Part D was associated with increased use of lipid-lowering drugs, but racial gaps persisted. Understanding non-coverage-related barriers is critical in maximizing the potential benefits of coverage expansions for disparities reduction.

SUBMITTER: Adams AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4135389 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Changes in use of lipid-lowering medications among black and white dual enrollees with diabetes transitioning from Medicaid to Medicare Part D drug coverage.

Adams Alyce S AS Madden Jeanne M JM Zhang Fang F Soumerai Stephen B SB Gilden Dan D Griggs Jennifer J Trinacty Connie M CM Bishop Christine C Ross-Degnan Dennis D

Medical care 20140801 8

<h4>Background</h4>The use of lipid-lowering agents is suboptimal among dual enrollees, particularly blacks.<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine whether the removal of restrictive drug caps under Medicare Part D reduced racial differences among dual enrollees with diabetes.<h4>Research design</h4>An interrupted time series with comparison series design (ITS) cohort study.<h4>Subjects</h4>A total of 8895 black and white diabetes patients aged 18 years and older drawn from a nationally representative s ...[more]

PMID: 24988304

Similar Datasets

Project description:More than 1 in 5 disabled people with dual Medicare-Medicaid enrollment have schizophrenia or a bipolar disorder (ie, a serious mental illness). The effect of their transition from Medicaid drug coverage, which varies in generosity across states, to the Medicare Part D drug benefit is unknown. Many thousands make this transition annually.To determine the effect of transitioning from Medicaid drug benefits to Medicare Part D on medication use by patients with a serious mental illness and to determine the influence of Medicaid drug caps.In time-series analysis of continuously enrolled patient cohorts (2004-2007), we estimated changes in medication use before and after transitioning to Part D, comparing states that capped monthly prescription fills with states with no prescription limits. We used Medicaid and Medicare claims from a 5% national sample of community-dwelling, nonelderly disabled dual enrollees with schizophrenia (n?=?5554) or bipolar disorder (n?=?3675).Psychotropic treatments included antipsychotics for schizophrenia and antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, and lithium for bipolar disorder. We measured monthly rates of untreated illness, intensity of treatment, and overall prescription medication use.Prior to Part D, the prevalence of untreated illness among patients with a bipolar disorder was 30.0% in strict-cap states and 23.8% in no-cap states. In strict-cap states, the proportion of untreated patients decreased by 17.2% (relatively) 1 year after Part D, whereas there was no change in the proportion of untreated patients in no-cap states. For patients with schizophrenia, the untreated rate (20.6%) did not change in strict-cap states, yet it increased by 23.3% (from 11.6%) in no-cap states. Overall medication use increased substantially after Part D in strict-cap states: prescription fills were 35.5% higher among patients with a bipolar disorder and 17.7% higher than predicted among schizophrenic patients; overall use in no-cap states was unchanged in both cohorts.The effects of transitioning from Medicaid to Medicare Part D on essential treatment of serious mental illness vary by state. Transition to Part D in states with strict drug benefit limits may reduce rates of untreated illness among patients with bipolar disorders, who have high levels of overall medication use. Access to antipsychotic treatment may decrease after Part D for patients with a serious mental illness living in states with relatively generous uncapped Medicaid coverage.

Project description:ImportanceAdministrative records indicate that more than half of the 80 million Medicaid enrollees identify as belonging to a racial and ethnic minority group. Despite this, disparities within the Medicaid program remain understudied. For example, we know of no studies examining racial differences in Medicaid spending, a potential measure of how equitably state resources are allocated.ObjectivesTo examine whether and to what extent there are differences in health care spending and utilization between Black and White enrollees in Medicaid.Design setting and participantsThis cross-sectional study used calendar year 2016 administrative data from 3 state Medicaid programs and included 1 966 689 Black and White Medicaid enrollees. Analyses were performed between January 28, 2021, and October 18, 2021.ExposuresSelf-reported race.Main outcomes and measuresRates and racial differences in health care spending and utilization (including Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set [HEDIS] access measures).ResultsOf 1 966 689 Medicaid adults and children (mean [SD] age, 20.3 [17.1] years; 1 119 136 [56.9%] female), 867 183 (44.1%) self-identified as non-Hispanic Black and 1 099 506 (55.9%) self-identified as non-Hispanic White. Results were adjusted for age, sex, Medicaid eligibility category, zip code, health status, and usual source of care. On average, annual spending on Black adult (19 years or older) Medicaid enrollees was $317 (95% CI, $259-$375) lower than White enrollees, a 6% difference. Among children (18 years or younger), annual spending on Black enrollees was $256 (14%) lower (95% CI, $222-$290). Adult Black enrollees also had 19.3 (95% CI, 16.78-21.84), or 4%, fewer primary care encounters per 100 enrollees per year compared with White enrollees. Among children, the differences in primary care utilization were larger: Black enrollees had 90.1 (95% CI, 88.2-91.8) fewer primary care encounters per 100 enrollees per year compared with White enrollees, a 23% difference. Black enrollees had lower utilization of most other services, including high-value prescription drugs, but higher emergency department use and rates of HEDIS preventive screenings.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of US Medicaid enrollees in 3 states, Black enrollees generated lower spending and used fewer services, including primary care and recommended care for acute and chronic conditions, but had substantially higher emergency department use. While Black enrollees had higher rates of HEDIS preventive screenings, ensuring equitable access to all services in Medicaid must remain a national priority.

Project description:BackgroundSince 2005, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has required all Medicare Advantage (MA) plans to report prescribing rates of high risk medications (HRM).ObjectiveTo determine predictors of receipt of HRMs, as defined by the National Committee for Quality Assurance's "Drugs to Avoid in the Elderly" quality indicator, in a national sample of MA enrollees.Design and participantsRetrospective analysis of Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) data for 6,204,824 enrollees, aged 65 years or older, enrolled in 415 MA plans in 2009. To identify predictors of HRM use, we fit generalized linear models and modeled outcomes on the risk-difference scale.Main outcome measuresReceipt or non-receipt of one or two HRMs.Key resultsApproximately 21 % of MA enrollees received at least one HRM and 4.8 % received at least two. In fully adjusted models, females had a 10.6 (95 % CI: 10.0-11.2) higher percentage point rate of receipt than males, and residence in any of the Southern United States divisions was associated with a greater than 10 percentage point higher rate, as compared with the reference New England division. Higher rates were also observed among enrollees with low personal income (6.5 percentage points, 95 % CI: 5.5-7.5), relative to those without low income and those residing in areas in the lowest quintile of socioeconomic status (2.7 points, 95 % CI: 1.9-3.4) relative to persons residing in the highest quintile. Enrollees ? 85 years old, black enrollees, and other minority groups were less likely to receive these medications. Over 38 % of MA enrollees residing in the hospital referral region of Albany, Georgia received at least one HRM, a rate four times higher than the referral region with the lowest rate (Mason City, Iowa).ConclusionsUse of HRMs among MA enrollees varies widely by geographic region. Persons living in the Southern region of the U.S., whites, women, and persons of low personal income and socioeconomic status are more likely to receive HRMs.

Project description:Policy Points Only a small minority of new drugs in "nonprotected" classes are widely covered by Part D plans nationwide in the year after US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Part D plans frequently apply utilization management restrictions such as prior authorizations to newly approved drugs in both protected and nonprotected classes. Drug price influences both formulary inclusion (in nonprotected classes) and coverage restrictions (in both protected and nonprotected classes), while other drug characteristics such as therapeutic benefits are not consistently associated with formulary design. Plans do not seem to favor the minority of drugs that are determined to offer added therapeutic benefit over existing alternatives.ContextMedicare Part D is an outpatient prescription drug benefit for older Americans covering more than 46 million beneficiaries. Except for mandatory coverage for essentially all drugs in six protected classes, plans have substantial flexibility in how they design their formularies: which drugs are covered, which drugs are subject to restrictions, and what factors determine formulary placement. Our objective in this paper was to document the extent to which Part D plans limit coverage of newly approved drugs.MethodsWe examined the formulary design of 4,582 Part D plans from 2014 through 2018 and measured (1) the decision to cover newly approved drugs in nonprotected classes, (2) use of utilization management tools in protected and nonprotected classes, and (3) the association between plan design and drug-level characteristics such as 30-day cost, therapeutic benefit, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expedited regulatory pathway.FindingsThe FDA approved 109 new drugs predominantly used in outpatient settings between 2013 and 2017. Of these, 75 fell outside of the six protected drug classes. One-fifth of drugs in nonprotected classes (15 out of 75) were covered by more than half of plans during the first year after approval. Coverage was often conditional on utilization management strategies in both protected and nonprotected classes: only seven drugs (6%) were covered without prior authorization requirements in more than half of plans. Higher 30-day drug costs were associated with more widespread coverage in nonprotected classes: drugs that cost less than $150 for a 30-day course were covered by fewer than 20% of plans while those that cost more than $30,000 per 30 days were covered by more than 50% of plans. Plans were also more likely to implement utilization management tools on high-cost drugs in both protected and nonprotected classes. A higher proportion of plans implemented utilization management strategies on covered drugs with first-in-class status than drugs that were not first in class. Other drug characteristics, including availability of added therapeutic benefit and inclusion in FDA expedited regulatory approval, were not consistently associated with plan coverage or formulary restrictions.ConclusionsNewly approved drugs are frequently subject to formulary exclusions and restrictions in Medicare Part D. Ensuring that formulary design in Part D is linked closely to the therapeutic value of newly approved drugs would improve patients' welfare.

Dataset Information

Changes in use of lipid-lowering medications among black and white dual enrollees with diabetes transitioning from Medicaid to Medicare Part D drug coverage.

Publications

Changes in use of lipid-lowering medications among black and white dual enrollees with diabetes transitioning from Medicaid to Medicare Part D drug coverage.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets