Changes in use of lipid-lowering medications among black and white dual enrollees with diabetes transitioning from Medicaid to Medicare Part D drug coverage.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Adams AS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4135389 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:To evaluate medication use, out-of-pocket spending, and medication switching during the transition period for patients dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare (dual eligibles).Time-trend analysis, using segmented linear regression.Patient-level pharmacy dispensing data from January 2005 to December 2006 from a large pharmacy chain with stores in 34 states.Dual eligibles aged 65 and older.Changes in utilization, patient copayments, and medication switching were analyzed using interrupted time trend analyses. Utilization and spending were evaluated for five study drugs: clopidogrel, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), warfarin, and statins (essential drugs covered by Part D plans) and benzodiazepines (not covered through Part D but potentially covered through Medicaid).Drug use for 13,032 dual eligibles was evaluated. There was no significant effect of the transition to Medicare Part D on use of all study drugs, including the uncovered benzodiazepines. Cumulative reductions were seen in copayments for all covered drugs after implementation of Part D, ranging from 25% annually for PPIs to 53% for warfarin, but there was a larger increase in copayments, 91% annually, for benzodiazepines after the transition. The rate of switching medications was 3.0 times as great for the PPIs after implementation of Part D than before implementation, but there was no significant change in the other study drug classes.These findings in a single, large pharmacy chain indicate that the transition plan for dual eligibles led to less medication discontinuation and switching than many had expected. The substantially greater cost sharing for benzodiazepines highlights the importance of implementing a thoughtful transition plan when executing such a national policy.
| S-EPMC2607038 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4505620 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9187949 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo develop the first longitudinal database of state Medicaid policies for paying the cost sharing in Medicare Part B for services provided to dual Medicare-Medicaid enrollees ("duals") and an index summarizing the impact of these policies on payments for physician office services.Data sourcesMedicaid policy data collected from electronic sources and inquiries with states.Study designWe constructed a national database of Medicaid payment policies for the period 2004-2018, consolidating information from online Medicaid policy documents, state laws, and policy data reported to us by state Medicaid programs. Using this database and state Medicaid fee schedules, we constructed a Medicaid payment index for duals. This index represented the proportion of the Medicare allowed amount that physicians would expect to be paid from Medicare and Medicaid for a subset of physician office services (evaluation and management services) based on annual state payment policies and Medicaid fee schedules.Principal findingsIn 2018, 42 states had policies to limit Medicaid payments of Medicare cost sharing when Medicaid's fee schedule was lower than Medicare's-an increase from 36 such states in 2004. In the preponderance of states with these policies, combined Medicare and Medicaid payments for evaluation and management services provided to duals averaged 78 percent of the Medicare allowed amount for these services, reflecting relatively low Medicaid fee schedules in these states. In 2013 and 2014, physicians who qualified for the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid "fee bump" were paid 100 percent of the Medicare allowed amount for these services.ConclusionsMedicaid programs vary across states and over time in their payments of cost sharing for physician office services provided to duals. Our database and index can facilitate monitoring of these policies and research on the consequences of policy changes for duals.
| S-EPMC7518808 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3599014 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9205672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine between-state differences in the socioeconomic and health characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries dually enrolled in Medicaid, focusing on characteristics not observable to or used by policy makers for risk adjustment.Data source2010-2013 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey.Study designRetrospective analyses of survey-reported health and socioeconomic status (SES) measures among low-income Medicare beneficiaries and low-income dual enrollees. We used hierarchical linear regression models with state random effects to estimate the between-state variation in respondent characteristics and linear models to compare the characteristics of dual enrollees by state Medicaid policies.Principal findingsBetween-state differences in health and socioeconomic risk among low-income Medicare beneficiaries, as measured by the coefficient of variation, ranged from 17.5 percent for an index of socioeconomic risk to 20.3 percent for an index of health risk. Between-state differences were comparable among the subset of low-income beneficiaries dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid. Dual enrollees with incomes below the Federal Poverty Level were in better health and had higher SES in states that offered Medicaid to individuals with relatively higher incomes. Duals' average incomes were higher in states with Medically Needy programs.ConclusionsCharacteristics of dual enrollees differ substantially across states, reflecting differences in states' low-income Medicare populations and Medicaid policies. Risk-adjustment methods using dual enrollment to proxy for poor health and low SES should account for this state-level heterogeneity.
| S-EPMC6863237 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMen who have sex with men with HIV have high sexually transmitted infection (STI) incidence. Thus, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends at least yearly STI screening of HIV-infected individuals.MethodsWe calculated testing rates for syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea among HIV-positive Californians with Medicare or Medicaid insurance in 2010. Logistic regressions estimated how testing for each bacterial STI relates to demographic and provider factors.ResultsFewer than two-thirds of HIV-positive Medicare and fewer than three-quarters of Medicaid enrollees received a syphilis test in 2010. Screenings for chlamydia or gonorrhea were less frequent: approximately 30% of Medicare enrollees were tested for chlamydia or gonorrhea in 2010, but higher proportions of Medicaid enrollees were tested (45%-46%). Only 34% of HIV-positive Medicare enrollees who were tested for syphilis were also screened for chlamydia or gonorrhea on the same day. Nearly half of Medicaid enrollees were tested for all 3 STIs on the same day. Patients whose providers had more HIV experience had higher STI testing rates.ConclusionsTesting rates for chlamydia and gonorrhea infection are low, despite the increase in these infections among people living with HIV and their close association with HIV transmission. Interventions to increase STI testing include the following: prompts in the medical record to routinely conduct syphilis testing on blood drawn for viral load monitoring, opt-out consent for STI testing, and provider education about the clinical importance of STIs among HIV-positive patients. Last, it is crucial to change financial incentives that discourage nucleic acid amplification testing for rectal chlamydia and gonorrhea infections.
| S-EPMC5737450 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the effect of Part D on 65-78-year-old noninstitutionalized dual eligibles' prescription utilization and expenditures.Data sourceRandom sample of unique pharmacy customers of a national retail pharmacy chain who filled at least one prescription during both 2005 and 2006. For each subject, we obtained claims data for every prescription filled between January 1, 2005, and April 31, 2007.Study designGeneralized estimating equations were used to examine the experience of a "treatment" group (dual eligibles between 65 and 78 years on January 1, 2005) with that of a "control" group (near-elderly patients with Medicaid coverage between 60 and 63 years on January 1, 2005) during the first 18 months after Part D implementation.Principal findingsExpenditures for the treatment and control groups tracked each other closely in the pre-Part D period. Immediately following the implementation of Part D, expenditures for both groups decreased and then leveled off. There were no significant changes in trends in the dual eligibles' out-of-pocket expenditures, total monthly expenditures, pill-days, or total number of prescriptions due to Part D.ConclusionsWe find no evidence that Part D adversely affected pharmaceutical utilization or out-of-pocket expenditures of dual eligibles during the transition period, nor during the 16 months subsequent to Part D implementation.
| S-EPMC2813441 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine opioid prescribing frequency and trends to Medicare Part D enrollees from 2013 to 2017 by medical specialty and provider type.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional, specialty- and provider-level analysis of Medicare Part D prescriber data for opioid claims from 2013 to 2017. We analyzed opioid claims and prescribing trends for specialties accounting for ?1% of all opioid claims.ResultsFrom 2013 to 2017, pain management providers increased Medicare Part D opioid claims by 27.3% to 1,140 mean claims per provider in 2017; physical medicine and rehabilitation providers increased opioid claims 16.9% to 511 mean claims per provider in 2017. Every other medical specialty decreased opioid claims over this period, with emergency medicine (-19.9%) and orthopedic surgery (-16.0%) dropping opioid claims more than any specialty. Physicians overall decreased opioid claims per provider by -5.2%. Meanwhile, opioid claims among both dentists (+5.6%) and nonphysician providers (+10.2%) increased during this period.ConclusionsFrom 2013 to 2017, pain management and PMR increased opioid claims to Medicare Part D enrollees, whereas physicians in every other specialty decreased opioid prescribing. Dentists and nonphysician providers also increased opioid prescribing. Overall, opioid claims to Medicare Part D enrollees decreased and continue to drop at faster rates.
| S-EPMC7820360 | biostudies-literature