Dataset Information

How Low-Income Subsidy Recipients Respond to Medicare Part D Cost Sharing.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To determine the magnitude and mechanisms of response to Medicare Part D cost sharing by low-income subsidy (LIS) recipients using oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) and statins.

Data sources

Medicare data for a 5 percent random sample of beneficiaries with diabetes enrolled in fee-for-service Part D drug plans in 2008.

Study design

We evaluated the impact of differences between generic and brand cost sharing rates among cohorts of LIS and non-LIS recipients to determine if wider price spreads increased the generic dispensing rate (GDR) and reduced total drug use and cost.

Principal findings

We found little association between cost sharing and aggregate OHA and statin use. In adjusted analyses, non-LIS beneficiaries who paid 46 percent of total OHA costs had 2.5 percent fewer OHA days supply than full benefit dual eligibles who paid just 5 percent of their therapy costs. For statins, the difference in days supply between those facing the lowest and highest cost sharing was 4.6 percent. Higher cost sharing was associated with filling fewer but larger prescriptions for both generics and brands.

Conclusions

Higher generic and brand copays had little association with OHA and statin use among LIS recipients. This implies that modest changes in required cost sharing for these medicines would have very little substantive impact on generic dispensing or utilization patterns among LIS recipients and thus would have little effect on total program spending. At the same time, any increases in out-of-pocket costs would be expected to shift costs and place greater financial burden on low-income beneficiaries, particularly those in poor health.

SUBMITTER: Stuart B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5441476 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How Low-Income Subsidy Recipients Respond to Medicare Part D Cost Sharing.

Stuart Bruce B Hendrick Franklin B FB Xu Jing J Dougherty J Samantha JS

Health services research 20160620 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine the magnitude and mechanisms of response to Medicare Part D cost sharing by low-income subsidy (LIS) recipients using oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) and statins.<h4>Data sources</h4>Medicare data for a 5 percent random sample of beneficiaries with diabetes enrolled in fee-for-service Part D drug plans in 2008.<h4>Study design</h4>We evaluated the impact of differences between generic and brand cost sharing rates among cohorts of LIS and non-LIS recipients to dete ...[more]

PMID: 27324201

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:Importance:The 2019 federal Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative requires a vast expansion of access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) and preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV treatment and prevention. However, high prices for ART and PrEP can reduce their affordability and use. Medicare covers 1 in 4 persons living with HIV, and the Medicare Part D drug benefit imposes complicated cost-sharing between patients and other stakeholders. Objective:To determine how the Medicare Part D design distributes the cost burden for ART and PrEP between patients, insurance plans, manufacturers, and Medicare. Design and Setting:Nationwide cross-sectional analyses of first quarter 2019 Medicare formulary and pricing files for 3326 Part D plans were performed. These files contain drug benefit data, including prices and cost-sharing requirements. Main Outcomes and Measures:For 18 ART and 2 PrEP regimens, the out-of-pocket costs for patients and the cost borne by plans, manufacturers, and Medicare were projected for 1 year of treatment or prevention under a 2019 standard Medicare Part D insurance plan. Analyses assumed that patients used the ART or PrEP regimen and no other medications. Results:In 2019, ART prices ranged from $24?010 to $46?770 annually (median price, $35?780), with patients projected to pay 9% to 14% of the cost ($3270-$4350), insurance plans 18% to 24% ($5340-$8450), manufacturers 6% to 11% ($2370-$2750), and Medicare 53% to 67% ($12?770-$31?270). The price of PrEP was $20?570 annually, with patients contributing 15% ($2990), insurance plans 22% ($4570), manufacturers 13% ($2750), and Medicare 50% ($10?260). For beneficiaries with low-income subsidies that cover all patient cost-sharing, Medicare would assume 67% to 76% of ART costs and 65% of PrEP costs. Conclusions and Relevance:Medicare Part D mandates universal ART and PrEP coverage, but high prices (>$35?000 annually for ART and>$20?000 annually for PrEP) and the design of Part D can jeopardize affordability for patients and place most of the cost burden on taxpayers. Under a standard Medicare Part D benefit, patients pay $3000 to $4000 out-of-pocket yearly, unless they qualify for low-income subsidies, and half to two-thirds of the cost of ART and PrEP is borne by Medicare rather than insurance plans or manufacturers. To end the HIV epidemic by 2030, it appears that policies must address both high drug prices and revamp Medicare Part D cost-sharing.

Project description:BACKGROUND:High out-of-pocket costs may impact anticancer treatment uptake. The Low-Income Subsidy (LIS) program can reduce patient out-of-pocket cost for Medicare Part D-covered treatments. We examined whether the LIS increased uptake and reduced time to initiate orally administered anticancer drugs in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS:Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, we identified older adults (aged 65 years and older) diagnosed with advanced NSCLC from 2007 through 2013 and categorized them as full LIS, partial LIS, or non-LIS. We used propensity-score weighted (IPTW) Cox proportional hazards regression to assess the likelihood of and time to initiate Part D treatments. Part B medication uptake was our negative control because supplemental insurance reduces out-of-pocket costs for those drugs. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS:Among 19 746 advanced NSCLC patients, approximately 10% initiated Part D treatments. Patients with partial or no LIS were less likely to initiate Part D treatments than were those with full subsidies (partial LIS vs full LIS HRIPTW = 0.77, 95% confidence interval?=?0.62 to 0.97; non-LIS vs full LIS HRIPTW = 0.87, 95% confidence interval ?=?0.79 to 0.95). Time to initiate Part D treatments was also slightly shorter among full-LIS patients (full LIS mean [SD] = 10.8 [0.04] months; partial LIS mean [SD] = 11.3 [0.08] months; and non-LIS mean [SD] = 11.1 [0.03] months, P < .001). Conversely, patients with partial or no LIS had shorter time to initiation of Part B drugs. CONCLUSIONS:Patients receiving the full LIS had higher orally administered anticancer treatment uptake than patients without LIS. Notably, patients with partial LIS had the lowest treatment uptake, likely because of their low incomes combined with high expected out-of-pocket spending. High out-of-pocket costs for Part D medications may be a barrier to treatment use for patients without full LIS.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough the Medicare Part D coverage gap phase-out should reduce cost-related nonadherence (CRN) among seniors with diabetes, preferential generic prescribing may have already decreased CRN, while smaller numbers of patients using more costly branded oral anti-diabetic (OAD) medications remain vulnerable to CRN.ObjectiveTo estimate the effects of cost sharing in the Part D standard (non-LIS) benefit on adherence to different OAD classes, comparing two classes dominated by inexpensive generic medications and two by more costly branded medications.Design and patientsRetrospective cohort study using dispensed prescription data for elderly non-LIS (N=81,047) and LIS (low-income subsidy) (N=150,359) beneficiaries using same class OAD(s) in 2008 and 2009. Logistic regression modeled non-LIS likelihood; LIS and non-LIS patients matched using propensity outcome (N=38,054). Logistic regression, controlling for demographic and health status characteristics, modeled effects of non-LIS coverage on 2009 OAD class adherence.Main measuresMain outcome measures were within-class OAD coverage year adherence, with patients considered adherent when days supplied to calendar days ratio at least 0.8.Key resultsNon-LIS patients had 0.52 and 0.57 times the odds of branded-only DPP-4 Inhibitor (N=1,812; 95 % CI: 0.43, 0.63; P<0.001) and Thiazolidinedione (TZD) (N=6,290; 95 % CI: 0.52, 0.63; P<0.001) adherence. Most patients (N=32,510; 82 %) used OADs in primarily generic classes, where we found no significant (Biguanides; N=21,377) or small differences (Sulfonylureas/Glinides [N=19,240; OR: 0.91; 95 % CI: 0.86, 0.97; P=0.002]) in adherence odds. Crude adherence rates were sub-optimal when CRN was not a factor (Non-LIS/LIS: Biguanides: 65 %/65 %; Sulfonylureas/Glinides: 66 %/68 %; LIS: DPP-4 Inhibitors: 66 %; TZDs: 67 %).ConclusionsGap elimination would not affect generic, but should reduce branded OAD CRN. Branded copayments may continue to lead to CRN. Policy initiatives and benefit changes targeting both cost deterrents for patients with more complex disease and non-cost generic OAD underuse are recommended.

Project description:ImportanceThe US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has proposed to reform drug pricing in Medicare Part B, which primarily covers physician-administered drugs and biologic agents. One HHS proposal would shift coverage of certain drugs from Medicare Part B to Part D, which is administered by private prescription drug plans.ObjectiveTo estimate the association of changes of a shift in Medicare Part B to Part D with total drug spending and patient cost-sharing.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective drug cohort study of the 75 brand-name drugs associated with the highest Part B expenditures among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in 2016.Main outcomes and measuresEstimated total Medicare spending in Part B and Part D; annual out-of-pocket costs in Part B and under the standard 2018 Part D benefit; and proportion of drugs in Part D's protected drug classes (immunosuppressants for prophylaxis of organ transplant rejection, antidepressants, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, antiretrovirals, and antineoplastics).ResultsAt 2018 prices, total Medicare Part B spending for the 75 brand-name drugs with the highest Part B expenditures was estimated to be $21.6 billion annually. Under the proposed policy, total Part D drug spending for these drugs was estimated to range between $17.6 billion and $20.1 billion after rebates, corresponding to a 6.9% to 18.3% decrease in drug spending in Part D compared with Part B. Of the 75 drugs studied, 33 (44.0%) drugs, accounting for $9.5 billion (43.9%) in Part B spending, were in protected Part D classes where plans must cover essentially all drugs. For 67 drugs with available information, the prices for 65 (97.0%) were a median of 45.8% to 59.7% lower in comparator high-income countries than Part B drug prices. Median patient cost-sharing in Part B for all 75 brand-name drugs was $4683 (interquartile range [IQR], $1069-$9282) per year. Shifting Part B drugs to the 2018 standard Part D benefit was projected to decrease out-of-pocket costs by a median of $860 (IQR, -$3884 to $496) among Medicare beneficiaries without Medicaid or Part B supplemental insurance (Medigap). For beneficiaries who would qualify for the low-income subsidy program in Part D, cost-sharing would be lower in Part D than in Part B for all drugs. For beneficiaries with Medigap insurance, estimated Part D out-of-pocket costs exceeded average Medigap premium costs by a median of $1460 for those with Part D coverage and by a median of $1952 for those without Part D coverage.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough the HHS proposal to shift certain drugs from Medicare Part B to Part D may reduce total drug spending, it may increase out-of-pocket costs for some Medicare beneficiaries, including those with Medicare supplement insurance. The Department of Health and Human Services should ensure that the proposed reforms benefit both patients and payers.

Project description:BackgroundCoronary stenting in patients on dialysis has increased by nearly 50% over the past decade, despite heightened risks of associated stent thrombosis and bleeding relative to the general population. We examined clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticlopidine use after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting in patients on dialysis. We conducted 3-, 6-, and 12-month landmark analyses to test the hypothesis that thienopyridine discontinuation prior to those time points would be associated with higher risks of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization, and a lower risk of major bleeding episodes compared with continued thienopyridine use.Methods and resultsUsing the US Renal Data System, we identified 8458 patients on dialysis with Medicare Parts A+B+D undergoing PCI with stenting between July 2007 and December 2010. Ninety-nine percent of all thienopyridine prescriptions were for clopidogrel. At 3 months, 82% of patients who received drug-eluting stents (DES) had evidence of thienopyridine use. These proportions fell to 62% and 40% at 6 and 12 months, respectively. In patients who received a bare-metal stent (BMS), 70%, 34%, and 26% of patients had evidence of thienopyridine use at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. In patients who received a DES, there was a suggestion of higher risks of death or myocardial infarction associated with thienopyridine discontinuation in the 3-, 6-, and 12-months landmark analyses, but no higher risk of major bleeding episodes. In patients who received a BMS, there were no differences in death or cardiovascular events, and possibly lower risk of major bleeding with thienopyridine discontinuation in the 3- and 6-month landmark analyses.ConclusionsThe majority of patients on dialysis who undergo PCI discontinue thienopyridines before 1 year regardless of stent type. While not definitive, these data suggest that longer-term thienopyridine use may be of benefit to patients on dialysis who undergo PCI with DES.

Dataset Information

How Low-Income Subsidy Recipients Respond to Medicare Part D Cost Sharing.

Objectives

Data sources

Study design

Principal findings

Conclusions

Publications

How Low-Income Subsidy Recipients Respond to Medicare Part D Cost Sharing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets