Dataset Information

Brand Medications and Medicare Part D: How Eye Care Providers' Prescribing Patterns Influence Costs.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:To quantify costs of eye care providers' Medicare Part D prescribing patterns for ophthalmic medications and to estimate the potential savings of generic or therapeutic drug substitutions and price negotiation. DESIGN:Retrospective cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS:Eye care providers prescribing medications through Medicare Part D in 2013. METHODS:Medicare Part D 2013 prescriber public use file and summary file were used to calculate medication costs by physician specialty and drug. Savings from generic or therapeutic drug substitutions were estimated for brand drugs. The potential savings from price negotiation was estimated using drug prices negotiated by the United States Veterans Administration (USVA). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Total cost of brand and generic medications prescribed by eye care providers. RESULTS:Eye care providers accounted for $2.4 billion in total Medicare part D prescription drug costs and generated the highest percentage of brand name medication claims compared with all other providers. Brand medications accounted for a significantly higher proportion of monthly supplies by volume, and therefore, also by total cost for eye care providers compared with all other providers (38% vs. 23% by volume, P < 0.001; 79% vs. 56% by total cost, P < 0.001). The total cost attributable to eye care providers is driven by glaucoma medications, accounting for $1.2 billion (54% of total cost; 72% of total volume). The second costliest category, dry eye medications, was attributable mostly to a single medication, cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion (Restasis, Allergan, Irvine, CA), which has no generic alternative, accounting for $371 million (17% of total cost; 4% of total volume). If generic medications were substituted for brand medications when available, $148 million would be saved (7% savings); if generic and therapeutic substitutions were made, $882 million would be saved (42% savings). If Medicare negotiated the prices for ophthalmic medications at USVA rates, $1.09 billion would be saved (53% savings). CONCLUSIONS:Eye care providers prescribe more brand medications by volume than any other provider group. Efforts to reduce prescription expenditures by eye care providers should focus on increasing the use of generic medications, primarily through therapeutic substitutions. Policy changes enabling Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices could decrease costs to Medicare.

SUBMITTER: Newman-Casey PA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5732892 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Brand Medications and Medicare Part D: How Eye Care Providers' Prescribing Patterns Influence Costs.

Newman-Casey Paula Anne PA Woodward Maria A MA Niziol Leslie M LM Lee Paul P PP De Lott Lindsey B LB De Lott Lindsey B LB

Ophthalmology 20170616 3

<h4>Purpose</h4>To quantify costs of eye care providers' Medicare Part D prescribing patterns for ophthalmic medications and to estimate the potential savings of generic or therapeutic drug substitutions and price negotiation.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective cross-sectional study.<h4>Participants</h4>Eye care providers prescribing medications through Medicare Part D in 2013.<h4>Methods</h4>Medicare Part D 2013 prescriber public use file and summary file were used to calculate medication costs by phy ...[more]

PMID: 28625684

Similar Datasets

Project description:Information is limited regarding utilization patterns and costs for chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD) medications in Medicare Part D-enrolled dialysis patients.Retrospective cohort study.Annual cohorts of dialysis patients, 2007-2010.Cohort year, low-income subsidy status, and dialysis provider.Utilization and costs of prescription phosphate binders, oral and intravenous vitamin D analogues, and cinacalcet.Using logistic regression, we calculated adjusted odds of medication use for low-income subsidy versus non-low-income subsidy patients and for patients from various dialysis organizations, and we report per-member-per-month and average out-of-pocket costs.Phosphate binders (?83%) and intravenous vitamin D (77.5%-79.3%) were the most commonly used CKD-MBD medications in 2007 through 2010. The adjusted odds of prescription phosphate-binder, intravenous vitamin D, and cinacalcet use were significantly higher for low-income subsidy than for non-low-income subsidy patients. Total Part D versus CKD-MBD Part D medication costs increased 22% versus 36% from 2007 to 2010. For Part D-enrolled dialysis patients, CKD-MBD medications represented ?50% of overall net Part D costs in 2010.Inability to describe utilization and costs of calcium carbonate, an over-the-counter agent not covered under Medicare Part D; inability to reliably identify prescriptions filled through a non-Part D reimbursement or payment mechanism; findings may not apply to dialysis patients without Medicare Part D benefits or with Medicare Advantage plans, or to pediatric dialysis patients; could identify only prescription drugs dispensed in the outpatient setting; inability to adjust for MBD laboratory values.Part D net costs for CKD-MBD medications increased at a faster rate than costs for all Part D medications in dialysis patients despite relatively stable use within medication classes. In a bundled environment, there may be incentives to shift to generic phosphate binders and reduce cinacalcet use.

Project description:ImportanceIn response to the opioid epidemic, policies aiming to reduce opioid prescribing, misuse, and abuse may have the unintended consequence of restricting access to necessary opioid therapy for cancer-related pain. It is unknown how opioid prescribing patterns have changed among generalists and oncologists during this era.ObjectiveTo examine trends in opioid prescription rates for Medicare Part D beneficiaries from 2013 to 2017 among oncologists and generalists.Design, setting, and participantsThis repeated cross-sectional study of generalist physicians (internal medicine, family medicine, geriatric medicine, general practice) and oncology specialists (medical oncology, hematology-oncology, and radiation oncology) analyzed the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Part D prescriber files from 2013 to 2017.ExposuresGeneralist vs oncology specialty.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes included physician-level rates of both opioid and long-acting opioid prescriptions per 100 Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Poisson regression was used to estimate annual predicted outcome rates and incidence rate ratios, adjusting for prescriber characteristics and state fixed effects.ResultsWe analyzed the prescribing patterns of 251 820 generalists and 14 210 oncologists. From 2013 to 2017, the annual adjusted predicted mean rate of opioid prescriptions per 100 Medicare beneficiaries decreased from 68.2 to 49.7 among generalists (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.73-0.73) and from 77.8 to 58.8 among oncologists (aIRR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.74-0.77). The rate of long-acting opioid prescriptions per 100 Medicare beneficiaries also decreased from 8.0 to 5.4 for generalists (aIRR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.66-0.68) and from 18.6 to 13.3 for oncologists (aIRR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.69-0.74).Conclusions and relevanceWe found large declines in opioid prescription rates for Medicare beneficiaries by generalists and oncologists from 2013 to 2017. Opioid policy and advocacy appear to have been effective in reducing the extent of opioid prescribing in the Medicare population. Similar declines between generalists and oncologists raise concern that access to cancer pain management may have been inadvertently restricted. How much of the decrease in prescribing by oncologists is appropriate vs inappropriate deserves further investigation.

Project description:ImportanceRising pharmaceutical costs in the United States are an increasing source of financial burden for payers and patients. Although topical steroids are among the most commonly prescribed medications in dermatology, there are limited data on steroid-related spending and utilization.ObjectiveTo characterize Medicare and patient out-of-pocket costs for topical steroids, and to model potential savings that could result from substitution of the cheapest topical steroid from the corresponding potency class.Design, setting, and participantsThis study was a retrospective cost analysis of the Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use File, which details annual drug utilization and spending on both generic and branded drugs from 2011 to 2015 by Medicare Part D participants who filled prescriptions for topical steroids.Main outcomes and measuresTotal and potential Medicare and out-of-pocket patient spending. Costs were adjusted for inflation and reported in 2015 dollars.ResultsMedicare Part D expenditures on topical steroids between 2011 and 2015 were $2.3 billion. Patients' out-of-pocket spending for topical steroids over the same period was $333.7 million. The total annual spending increased from $237.6 million to $775.9 million, an increase of 226.5%. Patients' annual out-of-pocket spending increased from $41.4 million to $101.8 million, an increase of 145.9%. The total number of prescriptions were 7.7 million in 2011 and 10.6 million in 2015, an increase of 37.0%. Generic medication costs accounted for 97.8% of the total spending during this time period. The potential health care savings and out-of-pocket patient savings from substitution of the cheapest topical steroid within the corresponding potency class were $944.8 million and $66.6 million, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceMost topical steroids prescribed were generic drugs. There has been a sharp increase in Medicare and out-of-pocket spending on topical steroids that is driven by higher costs for generics. Use of clinical decision support tools to enable substitution of the most affordable generic topical steroid from the corresponding potency class may reduce drug expenditures.

Dataset Information

Brand Medications and Medicare Part D: How Eye Care Providers' Prescribing Patterns Influence Costs.

Publications

Brand Medications and Medicare Part D: How Eye Care Providers' Prescribing Patterns Influence Costs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets