Dataset Information

Association between physician adoption of a new oral anti-diabetic medication and Medicare and Medicaid drug spending.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:In the United States, there is well-documented regional variation in prescription drug spending. However, the specific role of physician adoption of brand name drugs on the variation in patient-level prescription drug spending is still being investigated across a multitude of drug classes. Our study aims to add to the literature by determining the association between physician adoption of a first-in-class anti-diabetic (AD) drug, sitagliptin, and AD drug spending in the Medicare and Medicaid populations in Pennsylvania. METHODS:We obtained physician-level data from QuintilesIMS Xponent™ database for Pennsylvania and constructed county-level measures of time to adoption and share of physicians adopting sitagliptin in its first year post-introduction. We additionally measured total AD drug spending for all Medicare fee-for-service and Part D enrollees (N?=?125,264) and all Medicaid (N?=?50,836) enrollees with type II diabetes in Pennsylvania for 2011. Finite mixture model regression, adjusting for patient socio-demographic/clinical characteristics, was used to examine the association between physician adoption of sitagliptin and AD drug spending. RESULTS:Physician adoption of sitagliptin varied from 44 to 99% across the state's 67 counties. Average per capita AD spending was $1340 (SD $1764) in Medicare and $1291 (SD $1881) in Medicaid. A 10% increase in the share of physicians adopting sitagliptin in a county was associated with a 3.5% (95% CI: 2.0-4.9) and 5.3% (95% CI: 0.3-10.3) increase in drug spending for the Medicare and Medicaid populations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:In a medication market with many choices, county-level adoption of sitagliptin was positively associated with AD spending in Medicare and Medicaid, two programs with different approaches to formulary management.

SUBMITTER: Metes ID

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6794771 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association between physician adoption of a new oral anti-diabetic medication and Medicare and Medicaid drug spending.

Metes Ilinca D ID Xue Lingshu L Chang Chung-Chou H CH Huskamp Haiden A HA Gellad Walid F WF Lo-Ciganic Wei-Hsuan WH Choudhry Niteesh K NK Richards-Shubik Seth S Guclu Hasan H Donohue Julie M JM

BMC health services research 20191016 1

<h4>Background</h4>In the United States, there is well-documented regional variation in prescription drug spending. However, the specific role of physician adoption of brand name drugs on the variation in patient-level prescription drug spending is still being investigated across a multitude of drug classes. Our study aims to add to the literature by determining the association between physician adoption of a first-in-class anti-diabetic (AD) drug, sitagliptin, and AD drug spending in the Medica ...[more]

PMID: 31619229

Similar Datasets

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:ContextThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently launched accountable care organization (ACO) programs designed to improve quality and slow cost growth. The ACOs resemble an earlier pilot, the Medicare Physician Group Practice Demonstration (PGPD), in which participating physician groups received bonus payments if they achieved lower cost growth than local controls and met quality targets. Although evidence indicates the PGPD improved quality, uncertainty remains about its effect on costs.ObjectiveTo estimate cost savings associated with the PGPD overall and for beneficiaries dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.DesignQuasi-experimental analyses comparing preintervention (2001-2004) and postintervention (2005-2009) trends in spending of PGPD participants to local control groups. We compared estimates using several alternative approaches to adjust for case mix.SettingTen physician groups from across the United States.Patients and participantsThe intervention group was composed of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries (n = 990,177) receiving care primarily from the physicians in the participating medical groups. Controls were Medicare beneficiaries (n = 7,514,453) from the same regions who received care largely from non-PGPD physicians. Overall, 15% of beneficiaries were dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.Main outcome measureAnnual spending per Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary.ResultsAnnual savings per beneficiary were modest overall (adjusted mean $114, 95% CI, $12-$216). Annual savings were significant in dually eligible beneficiaries (adjusted mean $532, 95% CI, $277-$786), but were not significant among nondually eligible beneficiaries (adjusted mean $59, 95% CI, $166 in savings to $47 in additional spending). The adjusted mean spending reductions were concentrated in acute care (overall, $118, 95% CI, $65-$170; dually eligible: $381, 95% CI, $247-$515; nondually eligible: $85, 95% CI, $32-$138). There was significant variation in savings across practice groups, ranging from an overall mean per-capita annual saving of $866 (95% CI, $815-$918) to an increase in expenditures of $749 (95% CI, $698-$799). Thirty-day medical readmissions decreased overall (-0.67%, 95% CI, -1.11% to -0.23%) and in the dually eligible (-1.07%, 95% CI, -1.73% to -0.41%), while surgical readmissions decreased only for the dually eligible (-2.21%, 95% CI, -3.07% to -1.34%). Estimates were sensitive to the risk-adjustment method.ConclusionsSubstantial PGPD savings achieved by some participating institutions were offset by a lack of saving at other participating institutions. Most of the savings were concentrated among dually eligible beneficiaries.

Project description:ImportanceThe benefits of public payment policy may extend to private populations through "spillover" effects. If cost-saving efforts in Medicare also reduce costs among commercially insured patients, Medicare payment systems could be a versatile policy tool in future reform efforts.ObjectivesTo determine whether physicians who participated in a Medicare Accountable Care Organization (ACO) reduced spending among their commercial patients.DesignThis was a retrospective, longitudinal study which was conducted using Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) claims data from 2010 to 2015. We compared patients seen by physicians who participated in a Medicare ACO to patients whose physicians were not part of an ACO. We used a difference-in-differences (DIDs) design to test whether physician participation in an ACO was associated with reduced spending among their commercially insured patients. We also tested for heterogeneous effects: we assessed whether spillovers were larger among patients with clinical conditions (acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, congestive heart failure) that have previously been targeted by Medicare payment programs.SettingThis was a population-based study of commercially insured patients in Michigan.ParticipantsPatients who experienced a significant clinical episode (eg, labor and delivery, acute myocardial infarction) between 2010 and 2015.ExposureOur patient-level exposure is treatment by a Medicare ACO-affiliated physician.Main outcomes and measuresMedical spending of 0-90 days and 91-365 days after a clinical episode.ResultsPatients in the exposure group (n=54,750) and in the control group (n=137,883) were similar in demographic characteristics of age, sex, and type of clinical episodes. Adjusted mean 90-day spending in the preexposure period was $21,292 among the exposure group and $21,157 among the comparison group; these means declined to $21,250 and $20,995 in the postperiod, yielding a DIDs estimate of $119 [95% confidence interval (CI), -$170 to $408]. Adjusted means for 91-365 days spending in the preperiod were $4258 among the exposure group and $4251 among the comparison group; these means rose to $4338 and $4421 in the postperiod, yielding a DIDs estimate of -$90 (95% CI, -$312 to $132). We also separately examined patients with conditions that have been targeted by other Medicare payment programs. Among these patients, 90-day spending did not differ between exposure and comparison groups (DIDs, -$223; 95% CI, -$2037 to $1591), although 91-365 days spending decreased among the exposure group with marginal statistical significance (DIDs, -$1160; 95% CI, -$2459 to $140).Conclusions and relevancePhysicians who participated in Medicare ACOs did not reduce spending among most of their commercially insured patients. Medicare policy is unlikely to confer significant spillover benefits to the commercially insured population.

Project description:BackgroundThe association between nonadherence to chronic medications and potentially preventable healthcare utilization and spending is largely unknown.ObjectivesTo examine the associations of chronic medication nonadherence with potentially preventable utilization and spending among patients who were prescribed diabetic medications, renin-angiotensin system antagonists (RASA) for hypertension, or statins for high cholesterol, and compare the associations by patient race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status.DesignRetrospective cohort study. Medicare fee-for-service claims data from 2013 to 2016 for 177,881 patients.MeasuresMedication nonadherence was defined as having a below 80% proportion of days covered in each 6-month interval after the index prescription. Potentially preventable utilization was measured by preventable emergency department visits and preventable hospitalizations. Potentially preventable spending was calculated as the geographically adjusted spending associated with preventable encounters.ResultsAfter adjustment for other patient characteristics, medication nonadherence was associated with a 1.7-percentage-point increase (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4 to 2.0 percentage points, p < 0.001) in the probability of preventable utilization among the diabetic medication cohort, a 1.7-percentage-point increase (95% CI: 1.5 to 1.9 percentage points, p < 0.001) among the RASA cohort, and a 1.0-percentage-point increase (95% CI: 0.8 to 1.1 percentage points, p < 0.001) among the statin cohort. Among patients with at least one preventable encounter, medication nonadherence was associated with $679-$898 increased preventable spending. The incremental probability of preventable utilization and incremental spending associated with nonadherence were higher among racial/ethnic minority and low socioeconomic groups.ConclusionsImproving medication adherence is a potential avenue to reducing preventable utilization and spending. Interventions are needed to address racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities.

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: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

Association between physician adoption of a new oral anti-diabetic medication and Medicare and Medicaid drug spending.

Publications

Association between physician adoption of a new oral anti-diabetic medication and Medicare and Medicaid drug spending.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets