Association between physician adoption of a new oral anti-diabetic medication and Medicare and Medicaid drug spending.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Metes ID
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6794771 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3682054 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of the Green House (GH) model of nursing home care on Medicare acute hospital, other hospital, skilled nursing facility, and hospice spending and utilization.Data sources/study settingMedicare claims and enrollment data from 2005 through 2010 merged with resident-level minimum data set (MDS) assessments.Study designUsing a difference-in-differences framework, we compared Medicare Part A and hospice expenditures and utilization in 15 nursing homes that adopted the GH model relative to changes over the same time period in 223 matched nonadopting nursing homes. We applied the same method for residents of GH homes and for residents of "legacy" homes, the original nursing homes that stay open alongside the GH home(s).Principal findingsThe adoption of GH had no detectable impact on Medicare Part A (plus hospice) spending and utilization across all residents living in the nursing home. When we analyzed residents living in GH homes and legacy units separately, however, we found that the adoption of the GH model reduced overall annual Medicare Part A spending by $7,746 per resident, although this appeared to be partially offset by an increase in spending in legacy homes.ConclusionsTo the extent that the GH model reduces Medicare spending, adopting nursing homes do not receive any of the related Medicare savings under traditional payment mechanisms. New approaches that are currently being developed and piloted, which better align financial incentives for providers and payers, could incentivize greater adoption of the GH model.
| S-EPMC5338209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The 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.To estimate cost savings associated with the PGPD overall and for beneficiaries dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.Quasi-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.Ten physician groups from across the United States.The 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.Annual spending per Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary.Annual 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.Substantial 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.
| S-EPMC3484377 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo measure 3-year medication possession ratios (MPRs) for renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors and statins for Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes, and to assess whether better adherence is associated with lower spending on traditional Medicare services controlling for biases common to previous adherence studies.Data sourceMedicare Current Beneficiary Survey data from 1997 to 2005.Study designLongitudinal study of RAAS-inhibitor and statin utilization over 3 years.Data collectionThe relationship between MPR and Medicare costs was tested in multivariate models with extensive behavioral variables to control for indication bias and healthy adherer bias.Principal findingsOver 3 years, median MPR values were 0.88 for RAAS-I users and 0.77 for statin users. Higher adherence was strongly associated with lower Medicare spending in the multivariate analysis. A 10 percentage point increase in statin MPR was associated with U.S.$832 lower Medicare spending (SE=219; p<.01). A 10 percentage point increase in MPR for RAAS-Is was associated with U.S.$285 lower Medicare costs (SE=114; p<.05).ConclusionsHigher adherence with RAAS-Is and statins by Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes results in lower cumulative Medicare spending over 3 years. At the margin, Medicare savings exceed the cost of the drugs.
| S-EPMC3130847 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To understand the impact of changes in physician market structure on clinical outcomes and health care utilization. DATA SOURCES:2005-2012 Medicare fee-for-service claims and enrollment data. STUDY DESIGN:We consider the effect of cardiology market structure on utilization and health outcomes for four patient populations. We estimate the risk-adjusted impact of competition using multivariate regression models. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:The study finds that an increase in consolidation leads to statistically and economically significant increases in negative health outcomes. For example, we find that moving from a zip code at the 25th percentile of cardiology market concentration to one at the 75th percentile would be associated with 5 to 7 percent increases in risk-adjusted mortality for three of the sample populations. We also found higher expenditures in more concentrated markets. For example, moving from a zip code at the 25th percentile of cardiology market concentration to one at the 75th would be associated with 7 to 11 percent increases in expenditures, depending on sample population. CONCLUSIONS:Our estimates indicate that increases in cardiology market concentration are associated with worse health outcomes and higher health care expenditures. Some effects may be attributed to vertical as well as horizontal changes.
| S-EPMC6153168 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6417956 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveBillions of public dollars are spent each year on biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but the drivers of recent increases in biologic DMARD spending are unclear. This study was undertaken to characterize changes in total spending and unit prices for biologic DMARDs in Medicare and Medicaid programs and quantified the major sources of these spending increases.MethodsWe accessed drug spending data from years 2012-2016, covering all Medicare Part B (fee-for-service), Medicare Part D, and Medicaid enrollees. After calculating 5-year changes in total spending and unit prices for each biologic DMARD as well as in aggregate, we performed standard decomposition analyses to isolate 4 sources of spending growth: drug prices, uptake (number of recipients), treatment intensity (mean number of doses per claim), and treatment duration (annual number of claims per recipient), both excluding and including time-varying rebates.ResultsFrom 2012 to 2016, annual spending on public-payer claims for the 10 biologic DMARDs included in this study more than doubled ($3.8 billion to $8.6 billion), with median drug price increases of 51% in Medicare Part D (mean 54%) and 8% in Medicare Part B (mean 21%). With adjustment for general inflation, unit price increases alone accounted for 57% of the 5-year, $3.0 billion spending increase in Part D, while 37% of the spending increase was from increased uptake. Accounting for time-varying rebates, prices were still responsible for 54% of increased spending. Unit prices and spending were lower under Medicaid than under Medicare Part D, though temporal trends and contributors were similar.ConclusionPostmarket drug price changes alone account for the majority of the recent spending growth in biologic DMARDs. Policy interventions targeting price increases, particularly those under Medicare Part D plans, may help mitigate financial burdens for public payers and biologic DMARD recipients.
| S-EPMC6994362 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sources 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.We 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.Mean 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.Regional 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.).
| S-EPMC3285245 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Medical treatment should be tailored to an individual's characteristics to optimize treatment benefits. We examined whether case-only analyses from spontaneous reporting systems can detect host-medication interactions in oral antidiabetic drug-associated myocardial infarction. Methods and Results Interaction between sex and use of oral antidiabetic drugs was mined among patients with myocardial infarction in the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System from 2004 to 2014, including 55 718 males and 42 428 females. The odds ratio ( OR ) of multiplicative interactions was used to estimate sex-drug interaction. Detected signs of these interactions were then validated by a nested case-control study utilizing a healthcare record database, Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, from 2001 to 2014, including 31 585 cases and 126 340 controls. In the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System, a higher proportion of male than female patients used metformin (10.32% in males versus 7.82% in females) and sulfonylureas (4.75% in males versus 3.43% in females); after adjusting for patients' pharmacy-based chronic disease score, males had a higher risk of metformin-associated ( OR =1.07; 99% confidence interval, 1.00-1.14) and sulfonylureas-associated ( OR =1.21; 99% confidence interval, 1.10-1.33) myocardial infarction than females. Detected signs of sex-drug interactions were validated in the National Health Insurance Research Database ( OR for metformin=1.14; 99% confidence interval, 1.03-1.26; OR for sulfonylureas=1.13; 99% confidence interval, 1.02-1.25). Conclusions Males have a higher risk of metformin- and sulfonylureas-associated myocardial infarction than females, which suggests that sex-drug interactions are a key issue in diabetes mellitus treatment plan development. This case-only approach using information from spontaneous reporting systems may be a potential tool for screening host-medication interactions that cause adverse events.
| S-EPMC6404447 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the relationship of physician versus hospital ownership of small- and medium-sized practices with spending and utilization of care.Data source/study setting/data collectionSurvey data for 1,045 primary care-based practices of 1-19 physicians linked to Medicare claims data for 2008 for 282,372 beneficiaries attributed to the 3,010 physicians in these practices.Study designWe used generalized linear models to estimate the associations between practice characteristics and outcomes (emergency department visits, index admissions, readmissions, and spending).Principal findingsBeneficiaries linked to hospital-owned practices had 7.3 percent more emergency department visits and 6.4 percent higher total spending compared to beneficiaries linked to physician-owned practices.ConclusionsPhysician practices are increasingly being purchased by hospitals. This may result in higher total spending on care.
| S-EPMC6051973 | biostudies-literature