Dataset Information

Economic Burden Associated With Extended-Release vs Immediate-Release Drug Formulations Among Medicare Part D and Medicaid Beneficiaries.

ABSTRACT: Importance:The United States spends more money on medications than any other country. Most extended-release drugs have not consistently shown therapeutic or adherence superiority, and switching these medications to less expensive, generic, immediate-release formulations may offer an opportunity to reduce health care spending. Objective:To evaluate Medicare Part D and Medicaid spending on extended-release drug formulations and the potential savings associated with switching to generic immediate-release formulations. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study used the 2012 to 2017 Medicare Part D Drug Event and Medicaid Spending and Utilization data sets to analyze 20 extended-release drugs with 37 Medicare formulations and 36 Medicaid formulations. Only cardiovascular, diabetes, neurologic, and psychiatric extended-release drugs saving at most 1 additional daily dose compared with their immediate-release counterparts were included. Extended-release drugs with therapeutic superiority were excluded. Analyses were conducted from January to December 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:Estimated Medicare Part D and Medicaid savings from switching extended-release to immediate-release drug formulations between 2012 and 2017. Results:Of the 6252 drugs screened for eligibility from the 2017 Medicaid Drug Utilization database and the 2017 Medicare Part D database, 67 drugs with extended-release formulations that were identified in the Medicare data set (20 distinct drugs with 37 formulations [19 brand, 18 generic]) were included in the analysis. In 2017, Medicare Part D spent $2.2 billion and Medicaid spent $952 million (a combined $3.1 billion) on 20 extended-release drugs. Between 2012 and 2017, Medicare Part D and Medicaid spent $12 billion and $5.9 billion, respectively, on extended-release formulations. Switching from brand-name to generic extended-release formulations was estimated to be associated with a $247 million reduction in Medicare spending and $299 million reduction in Medicaid spending in 2017, whereas switching all brand-name and generic extended-release formulations to immediate-release formulations in both Medicare and Medicaid was estimated to reduce spending by $2.6 billion ($1.8 billion for Medicare and $836 million for Medicaid) in 2017. During the study period, the estimated spending reduction associated with switching all patients receiving extended-release formulations (brand name extended-release and generic extended-release) to generic immediate-release formulations was $13.7 billion ($8.5 billion from Medicare and $5.2 billion from Medicaid). Conclusions and Relevance:The findings suggest that switching from extended-release drug formulations to therapeutically equivalent immediate-release formulations when available represents a potential option to reduce Medicare and Medicaid spending.

SUBMITTER: Sumarsono A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7049080 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Economic Burden Associated With Extended-Release vs Immediate-Release Drug Formulations Among Medicare Part D and Medicaid Beneficiaries.

Sumarsono Andrew A Sumarsono Nathan N Das Sandeep R SR Vaduganathan Muthiah M Agrawal Deepak D Pandey Ambarish A

JAMA network open 20200205 2

<h4>Importance</h4>The United States spends more money on medications than any other country. Most extended-release drugs have not consistently shown therapeutic or adherence superiority, and switching these medications to less expensive, generic, immediate-release formulations may offer an opportunity to reduce health care spending.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate Medicare Part D and Medicaid spending on extended-release drug formulations and the potential savings associated with switching to gene ...[more]

PMID: 32108893

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is beginning to consider adjusting for social risk factors, such as dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid, when evaluating hospital performance under value-based purchasing programs. It is unknown whether dual eligibility represents a unique domain of social risk or instead represents clinical risk unmeasured by variables available in traditional Medicare claims.ObjectiveTo assess how dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid is associated with risk-adjusted readmission rates after surgery.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort study was conducted of 55 651 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing general, vascular, and gynecologic surgery at 62 hospitals in Michigan between January 1, 2014, and December 1, 2016. Representative cohorts were derived from traditional Medicare claims (n?=?29?710) and the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) clinical registry (n?=?25?941), which includes additional measures of clinical risk. Statistical analysis was conducted between April 10 and July 15, 2019. The association between dual eligibility and risk-adjusted 30-day readmission rates after surgery was compared between models inclusive and exclusive of additional measurements of clinical risk. The study also examined how dual eligibility is associated with hospital profiling using risk-adjusted readmission rates.ExposuresDual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid.Main outcomes and measuresRisk-adjusted all-cause 30-day readmission after surgery.ResultsThere were a total of 3986 dual-eligible beneficiaries in the Medicare claims cohort (2554 women; mean [SD] age, 72.9 [6.9] years) and 1608 dual-eligible beneficiaries in the MSQC cohort (990 women; mean [SD] age, 72.9 [6.8] years). In both data sets, higher proportions of dual-eligible beneficiaries were younger, female, and nonwhite than Medicare-only beneficiaries (Medicare claims cohort: female, 2554 of 3986 [64.1%] vs 12?879 of 25?724 [50.1%]; nonwhite, 1225 of 3986 [30.7%] vs 2783 of 25?724 [10.8%]; MSQC cohort: female, 990 of 1608 [61.6%] vs 12?578 of 24?333 [51.7%]; nonwhite, 416 of 1608 [25.9%] vs 2176 of 24?333 [8.9%]). In the Medicare claims cohort, dual-eligible beneficiaries were more likely to be readmitted (15.5% [95% CI, 13.7%-17.3%]) than Medicare-only beneficiaries (13.3% [95% CI, 12.7%-13.9%]; difference, 2.2 percentage points [95% CI, 0.4-3.9 percentage points]). In the MSQC cohort, after adjustment for more granular measures of clinical risk, dual eligibility was not significantly associated with readmission (difference, 0.6 percentage points [95% CI, -1.0 to 2.2 percentage points]). In both the Medicare claims and MSQC cohorts, adding dual eligibility to risk-adjustment models had little association with hospital ranking using risk-adjusted readmission rates.Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid may reflect unmeasured clinical risk of readmission in claims data. Policy makers should consider incorporating more robust measures of social risk into risk-adjustment models used by value-based purchasing programs.

Dataset Information

Economic Burden Associated With Extended-Release vs Immediate-Release Drug Formulations Among Medicare Part D and Medicaid Beneficiaries.

Publications

Economic Burden Associated With Extended-Release vs Immediate-Release Drug Formulations Among Medicare Part D and Medicaid Beneficiaries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets