Dataset Information

Growing Number Of Unsubsidized Part D Beneficiaries With Catastrophic Spending Suggests Need For An Out-Of-Pocket Cap.

ABSTRACT: Medicare Part D has no cap on beneficiaries' out-of-pocket spending for outpatient prescription drugs, and, unlike Medicare Parts A and B, beneficiaries are prohibited from purchasing supplemental insurance that could provide such a cap. Historically, most beneficiaries whose annual Part D spending reached the catastrophic level were protected from unlimited personal liability by the Low-Income Subsidy (LIS). However, we found that the proportion of beneficiaries whose spending reached that level but did not qualify for the subsidy-and therefore remained liable for coinsurance-increased rapidly, from 18 percent in 2007 to 28 percent in 2015. Moreover, average total per person per year spending grew much more rapidly for those who did not qualify for the LIS than for those who did, primarily because of differences in price and utilization trends for the drugs that represented disproportionately large shares of their spending. We estimated that a cap for all Part D enrollees in 2015 would have raised monthly premiums by only $0.40-$1.31 per member.

SUBMITTER: Trish E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7268910 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Growing Number Of Unsubsidized Part D Beneficiaries With Catastrophic Spending Suggests Need For An Out-Of-Pocket Cap.

Trish Erin E Xu Jianhui J Joyce Geoffrey G

Health affairs (Project Hope) 20180701 7

Medicare Part D has no cap on beneficiaries' out-of-pocket spending for outpatient prescription drugs, and, unlike Medicare Parts A and B, beneficiaries are prohibited from purchasing supplemental insurance that could provide such a cap. Historically, most beneficiaries whose annual Part D spending reached the catastrophic level were protected from unlimited personal liability by the Low-Income Subsidy (LIS). However, we found that the proportion of beneficiaries whose spending reached that leve ...[more]

PMID: 29985706

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMedicare beneficiaries with cancer are at risk for financial hardship given increasingly expensive cancer care and significant cost sharing by beneficiaries.ObjectivesTo measure out-of-pocket (OOP) costs incurred by Medicare beneficiaries with cancer and identify which factors and services contribute to high OOP costs.Design, setting, and participantsWe prospectively collected survey data from 18 166 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries, including 1409 individuals who were diagnosed with cancer during the study period, who participated in the January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2012, waves of the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative panel study of US residents older than 50 years. Data analysis was performed from July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2015.Main outcomes and measuresOut-of-pocket medical spending and financial burden (OOP expenditures divided by total household income).ResultsAmong the 1409 participants (median age, 73 years [interquartile range, 69-79 years]; 46.4% female and 53.6% male) diagnosed with cancer during the study period, the type of supplementary insurance was significantly associated with mean annual OOP costs incurred after a cancer diagnosis ($2116 among those insured by Medicaid, $2367 among those insured by the Veterans Health Administration, $5976 among those insured by a Medicare health maintenance organization, $5492 among those with employer-sponsored insurance, $5670 among those with Medigap insurance coverage, and $8115 among those insured by traditional fee-for-service Medicare but without supplemental insurance coverage). A new diagnosis of cancer or common chronic noncancer condition was associated with increased odds of incurring costs in the highest decile of OOP expenditures (cancer: adjusted odds ratio, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.55-2.23; P < .001; chronic noncancer condition: adjusted odds ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.69-1.97; P < .001). Beneficiaries with a new cancer diagnosis and Medicare alone incurred OOP expenditures that were a mean of 23.7% of their household income; 10% of these beneficiaries incurred OOP expenditures that were 63.1% of their household income. Among the 10% of beneficiaries with cancer who incurred the highest OOP costs, hospitalization contributed to 41.6% of total OOP costs.Conclusions and relevanceMedicare beneficiaries without supplemental insurance incur significant OOP costs following a diagnosis of cancer. Costs associated with hospitalization may be a primary contributor to these high OOP costs. Medicare reform proposals that restructure the benefit design for hospital-based services and incorporate an OOP maximum may help alleviate financial burden, as can interventions that reduce hospitalization in this population.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Little is known about the impact of different types of chronic diseases on older adults' out-of-pocket healthcare spending and whether certain diseases trigger higher spending needs than others. METHODS:We use data from the 2014 Health and Retirement Study representing a weighted population of 35,939,270 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65+. Generalized linear models are applied to estimate the effect of different chronic diseases on total out-of-pocket expenditure, adjusted for demographics, socio-economic status, physical health, and other factors. We also decompose total spending by expenditure categories (inpatient, non-inpatient, and prescription drug spending). Sensitivity analysis is performed using a younger sample of older adults aged 50-64. RESULTS:Cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension and cancer, induce significantly higher adjusted out-of-pocket spending among older adults than other conditions. These results hold regardless how the spending differences are assessed (absolute or percentage terms). For Medicare beneficiaries, cardiovascular disease is associated with an excess out-of-pocket spending of $317 per year, followed by diabetes ($237), hypertension ($150), and cancer ($144). Prescription drug spending is singularly the most important driver of additional expenses for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and hypertension, while non-inpatient services spending accounts for the bulk of increased spending among those with cancer. CONCLUSIONS:Our finding that major noncommunicable diseases impact individuals' out-of-pocket medical spending differentially-and that service drivers of increased spending may be heterogeneous across disease types-suggest that health professionals and policymakers should recognize that certain chronic diseases exert greater financial toll on the elderly. Interventions to promote more cost efficient healthcare services and consumer choices can help older adults better cope with these expensive long-lasting conditions and reduce the overall burden of noncommunicable diseases.

Project description:ImportanceLittle is known about how out-of-pocket burden differs between Medicare and commercial insurance for ultra-expensive drugs.ObjectiveTo investigate out-of-pocket spending for ultra-expensive drugs in the Medicare Part D program vs commercial insurance.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a retrospective, population-based cohort study of individuals using ultra-expensive drugs included in a 20% nationally random sample of prescription drug claims from Medicare Part D and individuals aged 45 to 64 years using ultra-expensive drugs included in a large national convenience sample of outpatient pharmaceutical claims from commercial insurance plans. Claims data from 2013 through 2019 were used, and data were analyzed in February 2023.Main outcomes and measuresClaims-weighted mean out-of-pocket spending per beneficiary per drug by insurance type, plan, and age.ResultsIn 2019, 37 324 and 24 159 individuals using ultra-expensive drugs were identified in the 20% Part D and commercial samples, respectively (mean [SD] age, 66.2 [11.7] years; 54.9% female). A statistically significant higher share of commercial enrollees vs Part D beneficiaries were female (61.0% vs 51.0%; P < .001), and a statistically significantly lower share were using 3 or more branded medications (28.7% vs 42.6%; P < .001). Mean out-of-pocket spending per beneficiary per drug in 2019 was $4478 in Part D (median [IQR], $4169 [$3369-$5947]) compared with $1821 for commercial (median [IQR], $1272 [$703-$1924]); these differences were statistically significant every year. Differences in out-of-pocket spending comparing commercial enrollees aged 60 to 64 years and Part D beneficiaries aged 65 to 69 years exhibited similar magnitudes and trends. By plan, mean out-of-pocket spending per beneficiary per drug in 2019 was $4301 (median [IQR], $4131 [$3000-$6048]) in Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MAPD) plans, $4575 (median [IQR], $4190 [$3305-$5799]) in stand-alone prescription drug plans (PDPs), $1208 (median [IQR], $752 [$317-$1240]) in health maintenance organization plans, $1569 (median [IQR], $838 [$481-$1472]) in preferred provider organization plans, and $4077 (median [IQR], $2882 [$1075-$4226]) in high-deductible health plans. There were no statistically significant differences between MAPD plans and stand-alone PDPs in any study year. Mean out-of-pocket spending was statistically significantly higher in MAPD plans compared with health maintenance organization plans and in stand-alone PDPs compared with preferred provider organization plans in each study year.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study demonstrated that the $2000 out-of-pocket cap included in the Inflation Reduction Act may substantially moderate the potential increase in spending faced by individuals who use ultra-expensive drugs when moving from commercial insurance to Part D coverage.

Project description:BackgroundThe scaling up of antiviral treatment (ART) coverage in the past decade has increased access to care for numerous people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) in low-resource settings. Out-of-pocket payments (OOPs) represent a barrier for healthcare access, adherence and ART effectiveness, and can be economically catastrophic for PLWHA and their family. We evaluated OOPs of PLWHA attending outpatient and inpatient care units and estimated the financial burden for their households in the Lao People's Democratic Republic. We assumed that such OOPs may result in catastrophic health expenses in this context with fragile economical balance and low health insurance coverage.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of a randomized sample of routine outpatients and a prospective survey of consecutive new inpatients at two referral hospitals (Setthathirat in the capital city, Savannaket in the province). After obtaining informed consent, PLWHA were interviewed using a standardized 82-item questionnaire including information on socio-economic characteristics, disease history and coping strategies. All OOPs occurring during a routine visit or a hospital stay were recorded. Household capacity-to-pay (overall income minus essential expenses), direct and indirect OOPs, OOPs per outpatient visit and per inpatient stay as well as catastrophic spending (greater than or equal to 40% of the capacity-to-pay) were calculated. A multivariate analysis of factors associated with catastrophic spending was conducted.ResultsA total of 320 PLWHA [280 inpatients and 40 outpatients; 132 (41.2%) defined as poor, and 269 (84.1%) on ART] were enrolled. Monthly median household income, essential expenses and capacity-to-pay were US$147.0 (IQR: 86-242), $126 (IQR: 82-192) and $14 (IQR: 19-80), respectively. At the provincial hospital OOPs were higher during routine visits, but three fold lower during hospitalization than in the central hospital ($21.0 versus $18.5 and $110.8 versus $329.8 respectively (p<0.01). The most notable OOPs were related to transportation and to loss of income. A total of 150 patients (46.8%; 95%CI: 41.3-52.5) were affected by catastrophic health expenses; 36 outpatients (90.0%; 95%CI: 76.3-97.2) and 114 inpatients (40.7%; 95%CI: 34.9-46.7). A total of 141 (44.0%) patients had contracted loans, and 127 (39.6%) had to sell some of their assets. In the multivariate analysis, being of Lao Loum ethnic group (Coef.-1.4; p = 0.04); being poor (Coef. -1.0; p = 0.01) and living more than 100 km away from the hospital (Coef.-1.0; p = 0.002) were positively associated with catastrophic spending. Conversely being in the highest wealth quartile (Coef. 1.6; p<0.001), living alone (Coef. 1.1; p = 0.04), attending the provincial hospital (Coef. 1.0; p = 0.002), and being on ART (Coef.1.2; p = 0.003), were negatively associated with catastrophic spending.ConclusionPLWHA's households face catastrophic OOPs that are not directly attributable to the cost of ART or to follow-up tests, particularly during a hospitalization period. Transportation, distance to healthcare and time spent at the health facility are the major contributors for OOPs and for indirect opportunity costs. Being on ART and attending the provincial hospital were associated with a lower risk of catastrophic spending. Decentralization of care, access to ART and alleviation of OOPs are crucial factors to successfully decrease the household burden of HIV-AIDS expenses.

Dataset Information

Growing Number Of Unsubsidized Part D Beneficiaries With Catastrophic Spending Suggests Need For An Out-Of-Pocket Cap.

Publications

Growing Number Of Unsubsidized Part D Beneficiaries With Catastrophic Spending Suggests Need For An Out-Of-Pocket Cap.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets