Dataset Information

Comparison of Diabetes Medications Used by Adults With Commercial Insurance vs Medicare Advantage, 2016 to 2019.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) are associated with low rates of hypoglycemia, and postmarketing trials of GLP-1RA and SGLT2i demonstrated that these medications improved cardiovascular and kidney outcomes.

Objective

To compare trends in initiation of treatment with GLP-1RA, SGLT2i, and DPP-4i by older adults with type 2 diabetes insured by Medicare Advantage vs commercial health plans.

Design, setting, and participants

This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data from a deidentified database of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Adults aged 58 to 66 years with type 2 diabetes who filled any medication prescription to lower glucose levels from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019, were compared between groups.

Exposure

Enrollment in a Medicare Advantage or commercial health insurance plan.

Main outcomes and measures

The odds of initiating GLP-1RA, SGLT2i, and DPP-4i treatment were examined for Medicare Advantage vs commercial insurance beneficiaries using 3 separate logistic regression models adjusted for year and demographic and clinical factors. These models were used to calculate adjusted annual rates of medication initiation by health plan.

Results

A total of 382 574 adults with pharmacologically treated type 2 diabetes (52.9% men; mean [SD] age, 62.4 [2.7] years) were identified, including 172?180 Medicare Advantage and 210?394 commercial beneficiaries. From 2016 to 2019, adjusted rates of initiation of GLP-1RA, SGLT2i, and DPP-4i treatment increased among all beneficiaries, from 2.14% to 20.02% for GLP-1RA among commercial insurance beneficiaries and from 1.50% to 11.44% among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries; from 2.74% to 18.15% for SGLT2i among commercial insurance beneficiaries and from 1.57% to 8.51% among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries; and from 3.30% to 11.71% for DPP-4i among commercial insurance beneficiaries and from 2.44% to 7.68% among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Initiation rates for all 3 drug classes were consistently lower among Medicare Advantage than among commercial insurance beneficiaries. Within each calendar year, the odds of initiating GLP-1RA treatment ranged from 0.28 (95% CI, 0.26-0.29) to 0.70 (95% CI, 0.65-0.75) for Medicare Advantage and commercial insurance beneficiaries, respectively; SGLT2i, from 0.21 (95% CI, 0.20-0.22) to 0.57 (95% CI, 0.53-0.61), respectively; and DPP-4i, from 0.37 (95% CI, 0.34-0.39) to 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.78), respectively (P?Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that Medicare Advantage beneficiaries may be less likely than commercially insured beneficiaries to be treated with newer medications to lower glucose levels, with greater disparities among lower-income patients. Better understanding of nonclinical factors contributing to treatment decisions and efforts to promote greater equity in diabetes management appear to be needed.

SUBMITTER: McCoy RG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7851726 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Diabetes Medications Used by Adults With Commercial Insurance vs Medicare Advantage, 2016 to 2019.

McCoy Rozalina G RG Van Houten Holly K HK Deng Yihong Y Mandic Pinar Karaca PK Ross Joseph S JS Montori Victor M VM Shah Nilay D ND

JAMA network open 20210201 2

<h4>Importance</h4>Glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) are associated with low rates of hypoglycemia, and postmarketing trials of GLP-1RA and SGLT2i demonstrated that these medications improved cardiovascular and kidney outcomes.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare trends in initiation of treatment with GLP-1RA, SGLT2i, and DPP-4i by older adults with type 2 diabetes insured by Medicare Adv ...[more]

PMID: 33523188

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceNearly one-third of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan, yet little is known about the prices that MA plans pay for physician services. Medicare Advantage insurers typically also sell commercial plans, and the extent to which MA physician reimbursement reflects traditional Medicare (TM) rates vs negotiated commercial prices is unclear.ObjectiveTo compare prices paid for physician and other health care services in MA, traditional Medicare, and commercial plans.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective analysis of claims data evaluating MA prices paid to physicians and for laboratory services and durable medical equipment between 2007 and 2012 in 348 US core-based statistical areas. The study population included all MA and commercial enrollees with a large national health insurer operating in both markets, as well as a 20% sample of TM beneficiaries.ExposuresEnrollment in an MA plan.Main outcomes and measuresMean reimbursement paid to physicians, laboratories, and durable medical equipment suppliers for MA and commercial enrollees relative to TM rates for 11 Healthcare Common Procedure Coding Systems (HCPCS) codes spanning 7 sites of care.ResultsThe sample consisted of 144 million claims. Physician reimbursement in MA was more strongly tied to TM rates than commercial prices, although MA plans tended to pay physicians less than TM. For a mid-level office visit with an established patient (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code 99213), the mean MA price was 96.9% (95% CI, 96.7%-97.2%) of TM. Across the common physician services we evaluated, mean MA reimbursement ranged from 91.3% of TM for cataract removal in an ambulatory surgery center (CPT 66984; 95% CI, 90.7%-91.9%) to 102.3% of TM for complex evaluation and management of a patient in the emergency department (CPT 99285; 95% CI, 102.1%-102.6%). However, for laboratory services and durable medical equipment, where commercial prices are lower than TM rates, MA plans take advantage of these lower commercial prices, ranging from 67.4% for a walker (HCPCS code E0143; 95% CI, 66.3%-68.5%) to 75.8% for a complete blood cell count (CPT 85025; 95% CI, 75.0%-76.6%).Conclusions and relevanceTraditional Medicare's administratively set rates act as a strong anchor for physician reimbursement in the MA market, although MA plans succeed in negotiating lower prices for other health care services for which TM overpays. Reforms that transition the Medicare program toward some premium support models could substantially affect how physicians and other clinicians are paid.

Project description:ImportanceMedicare beneficiaries with disabilities aged 18 to 64 years face barriers accessing ambulatory care. Past studies comparing Medicare Advantage (MA) with traditional Medicare (TM) have not assessed how well these programs meet the needs of beneficiaries with disabilities.ObjectiveTo compare differences in enrollment rates, ambulatory care access, and ambulatory care quality for beneficiaries with disabilities in MA vs TM.Design setting and participantsThis cohort study included a nationally representative, weighted sample of 7201 person-years for beneficiaries aged 18 to 64 years with disability entitlement in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey from 2015 through 2018. Differences in program enrollment and in measures of access and quality by program enrollment were compared after adjusting for demographic, insurance, social, health, and area characteristics and after reweighting the sample by propensity to enroll in MA as estimated by observed confounders. Data analyses were conducted between November 1, 2020, and November 11, 2021.ExposuresMedicare Advantage vs TM program enrollment.Main outcomes and measuresSix patient-reported measures of ambulatory care access (usual source of care, primary care usual source of care, specialist visit) and quality (cholesterol screening, influenza vaccination, colon cancer screening).ResultsThe mean (SD) age of the overall study population was 52.1 (11.0) years; 49.5% were female and 50.5% were male; 1.6% were Asian/Pacific Islander; 17.4%, Black; 10.2% Hispanic; 1.4%, Native American; 65.1%, White, and 4.2%, multiracial. Among all beneficiaries living in the community, individuals with disability entitlement were less likely to enroll in MA than other beneficiaries (34.8% vs 41.2%). The final sample of beneficiaries with disabilities included 2444 person-years in MA and 4757 person-years in TM. Beneficiaries with disabilities in MA vs TM were more likely to be of a minority race or ethnicity (35.7% vs 27.6%) and less likely to be enrolled in private insurance (11.9% vs 25.0%). Comparing MA with TM among beneficiaries with disabilities, those in MA had significantly better rates of access to a usual source of care (90.2% vs 84.9%; adjusted propensity-weighted marginal difference [APWMD], 2.9%; 95% CI, 0.2%-5.7%), access to specialist visits (53.2% vs 44.8%; APWMD, 5.5%; 95% CI, 0.6%-10.5%), cholesterol screenings (91.1% vs 86.4%; APWMD, 3.8%; 95% CI, 0.9%-6.7%), influenza vaccinations (61.4% vs 51.5%; APWMD, 10.4%; 95% CI, 5.3%-15.5%), and colon cancer screenings (68.4% vs 54.6%; APWMD, 10.3%; 95% CI, 4.8%-15.8%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities were enrolled in MA at significantly lower rates than those without disabilities. However, MA was associated with significantly better ambulatory care access and quality for these beneficiaries on 5 of 6 measures compared with TM.

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:Importance:In the Medicare Advantage (MA) program, Medicare enrollees may be steered by their health plan to specific hospitals. Little is known about the quality of hospitals that serve MA enrollees. Objective:To compare the quality of hospitals that admit MA enrollees with the quality of those that admit traditional Medicare enrollees. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study used data from the 2012 to 2016 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review to compare quality of care, as measured by the star rating given by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and readmission rates, in hospitals that serve MA enrollees and traditional Medicare enrollees using multinomial logit models. Participants were 7?130?610 Medicare beneficiaries admitted to 2994 acute care hospitals across the United States in 2016. Data were analyzed between August 2018 and August 2019. Exposures:The exposure was MA enrollment. Adjusters included demographic and clinical characteristics and zip code fixed effects. Main Outcomes and Measures:Hospital Compare star ratings and quintiles of performance in 30-day readmission rates. Results:The sample included 7?130?610 Medicare beneficiaries in 2016 (54.3% female; mean [SD] age, 72.7 [13.2] years). Of 12?190?270 total hospitalizations, 1?211?293 traditional Medicare and 494?352 MA patients were admitted to 718 low-readmission hospitals and 1?205?586 traditional Medicare and 526?955 MA patients were admitted to 597 high-readmission hospitals. Accounting for observed patient characteristics, MA enrollees less often entered either low- or high-quality hospitals and were more often admitted to average-quality hospitals. For nonemergent hospitalizations, MA enrollees were 1.9 percentage points (95% CI, 1.5-2.2 percentage points) less likely to enter a low-readmissions hospital, 5.1 percentage points (95% CI, 4.6-5.6 percentage points) more likely to enter an average-readmissions hospital, and 3.2 percentage points (95% CI, 2.9-3.5 percentage points) less likely to enter a high-readmissions hospital compared with traditional Medicare enrollees. Patients with MA were also 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, 2.2-2.9 percentage points) less likely to enter a 1- to 2-star hospital, 5.5 percentage points (95% CI, 4.9-5.9 percentage points) more likely to enter a 3-star hospital, and 2.8 percentage points (95% CI, 2.5-3.2 percentage points) less likely to enter a 4- to 5-star hospital compared with traditional Medicare enrollees. The differences were less pronounced for emergency admissions. Conclusions and Relevance:This study found that enrollees in MA plans were more likely to be admitted to average-quality hospitals instead of either high- or low-quality hospitals, suggesting that MA plans may be steering their enrollees to specific hospitals.

Project description:ImportanceHealth insurance literacy helps individuals make informed choices. However, evidence suggests that Medicare beneficiaries experience low health insurance literacy, leading to high-cost or poor-quality coverage choices.ObjectiveTo examine how health insurance literacy was associated with coverage choices between traditional Medicare (TM) and Medicare Advantage (MA), as well as within MA.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study included 6627 TM and MA enrollees, using data from the 2015-2016 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. Data analyses were conducted between May 1 and June 30, 2021.ExposuresThree self-reported measures of health insurance literacy (presence of information to make an informed comparison, ease in reviewing and comparing coverage options, and annual review and comparison of coverage options).Main outcomes and measuresEnrollment in TM vs MA and enrollment in an MA plan with different characteristics (star rating, monthly plan premium, in-network maximum out-of-pocket limit, plan type, and provision of supplemental benefits).ResultsWe included 6627 Medicare beneficiaries (3578 women [54.0%]; mean [SD] age, 75.13 [7.12] years). A total of 77 individuals were Asian (1.2%), 696 were Black (10.5%), 488 were Hispanic (7.4%), 5277 were non-Hispanic White (79.6%), and 225 (3.4%) were single races not of Hispanic origin (including American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian) or were 2 or more races. Medicare Advantage enrollment was higher among individuals with higher health insurance literacy than those with lower health insurance literacy, especially for those who reviewed or compared coverage options annually than among those who did not (38.0%; 95% CI, 36.0%-40.1% vs 27.8%; 95% CI, 25.8%-29.7%). Among MA beneficiaries, those who reviewed or compared coverage options annually were more likely to enroll in plans with 4 to 4.5 stars and plans with monthly premiums of $1 to $50 by 4.6 percentage points (95% CI, 0.1-9.2 percentage points) and 4.8 percentage points (95% CI, 0.6-9.0 percentage points), respectively. However, enrollment in plans with 5 stars was 3.8 percentage points lower (95% CI, -5.8 to -1.9 percentage points) among individuals who reviewed or compared coverage options annually than among those who did not. Among individuals with low socioeconomic status, the likelihood of reviewing or comparing coverage options annually was lower for those with Medicare and Medicaid dual eligibility than for those without it (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.99).Conclusions and relevanceResults of this study suggest that higher health insurance literacy-particularly, annual review and comparison of coverage choices-is associated with higher MA enrollment and choice of a particular MA plan. Policy makers should develop programs to encourage frequent review and comparison of coverage options for informed decision making.

Project description:BackgroundTo improve the value and efficiency of care among traditional Medicare enrollees, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has implemented alternative payment models designed to control health-care spending and improve quality. These models may affect care beyond traditional Medicare enrollees, "spilling over" into other populations. Established in April 2016, the Medicare mandatory bundled payment program, called the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, holds hospitals accountable for spending and quality of care for traditional Medicare joint-replacement patients during care episodes that span from the index hospitalization to 90 days post-discharge. We assessed the extent to which the CJR model was associated with outcomes for patients enrolled in commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage plans.MethodsWith use of Health Care Cost Institute claims data from 2012 through 2017, we assessed the association of the CJR model with total expenditures, discharges to institutional post-acute care, and readmissions among commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage joint-replacement patients. The exposure variable was the implementation of the CJR model in 67 randomly selected metropolitan statistical areas compared with 103 similar areas without CJR implementation. We utilized difference-in-differences models to estimate the spillover effects of the CJR model by comparing outcomes between these areas before and after CJR implementation.ResultsThe study included 174,893 joint-replacement episodes of care in commercial insurance enrollees and 202,070 episodes in Medicare Advantage enrollees. Among both commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage enrollees, CJR implementation was associated with no meaningful changes in total episode expenditures, discharges to institutional post-acute care, or readmissions.ConclusionsWe found no evidence for spillover effects of the CJR model on commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage patients, suggesting that alternative payment models targeting traditional Medicare patients may have limited effects on the cost and quality of care for patients outside of the traditional Medicare system.

Project description:Approximately one-fifth of Medicare Advantage (MA) contracts terminated their participation in the MA program between 2011 and 2020. Little is known about subsequent insurance choices following a termination. To examine the insurance destinations of MA enrollees and the characteristics of enrollees who switch into traditional Medicare (TM) after a contract termination. This cross-sectional study examined MA program data of MA beneficiaries in the Medicare Master Beneficiary File from 2016 to 2018. Statistical analysis was performed from June 2023 to April 2024. Beneficiary characteristics, including age, sex, race and ethnicity, dual eligibility; hospital, nursing home, and home health utilization; and contract characteristics, including plan type, vertical integration, premium, and MA star rating. The main outcome was switching to TM in the year immediately after termination. We also evaluated the characteristics of contracts among those who remained in MA. A total of 117 681 beneficiaries were included in this analysis (64 654 [54.9%] female; 409 [0.4%] American Indian or Alaska Native; 2817 [2.4%] Asian; 76 725 [16.8%] Black; 11 131 [9.5%] Hispanic; 81 226 [69.0%] White; and 2373 [2.0%] other race or ethnicity; 27 078 [23.0%] dual-eligible; mean [SD] age, 71.2 [10.4] years). Following a contract termination, 20.1% (95% CI, 19.9%-20.4%) of enrollees switched to TM, including 32.7% (95% CI, 32.4%-33.1%) of dual-eligible beneficiaries and 16.4% (95% CI, 16.2%-16.5%) of non-dual-eligible beneficiaries. In nonterminated contracts, the concurrent switch rate was 6.2% (95% CI, 6.2%-6.2%) for all, 10.4% (95% CI, 10.4%-10.4%) for dual-eligible beneficiaries and 5.1% (95% CI, 5.1%-5.1%) for non-dual-eligible enrollees. The highest switch rates to TM were among Black enrollees (32.3% [95% CI, 31.7%-32.8%]) and those with prior use of hospital (31.3% [95% CI, 30.7%-31.9%], nursing home, 41.4% [95% CI, 40.4%-42.4%], or home health care (28.3% [95% CI, 27.4%-29.2%]). Beneficiaries who stayed in MA selected higher-rated star plans (mean posttermination contract star rating of 3.8 [95% CI, 3.8-3.8] stars compared with 3.3 [95% CI, 3.3-3.3] stars in the terminated year), but did not pay more in monthly premiums with 66.5% (95% CI, 66.2%-66.8%) paying the same or lower premiums. In this cross-sectional study, 1 in 5 MA beneficiaries switched to TM after a contract termination, with Black beneficiaries and those with more intensive health needs having the highest switch rates. These findings highlight the need to examine consequences of contract terminations and subsequent insurance destinations on access to care and health outcomes, especially among those with marginalized race and ethnicity, those who are dual-eligible, and beneficiaries with higher health care needs.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Diabetes Medications Used by Adults With Commercial Insurance vs Medicare Advantage, 2016 to 2019.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Exposure

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Publications

Comparison of Diabetes Medications Used by Adults With Commercial Insurance vs Medicare Advantage, 2016 to 2019.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets