Dataset Information

Association of Beneficiary-Level Risk Factors and Hospital-Level Characteristics With Medicare Part B Drug Spending Differences Between 340B and Non-340B Hospitals.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Critics of the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program raised concerns that the program might provide financial incentives for participating hospitals to prescribe more and/or more expensive drugs because the revenue generated from Medicare reimbursement exceeds the purchase price by a substantial margin. Studies showing higher Medicare Part B drug spending at hospitals that are 340B hospitals, which can purchase outpatient drugs from manufacturers at discounted prices, compared with non-340B hospitals were used by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to justify their 340B payment policy that reduced Medicare payments for drugs in the 340B program in 2018 and thereafter. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services attributed higher spending to the 340B benefit and believed that payment cuts would reduce the financial incentives associated with higher spending. However, the lack of sufficient risk adjustments is a significant concern of study validity.

Objective

To examine whether per-beneficiary Medicare Part B drug spending is significantly different between 340B and non-340B hospitals while adequately controlling for patient-level and hospital-level risk factors.

Design, setting, and participants

A cross-sectional study was conducted from October 1, 2020, to May 30, 2021, using 2017 administrative claims data from a random 5% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Included beneficiaries had at least 1 separately payable non-pass-through drug claim in 2017, were fully enrolled in Part A and Part B through 2017, and did not die in 2017.

Main outcomes and measures

The outcome was separately payable Part B drug spending.

Results

The sample included 35 364 beneficiaries (21 825 women [61.7%]; 29 996 White patients [84.8%]; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [12.0] years) and 2446 hospitals. A total of 918 hospitals (37.5%) were in the 340B program and 938 hospitals (38.3%) were teaching hospitals. There was a higher percentage of teaching hospitals among 340B hospitals (517 of 918 [56.3%]) than non-340B hospitals (421 of 1528 [27.6%]), and beneficiaries who went to 340B hospitals were more likely to be non-White than those who went to non-340B hospitals (3360 of 19 139 [17.6%] vs 1583 of 13 710 [11.5%]). The Part B drug spending difference between 340B and non-340B hospitals was not statistically significant after controlling for beneficiary-level risk factors and hospital-level characteristics ($568; 95% CI, -$283 to $1419; P = .19).

Conclusions and relevance

The results show that the differences in patient population and hospital-level characteristics may explain drug spending differences between 340B and non-340B hospitals, which raises doubt about the financial incentive theory of the 340B program drug discount and the justification for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services's 340B payment policy.

SUBMITTER: Li Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8857681 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDespite substantial geographic variation in Medicare per beneficiary spending in the US, little is known about the extent to which social determinants of health (SDoH) are associated with this variation.ObjectiveTo determine the associations between SDoH and county-level price-adjusted Medicare per beneficiary spending.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used county-level data on 2017 Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) spending, patient demographic characteristics (eg, age and gender) and clinical risk score, supply of health care resources (eg, number of hospital beds), and SDoH measures (eg, median income and unemployment rate) from multiple sources. Multivariable regressions were used to estimate the association of the variation in spending across quintiles with SDoH.Main outcomes and measures2017 county-level price-adjusted Medicare Parts A and B spending per beneficiary. SDoH measures included socioeconomic position, race/ethnicity, social relationships, and residential and community context.ResultsAmong 3038 counties with 33 495 776 Medicare FFS beneficiaries (18 352 336 [54.8%] women; mean [SD] age, 72 [1.5] years), mean Medicare price-adjusted per beneficiary spending for counties in the highest spending quintile was $3785 (95% CI, $3706-$3862) higher, or 49% higher, than spending for bottom-quintile counties (mean [SD] spending per beneficiary, $11 464 [735] vs $7679 [522]; P < .001). The total contribution (including through both direct and indirect pathways) of SDoH was 37.7% ($1428 of $3785) of this variation, compared with 59.8% ($2265 of $3785) by patient clinical risk, 14.5% ($549 of $3785) by supply of health care resources, and 19.8% ($751 of $3785) by patient demographic characteristics. When all factors were included within the same model, the direct contribution of SDoH was associated with 5.8% of the variation, compared with 4.6% by supply, 4.7% by patient demographic characteristics, and 62.0% by patient clinical risk.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest social determinants of health are associated with considerable proportions of geographic variation in Medicare spending. Policies addressing SDoH for disadvantaged patients in certain regions have the potential to contain health care spending and improve the value of health care; patient SDoH may need to be accounted for in publicly reported physician performance, and in value-based purchasing incentive programs for health care professionals.

Project description:ImportanceDespite controversy surrounding the 340B program, no study has analyzed trends in the proportion of Medicare Part D pharmacy claims eligible for 340B discounts.ObjectiveTo describe trends in the proportion of Medicare Part D claims that are prescribed by 340B-affiliated clinicians and filled in 340B pharmacies.Design and settingThis longitudinal, retrospective cohort study included 2013 to 2020 claims data from a 5% random sample of Medicare Part D beneficiaries from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and 6292 nine-digit national drug codes that were used by at least 1000 Part D beneficiaries in a given year. Data analysis was completed from November 2022 to April 2023.Main outcomes and measuresFor each drug and year, there were 3 outcomes: (1) proportion of total Part D claims that were prescribed by a 340B-affiliated clinician; (2) proportion of claims prescribed by a 340B-affiliated clinician that were filled in a 340B pharmacy; and (3) proportion of total Part D claims under the 340B program (ie, prescribed by a 340B-affiliated clinician and filled in a 340B pharmacy).ResultsThe proportion of prescriptions written by a 340B-affiliated clinician doubled from 9.4% in 2013 to 19.3% in 2020. The capture of 340B prescriptions by 340B pharmacies, defined as the proportion of claims prescribed by 340B-affiliated clinicians that were filled by 340B pharmacies, increased from 18.4% in 2013 to 49.9% in 2020. As a result, the total proportion of 340B claims in Part D increased from 1.7% in 2013 to 9.6% in 2020. Rates of 340B prescribing and capture increased consistently across therapeutic classes. In 2020, the antiviral therapeutic class was the class with the largest proportion of 340B claims (16.1%), followed by targeted antineoplastics (15.7%).Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study demonstrated that from 2013 to 2020, the share of Medicare Part D claims prescribed by a 340B-affiliated clinician increased; however, the rate at which 340B-eligible prescriptions were filled at 340B pharmacies increased at a faster rate, driving the overall increase in 340B claims. Despite these trends, only half of 340B-eligible prescriptions were subject to the 340B discount in 2020.

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.).

Project description:ImportanceThe federal 340B program lowers the acquisition cost of prescription drugs and places no limits on what hospitals charge payers. Congress established the program to allow 340B profits (the difference between payments and acquisition costs) to subsidize other safety-net services. Little is known about the magnitude of revenues and profits from the 340B program among participating hospitals.ObjectiveTo report revenues and estimated profits from the 340B program that hospitals collect from Medicare and Medicare beneficiaries for outpatient clinic administration of prescription drugs covered under Medicare Part B.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional descriptive study used 100% Medicare outpatient Part B claims from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016, from fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries administered separately payable drugs at general acute care nonprofit or public hospitals without special payment designations. Claims data (N?=?11?298?860) were aggregated to the hospital-year level (N?=?6000) and linked to hospital finances and 340B participation from Medicare cost reports and the 340B covered entity list.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes studied were revenue and estimated profits, assuming a 50% discount from 340B-discounted drug administrations to Medicare patients, as well as Medicare 340B profits relative to hospital net operating revenue, uncompensated care, and disproportionate share hospital payments.ResultsDuring the study period, hospitals received approximately $2.1 billion in 340B revenue from Medicare in 2013, increasing to $3.7 billion in 2016. Estimated 340B profits from Medicare in 2016 totaled $1.9 billion, and per-hospital estimated 340B profits were $2.5 million but exhibited variability (median, $0.8 million; interquartile range, $0.1 million-$2.8 million). In 2016, median estimated 340B profits from Medicare were 0.3% (interquartile range, 0.1%-0.7%; mean, 0.4%) of hospital operating budgets and 9.4% (interquartile range, 1.8%-26.5%; mean, 16.6%) of hospital uncompensated care costs.Conclusions and relevanceEstimated profits that hospitals derived from administering 340B-discounted drugs to Medicare patients are small compared with operating budgets yet substantial compared with uncompensated care costs for many hospitals. Revenue and profit estimates from 340B-discounted drugs represent a lower bound because data on revenue from the sale of outpatient retail dispensed drugs by hospital contract pharmacies and commercial insurer claims are not available.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs) account for half of program expenditures, whether ACOs are associated with surgical spending warrants further study.ObjectiveTo assess whether greater beneficiary-hospital ACO alignment was associated with lower surgical episode costs.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted between 2020 and 2022 using US Medicare data from a 20% random sample of beneficiaries. Individuals 18 years of age and older and without kidney failure who had a surgical admission between 2008 and 2015 were included. For each study year, distinction was made between beneficiaries assigned to an ACO and those who were not, as well as between admissions to ACO-participating and nonparticipating hospitals.ExposuresTime-varying binary indicators for beneficiary ACO assignment and hospital ACO participation and an interaction between them.Main outcomes and measuresNinety-day, price-standardized total episode payments. Multivariable 2-way fixed-effects models were estimated.ResultsDuring the study period, 2 797 337 surgical admissions (6% of which involved ACO-assigned beneficiaries) occurred at 3427 hospitals (17% ACO participating). Total Medicare payments for 90-day surgical episodes were lowest when ACO-assigned beneficiaries underwent surgery at a hospital participating in the same ACO as the beneficiary ($26 635 [95% CI, $26 426-$26 844]). The highest payments were for unassigned beneficiaries treated at participating hospitals ($27 373 [95% CI, $27 232-$27 514]) or nonparticipating hospitals ($27 303 [95% CI, $27 291-$27 314]). Assigned beneficiaries treated at hospitals participating in a different ACO and assigned beneficiaries treated at nonparticipating hospitals had similar payments (for participating hospitals, $27 003 [95% CI, $26 739-$27 267] and for nonparticipating hospitals, $26 928 [95% CI, $26 796-$27 059]). A notable factor in the observed differences in surgical episode costs was lower spending on postacute care services.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study evaluating hospital and beneficiary ACO alignment and surgical spending, savings were noted for beneficiaries treated at hospitals in the same ACO. Allowing ACOs to encourage or require surgical procedures in their own hospitals could lower Medicare spending on surgery.

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.