State Out-Of-Pocket Caps On Insulin Costs: No Significant Increase In Claims Or Utilization.

Nearly all patients with type 1 diabetes and 20-30 percent of patients with type 2 diabetes use insulin to manage glycemic control. Approximately one-quarter of patients who use insulin report underuse because of cost. In response, more than twenty states have implemented monthly caps on insulin out-of-pocket spending, ranging from $25 to $100. Using a difference-in-differences approach, this study evaluated whether state-level caps on insulin out-of-pocket spending change insulin usage among commercially insured enrollees. The study included 33,134 people ages 18-64 who had type 1 diabetes or who used insulin to manage type 2 diabetes with commercial insurance coverage that was subject to state-level oversight and was included in the 25 percent sample of the IQVIA PharMetrics database during 2018-21. Insulin out-of-pocket caps did not significantly increase quarterly insulin claims for enrollees who had type 1 diabetes or who used insulin to manage type 2 diabetes. State-level caps on insulin out-of-pocket spending for commercial enrollees did not significantly increase insulin use; that may be in part because of out-of-pocket expenses being lower than cap amounts.

Macular Degeneration Drug Prescribing Patterns After Step Therapy Introduction in Medicare Advantage.

Importance: In Medicare Advantage (MA), step therapy for physician-administered drugs is an approach to lowering drug spending. The impact of step therapy in MA on prescribing behavior and the magnitude of any changes has not been analyzed. Objective: To evaluate the impact of step therapy on macular degeneration drug prescribing patterns for 3 large MA insurers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective encounter-based analysis using 20% nationally representative MA outpatient and carrier encounter records for 2017 to 2019. Participants were MA beneficiaries who were 65 years or older and had received a macular degeneration drug administration. Macular degeneration drug administrations for beneficiaries of MA Aetna, Humana, and UnitedHealthcare (UHC) insurers were assessed. Humana implemented macular degeneration step therapy in 2019, setting bevacizumab as the plan-preferred drug, and aflibercept and ranibizumab as the plan-nonpreferred drugs. Aetna and UHC, which did not implement macular degeneration step therapy, served as the control group. Data analyses were performed from May 2024 to December 2024. Exposures: A macular degeneration drug administration subject to a step therapy policy. Main Outcome and Measures: A binary indicator of whether the drug administered was bevacizumab. Linear probability models and a difference-in-differences framework were used to quantify changes in prescribing patterns before and after the introduction of step therapy for MA insurers that did and did not implement step therapy. To empirically measure the impact of step therapy, the first administration of a treatment episode was assessed, followed by switching patterns. Results: A total of 18 331 MA beneficiaries, 21 683 treatment episodes, and 171 985 drug administrations were included across the control and treatment groups. The difference-in-differences regressions found a 7.8% (95% CI, 4.9%-10.7%; P < .001) greater probability of being prescribed bevacizumab for the first administration due to step therapy. The predicted probabilities of preferred-drug administration in the treatment group increased from 0.61 to 0.70 between the periods before and after step therapy implementation for the first administration. Step therapy was not significantly associated with an increased rate of medication switching (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.71-1.06; P = .15). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this retrospective encounter-based analysis indicate that step therapy is associated with a greater probability of prescribing the plan-preferred drug for the first administration. The analysis failed to find a statistically significant greater rate of medication switching within a treatment episode. Step therapy changed macular degeneration prescribing patterns, but step therapy alone did not transition all administrations to the plan-preferred drug.

Medicare Advantage plan characteristics associated with sorting their beneficiaries to providers that generate fewer avoidable hospital stays.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether certain Medicare Advantage (MA) plan characteristics are associated with driving beneficiaries to providers that generate fewer avoidable hospital stays. DATA SOURCES: This paper primarily used 2018-2019 MA encounter data and traditional Medicare (TM) claims data for a nationally representative 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries. STUDY DESIGN: For each plan design aspect-plan type, carrier, star rating, and network breadth-we estimated two adjusted Poisson regressions of avoidable hospital stays: one without clinician fixed effects and the other with. We calculated the difference between the coefficients to evaluate the extent to which patient sorting affected avoidable hospital stays relative to TM. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: Our sample included Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older who were continuously enrolled in either MA or TM during 2018-2019. Beneficiaries in our sample had one or more chronic, ambulatory care-sensitive conditions. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Patient sorting can be attributed to certain characteristics of plan design aspects. For plan type, HMOs account for 86%, with PPOs accounting for only 14%. For carriers, Humana and smaller carriers account for 89%. For star ratings, high-star contracts account for 94%, with other stars only accounting for 6%. By network design, narrow network plan-counties explained 20% of the patient sorting effect. CONCLUSIONS: While MA plans were found to be associated with driving beneficiaries to providers that generate fewer avoidable hospital stays, the effect is not homogeneous across the characteristics of MA plans. HMOs and high-star contracts are drivers of this MA phenomenon.

Medicare Advantage Is Associated with Lower Utilization of Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Medicare Advantage (MA) insurers use managed care techniques to review the utilization of medical services and control costs. It is unclear if MA enrollees have a lower utilization of elective surgical procedures such as inpatient hip and knee total joint arthroplasty (TJA), which have traditionally been covered by traditional Medicare (TM) without restrictions. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using a 20% sample of 2018 TM claims and MA encounter records for 5,300,188 TM enrollees and 1,970,032 MA enrollees who were 65 to 85 years of age. We calculated unadjusted and adjusted differences (controlling for beneficiary and market characteristics) in the incidence of TJA for MA compared with TM, and by MA plan type. Finally, we calculated differences in the time to contact with an orthopaedic surgeon and time to the surgical procedure among enrollees with an osteoarthritis diagnosis. RESULTS: After controlling for observable characteristics, there was a 15.6% lower incidence of TJA in MA enrollees compared with TM enrollees (p < 0.001). Compared with TM enrollees, health maintenance organization (HMO) enrollees were 28.1% less likely to undergo TJA, controlling for observable characteristics (p < 0.001). From the initial diagnosis, the time to contact with an orthopaedic surgeon and the time to the surgical procedure were also lower among TM enrollees compared with MA enrollees. At 2 years after an osteoarthritis diagnosis, 10.4% of TM enrollees, 7.9% of preferred provider organization (PPO) enrollees, and 5.7% of HMO enrollees had undergone inpatient TJA. CONCLUSIONS: MA coverage was associated with a lower utilization of elective, inpatient hip and knee TJA. MA was also associated with a longer time to orthopaedic surgeon evaluation and surgical procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Alternative approaches to measuring value: an update on innovative methods in the context of the United States Medicare drug price negotiation program.

INTRODUCTION: The United States has begun assessing the value of pharmaceuticals to inform negotiated prices in the Medicare program. Given strong political objections in the United States to the use of QALYs, Medicare will need to adopt an alternative approach to measuring value. AREAS COVERED: In this narrative review, we identified six alternative approaches to measuring value (equal value life-years, health years in total, generalized risk-adjusted cost-effectiveness, severity weighting based on absolute or proportional shortfall, comparative effectiveness based on conventional clinical endpoints, and comparative effectiveness based on both conventional endpoints and patient-centric value elements) and five criteria for assessing these approaches (responsiveness to concerns about discrimination, feasibility, transparency, flexibility, and the ability to incorporate factors beyond traditional value elements). EXPERT OPINION: Four of the alternatives are broadly aligned with the cost-effectiveness framework, but none fully addresses all aspects of the stated concerns that QALYs may be used to unintentionally implement discrimination. We note, however, that the extent to which these concerns lead to discrimination in practice is unknown. Finally, we recommend an approach for measuring value in terms of comparative effectiveness that combines quantitative ranking and weighting of distinct criteria (including patient-centric value elements) with deliberation.

Using Real-World Data to Inform Value-Based Contracts for Cell and Gene Therapies in Medicaid.

OBJECTIVE: High upfront costs and long-term benefit uncertainties of gene therapies challenge Medicaid budgets, making value-based contracts a potential solution. However, value-based contract design is hindered by cost-offset uncertainty. The aim of this study is to determine actual cost-offsets for valoctocogene roxaparvovec (hemophilia A) and etranacogene dezaparvovec (hemophilia B) from Colorado Medicaid's perspective, defining payback periods and its uncertainty from the perspective of Colorado Medicaid. METHODS: This cost analysis used 2018-2022 data from the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing to determine standard-of-care costs and employed cost simulation models to estimate the cost of Medicaid if patients switched to gene therapy versus if they did not. Data encompassed medical and pharmacy expenses of Colorado Medicaid enrollees. Identified cohorts were patients aged 18+ with ICD-10-CM codes D66 (hemophilia A) and D67 (hemophilia B). Severe hemophilia A required ≥ 6 claims per year for factor therapies or emicizumab, while moderate/severe hemophilia B necessitated ≥ 4 claims per year for factor therapies. Patients were included in the cohort in the year they first met the criteria and were subsequently retained in the cohort for the duration of the observation period. Standard-of-care included factor VIII replacement therapy/emicizumab for hemophilia A and factor IX replacement therapies for hemophilia B. Simulated patients received valoctocogene roxaparvovec or etranacogene dezaparvovec. Main measures were annual standard-of-care costs, cost offset, and breakeven time when using gene therapies. RESULTS: Colorado Medicaid's standard-of-care costs for hemophilia A and B were $426,000 [standard deviation (SD) $353,000] and $546,000 (SD $542,000) annually, respectively. Substituting standard-of-care with gene therapy for eligible patients yielded 8-year and 6-year average breakeven times, using real-world costs, compared with 5 years with published economic evaluation costs. Substantial variability in real-world standard-of-care costs resulted in a 48% and 59% probability of breakeven within 10 years for hemophilia A and B, respectively. Altering eligibility criteria significantly influenced breakeven time. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world data indicates substantial uncertainty and extended payback periods for gene therapy costs. Utilizing real-world data, Medicaid can negotiate value-based contracts to manage budget fluctuations, share risk with manufacturers, and enhance patient access to innovative treatments.

Filgrastim and infliximab biosimilar uptake in Medicare Advantage compared with Traditional Medicare, 2016-2019.

BACKGROUND: Medicare Advantage (MA) and Traditional Medicare face different financing structures and incentives and may implement different strategies to encourage biosimilar uptake. Strategies used by health insurers can influence biosimilar uptake, which can in turn promote savings to insurers and patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare filgrastim and infliximab biosimilar uptake between MA and Traditional Medicare from 2016 to 2019 and examine biosimilar uptake by different MA carriers and plan types (Health Maintenance Organization [HMO] or Preferred Provider Organization). METHODS: We use a 2016-2019 nationally representative random 20% sample of the carrier (physician) and outpatient paid claims for Traditional Medicare data and final-action carrier and outpatient records for MA data. We compare quarterly biosimilar uptake from 2016 to 2019 for the first 2 drugs with biosimilar competition: (1) filgrastim, (Neupogen, originator), and biosimilars tbo-filgrastim (GRANIX) and filgrastim-sndz (ZARXIO), and (2) infliximab (Remicade, originator), and biosimilars infliximab-dyyb (Inflectra) and infliximab-abda (Renflexis). RESULTS: From their introduction, there was consistently greater uptake of filgrastim and infliximab biosimilars in MA compared with Traditional Medicare. By Q4 2019, filgrastim biosimilar uptake was 7.6 percentage points higher in MA (80.3%) than Traditional Medicare (72.7%). By Q4 2019, infliximab biosimilar uptake was 28.7% and 15.4% in MA and Traditional Medicare, respectively. Kaiser HMO plans were primarily responsible for the higher uptake of biosimilars in MA; in Q4 2019, filgrastim and infliximab biosimilar uptake was 98.8% and 78.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that filgrastim and infliximab biosimilar uptake is greater in MA compared with Traditional Medicare, which is driven in part by particularly high uptake of biosimilars in MA Kaiser HMO plans. This highlights the need for future work to examine specific strategies and levers employed by MA Kaiser HMO plans and other insurers to increase biosimilar uptake, which can lead to cost savings for physician-administered drugs.

Role of Patient Sorting in Avoidable Hospital Stays in Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Medicare.

Importance: Unlike traditional Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) plans limit in-network care to a specific network of Medicare clinicians. MA plans thus play a role in sorting patients to a subset of clinicians. It is unknown whether the performance of physicians who treat MA and TM beneficiaries is different. Objective: To examine whether avoidable hospital stay differences between MA and TM can be explained by the primary care clinicians who treat MA and TM beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cross-sectional study of a nationally representative sample of MA and TM beneficiaries in 2019 with any of 5 chronic ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSCs). The relative risk (RR) of avoidable hospital stays in MA compared with TM was estimated with inverse probability of treatment-weighted Poisson regression, both without and with clinician fixed effects. The degree to which the estimated MA vs TM difference could be explained by patient sorting was calculated by comparing the 2 RR estimates. Data were analyzed between February 2022 and April 2023. Exposure: Enrollment in MA. Main Outcome and Measures: Whether a beneficiary had avoidable hospital stays in 2019 due to any of the ACSCs. Avoidable hospital stays included both hospitalizations and observation stays. Results: The study sample comprised 1 323 481 MA beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 75.4 [7.0] years; 56.9% women; 69.3% White) and 1 965 863 TM beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 75.9 [7.4] years; 57.1% women; 82.5% White). When controlling for the primary care clinician, the RR of avoidable hospital stays in MA vs TM changed by 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, 1.72-3.50; P < .001), suggesting that compared with TM beneficiaries, MA beneficiaries saw clinicians with lower rates of avoidable hospital stays. This effect size was statistically significant to explain the 2% lower rate of avoidable hospital stays in MA than in TM. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of MA and TM beneficiaries, the lower rate of avoidable hospital stays among MA beneficiaries than TM beneficiaries was attributable to MA beneficiaries visiting clinicians with lower rates of avoidable hospital stays. The patient sorting that occurs in MA plays a critical role in the lower rates of avoidable hospital stays compared with TM.

Incorporating Added Therapeutic Benefit and Domestic Reference Pricing Into Medicare Payment for Expensive Part B Drugs.

OBJECTIVES: Identify expensive Part B drugs and evidence for each drug's added benefit and model a reimbursement policy for Medicare that integrates added benefit assessment and domestic reference pricing. METHODS: A retrospective analysis using a 20% nationally representative sample of 2015 to 2019 traditional Medicare Part B claims. Expensive drugs were defined as having average annual spending per beneficiary exceeding the average annual social security benefit ($17 532 in 2019). For expensive drugs identified in 2019, added benefit assessments conducted by the French Haute Autorité de Santé were collected. For expensive drugs with a low added benefit rating, comparator drugs were identified in French Haute Autorité de Santé reports. For each comparator, average annual spending per beneficiary in Part B was computed. Potential savings from 2 reference pricing scenarios were calculated: reimbursing expensive Part B drugs with low added benefit at the level of each drug's (1) lowest cost comparator and (2) beneficiary-weighted-average cost of all comparators. RESULTS: The number of expensive Part B drugs grew from 56 in 2015 to 92 in 2019. Of the 92 expensive drugs in 2019, 34 offer low added benefit. Implementing reference pricing for these expensive drugs with low added benefit could have saved an estimated $2.1 billion if prices were set based on spending for their lowest cost comparator, or $1 billion if prices were set based on the weighted average of spending for comparators. CONCLUSION: Reference pricing based on added benefit assessment could be used to address the launch prices for expensive Part B drugs with low added benefit.

Estimating Changes in Medicare Part D and Commercial Insurer Insulin Spending Amid Planned State-Led Biosimilar Insulin Production in California.

This cross-sectional study evaluates the cost savings of state-led manufacturing and selling of biosimilar insulin.

Incorporating Dynamic Pricing in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Are Known Unknowns Valuable?

BACKGROUND: Current practice in health technology assessment (HTA) of pharmaceuticals conducts cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) based on a static price or the estimated price at market launch. Recent publications suggest incorporating dynamic pricing. To test the feasibility and importance of including dynamic pricing, we compared the standard static approach to four dynamic scenarios by replicating US-based HTA evaluations with dynamic pricing inputs. METHODS: The four case examples included omalizumab (Xolair®) for the treatment of allergic asthma, elagolix (Orilissa®) for the treatment of endometriosis, ocrelizumab (Ocrevus®) for the treatment of primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS), and dupilumab (Dupixent®) for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD). The primary outcome was the relative percentage change in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for two dynamic pricing scenarios versus static pricing. Secondary outcomes included the absolute difference in ICERs versus base-case and an assessment of decision uncertainty. RESULTS: Base-case ICERs were $327,000, $102,000, $700,000, and $102,000 for allergic asthma, endometriosis, PPMS, and AD, respectively. Across scenarios and case examples, the range of ICERs versus base-case varied from decreases of 56% to increases of 232%. The absolute difference in ICERs versus base-case ranged from decreases of $120,000 to increases of $758,000. Conclusions on cost effectiveness were altered in 2/16 scenarios across the four case examples. CONCLUSIONS: Given the decision context that US payers face, with prices varying over time, findings suggest further research to reduce uncertainty around price trajectories, as well as conducting or updating multiple assessments over the lifecycle of pharmaceutical products.

Improving Prior Authorization in Medicare Advantage.

This Viewpoint discusses the potential benefits and harms of prior authorization in Medicare Advantage and the health policy implications and opportunities for improvement.

Association Between Open Payments-Reported Industry Transfers of Value and Prostaglandin Analog Prescribing in the US.

Importance: Reported transfers of value (TOV) from pharmaceutical companies have been associated with greater use of branded anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents by ophthalmologists, but payment under the Medicare Part B buy-and-bill model includes a financial incentive to choose costlier agents, potentially confounding analyses of pharmaceutical TOV and prescribing patterns. How these reported TOV are associated with prescribing patterns for prescription eye drops, not subject to the incentives created by Part B payments, should be considered. Objective: To assess the association between prostaglandin analog (PGA) eye drop prescribing and reported nonresearch TOV by makers of branded PGAs to US vision care professionals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort analysis used a 20% nationally representative sample of 2018 Medicare Part D claims and industry TOV reported to the Open Payments program. Optometrists and ophthalmologists who had more than 10 claims for PGA drops in the 20% sample were analyzed. Analysis took place from June 2021 to February 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariable logistic regression assessing the association between membership in strata of reported TOV and branded PGA prescribing rate, controlling for prescriber demographic factors, local area practices, total PGA prescribing volume, and plan formularies involved. Results: A total of 20 612 ophthalmologists and 5426 optometrists (7449 [29%] female and 18 589 [71%] male) prescribed PGA eye drops. Of these, 9685 (37%) were reported to have received TOV from manufacturers of branded PGAs in 2018, totaling $5 060 346. The median (IQR) reported TOV was $65 ($24-$147). Multivariable logistic regression showed that the predicted probability of primarily prescribing branded PGAs among prescribers who reported receiving no TOV was 12.9% (95% CI, 12.4%-13.4%). This figure increased to 19.6% (95% CI, 18.8%-20.4%) among prescribers receiving TOV, a 50% increase. There was a dose-response association, such that the top 10% of TOV recipients had a 29.2% probability (95% CI, 26.4%-31.9%) of preferential branded use. Conclusions and Relevance: While the median reported TOV to a PGA prescriber was relatively low in this study, there was a positive association between amount of reported nonresearch TOV received from PGA makers and the frequency of branded PGA use. This shows that small reported TOV were associated with differences in prescribing. High rates of branded PGA prescribing may pose a cost burden to patients that affects adherence. Clinicians and policy makers should be aware of these associations.

Medicare Advantage coverage restrictions for the costliest physician-administered drugs.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the use of step therapy, prior authorization, and Part D formulary exclusion by 4 large Medicare Advantage (MA) insurers to manage 20 physician-administered drugs with the highest total Medicare expenditures (top 20 drugs). STUDY DESIGN: We collected data for United Healthcare, CVS/Aetna, Humana, and Kaiser plans to create a database of 2020 Part B coverage restrictions and conducted a retrospective analysis of 2018-2020 Part D formularies. METHODS: For each insurer, we calculated the number of top 20 physician-administered drugs subject to prior authorization and step therapy. For physician-administered drugs for which there were no similar or interchangeable alternatives, we examined which insurers required prior authorization or step therapy. Finally, we examined whether insurers restricted access to physician-administered drugs by reducing coverage on Part D formularies. RESULTS: Of the top 20 physician-administered drugs, 17 were subject to prior authorization and 10 were subject to step therapy by at least 1 insurer. For 5 physician-administered drugs without a similar or interchangeable alternative, none were subject to step therapy and all were subject to prior authorization by at least 1 insurer. Across the 4 insurers, 16 physician-administered drugs were covered on all or some of the Part D formularies in 2018, which decreased to 6 in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Four large MA insurers managed access to expensive physician-administered drugs with a combination of prior authorization, step therapy, and Part D formulary design. When a low-cost alternative exists, these tools can help reduce wasteful spending, but the administrative barriers may also reduce access.

US Adults' Beliefs About Harassing or Threatening Public Health Officials During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The rise in attacks on public health officials has weakened the public health workforce and complicated COVID-19 mitigation efforts. Objective: To examine the share of US adults who believed harassing or threatening public health officials because of COVID-19 business closures was justified and the factors shaping those beliefs. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 Civic Life and Public Health Survey was fielded from November 11 to 30, 2020, and July 26 to August 29, 2021. A nationally representative cohort of 1086 US adults was included. Main Outcomes and Measures: Respondents were asked how much they believed that threatening or harassing public health officials for business closures to slow COVID-19 transmission was justified. Adjusted differences in beliefs regarding attacks on public health officials were examined by respondent sociodemographic and political characteristics and by trust in science. Results: Of 1086 respondents who completed both survey waves, 565 (52%) were women, and the mean (SE) age was 49 (0.77) years. Overall, 177 respondents (16%) were Hispanic, 125 (11%) were non-Hispanic Black, 695 (64%) were non-Hispanic White, and 90 (8%) were non-Hispanic and another race. From November 2020 to July and August 2021, the share of adults who believed harassing or threatening public health officials because of business closures was justified rose from 20% (n = 218) to 25% (n = 276) (P = .046) and 15% (n = 163) to 21% (n = 232) (P = .01), respectively. In multivariable regression analysis, respondents who trusted science not much or not at all were more likely to view threatening public health officials as justified compared with who trusted science a lot (November 2020: 35% [95% CI, 21%-49%] vs 7% [95% CI, 4%-9%]; P < .001; July and August 2021: 47% [95% CI, 33%-61%] vs 15% [95% CI, 11%-19%]; P < .001). There were increases in negative views toward public health officials between November 2020 and July and August 2021, among those earning $75 000 or more annually (threatening justified: 7 [95% CI, 1-14] percentage points; P = .03), those with some college education (threatening justified: 6 [95% CI, 2-11] percentage points; P = .003), those identifying as politically independent (harassing justified: 9 [95% CI, 3-14] percentage points; P = .01), and those trusting science a lot (threatening justified: 8 [95% CI, 4-13] percentage points; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: While antagonism toward public health officials was concentrated among those doubting science and groups most negatively affected by the pandemic (eg, those with lower income and less education), the findings of this study suggest that there has been a shift toward such beliefs within more economically advantaged subgroups and those more trusting of science. Restoring public trust in public health officials will require nuanced engagement with diverse groups.

Eating disorders in the U.S. Medicare population.

OBJECTIVE: The social and economic burden of eating disorders is significant and often financially devastating. Medicare is the largest public insurer in the United States and provides coverage for older adults and some disabled individuals. This study explores prevalence, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and health care spending for Medicare enrollees with eating disorders. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted with the nationally representative 20% sample of 2016 Medicare inpatient, outpatient, carrier, and home health fee-for-service claims and Medicare Advantage encounter records. Sociodemographic characteristics and comorbid somatic conditions were compared between individuals with versus without an eating disorder diagnosis. Mean spending was compared overall and separately for inpatient, outpatient, home health, and pharmacy claims. RESULTS: The sample included 11,962,287 Medicare enrollees of whom 0.15% had an eating disorder diagnosis. Compared to those without a 2016 eating disorder diagnosis, a greater proportion of individuals with an eating disorder were female (73.8% vs. 54.3%), under age 65 (41.6% vs. 15.5%), and dually eligible for Medicaid due to disability or low-income qualification (48.0% vs. 19.6%). Individuals with eating disorders had higher rates of comorbid conditions, with the greatest differences in cardiac arrythmias (35.3% vs. 19.9%), arthritis (40.1% vs. 26.6%), and thyroid conditions (32.2% vs. 19.4%). Spending was higher for enrollees with eating disorders compared to those without overall ($29,456 vs. $7,418) and across settings. DISCUSSION: The findings establish that eating disorders occur in the Medicare population, and that enrollees with these illnesses have risk factors associated with significant healthcare spending and adverse health outcomes.

Prescribing of low- versus high-cost Part B drugs in Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare.

OBJECTIVE: Examine whether Medicare Advantage (MA) coverage is associated with more efficient prescribing of Part B drugs than traditional Medicare (TM) coverage. DATA SOURCES: Twenty percent sample of 2016 outpatient and carrier TM claims and MA encounter records and Master Beneficiary Summary File data. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed whether MA enrollees compared to TM enrollees more often received the low-cost Part B drug in four clinical scenarios where multiple similarly effective drugs exist: (1) anti-VEGF agents to treat macular degeneration, (2) bone resorption inhibitors for osteoporosis, (3) bone resorption inhibitors for malignant neoplasms, and (4) intravenous iron for iron deficiency anemia. We then estimated differences in spending if TM prescribing aligned with MA prescribing. Finally, using linear probability models, we examined whether differences in MA and TM prescribing patterns were attributable to differences in the hospitals and clinician practices who treat MA and TM enrollees or differences in how these hospitals and clinician practices treat their MA versus TM patients. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Not applicable. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In all cases, a larger share of MA enrollees received the low-cost drug compared to TM enrollees, ranging from 8 percentage points higher for anemia to 16 percentage points higher for macular degeneration in the unadjusted analysis. Results were similar in regression analyses controlling for enrollee characteristics and market factors (5-13 percentage points). If TM prescribing matched MA prescribing, we estimated savings ranging from 6% to 20% of TM spending for each scenario. Differences in prescribing patterns were driven both by MA enrollees receiving treatment at more efficient hospitals and clinician practices and hospitals and clinician practices more often prescribing low-cost drugs to their MA patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show MA enrollees were more likely than TM enrollees to receive low-cost Part B drugs in four clinical scenarios where multiple similarly or equally effective treatment options exist.

Quality of Preventive and Chronic Illness Care for Insured Adults With Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Nearly all initiatives to improve care for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) have focused on improving OUD identification and treatment. Whether individuals with OUD have lower quality of care than individuals without OUD remains unclear. Objective: To measure quality of non-OUD preventive and chronic illness care and care coordination for individuals with OUD compared with individuals without OUD. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study of deidentified data on outpatients throughout the US was conducted. Claims for 79 372 commercially insured and Medicare Advantage enrollees aged 18 years or older with diagnosis codes for OUD between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019, and 46 601 individuals without OUD were included in the analysis. Exposure: Diagnosis of OUD. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality indicator performance was calculated, using claims for individuals with OUD and matched comparators without OUD. Within 3 domains of outpatient care quality (preventive care, chronic illness care, and care coordination), 6 indicators used in accountability programs were selected. Performance for individuals with and without OUD was compared, and logistic regression was used to analyze sociodemographic and comorbidity characteristics associated with higher quality of health care. Results: The study included 125 973 individuals, including 69 466 (55.1%) women and 78 225 (62.1%) White individuals, with a mean (SD) age of 59.0 (16.1) years. For the preventive care measure examining breast cancer screening, performance for the OUD cohort was 55.4% (95% CI, 54.7%-56.0%) compared with 65.6% (95% CI, 64.4%-66.7%) for individuals without OUD (P < .001). Quality of care for adherence to statin therapy was lower for individuals with OUD (70.4%; 95% CI, 68.7%-72.1%) compared with individuals without OUD (76.7%; 95% CI, 74.4%-78.7%) (P < .001) and for the hemoglobin A1c testing indicator (OUD: 80.9%; 95% CI, 80.4%-81.5%; comparator: 85.8%; 95% CI, 84.9%-86.8%; P < .001). Care coordination quality also was lower for individuals with OUD compared with those without OUD for mental health follow-up (OUD: 45.3%; 95% CI, 44.6%-46.0%; comparator: 52.5%; 95% CI, 50.0%-55.0%; P < .001) and for potentially avoidable hospitalizations for chronic conditions (OUD: 11.4%; 95% CI, 11.2%-11.7%; comparator: 8.8%; 95% CI, 8.3%-9.2%; P < .001) and diabetes, where a lower score indicates higher quality (OUD: 2.4%; 95% CI, 2.3%-2.5%; comparator: 1.9%; 95% CI, 1.7%-2.1%; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that individuals with OUD have moderately lower quality of care across preventive and chronic illness care and care coordination for non-OUD care compared with individuals without OUD. More attention to measurement and improvement of non-OUD care for these individuals is needed.

Regulation of provider networks in response to COVID-19.

In public health insurance programs, federal and state regulators use network adequacy standards to ensure that health plans provide enrollees with adequate access to care. These standards are based on provider availability, anticipated enrollment, and patterns of care delivery. We anticipate that the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic will have 3 main effects on provider networks and their regulation: enrollment changes, changes to the provider landscape, and changes to care delivery. Regulators will need to ensure that plans adjust their network size should there be increased enrollment or increased utilization caused by forgone care. Regulators will also require updated monitoring data and plan network data that reflect postpandemic provider availability. Telehealth will have a larger role in care delivery than in the prepandemic period, and regulators will need to adapt network standards to accommodate in-person and virtual care delivery.