Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Health Serv Res ; 52(3): 1185-1206, 2017 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27324201

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To determine the magnitude and mechanisms of response to Medicare Part D cost sharing by low-income subsidy (LIS) recipients using oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) and statins. DATA SOURCES: Medicare data for a 5 percent random sample of beneficiaries with diabetes enrolled in fee-for-service Part D drug plans in 2008. STUDY DESIGN: We evaluated the impact of differences between generic and brand cost sharing rates among cohorts of LIS and non-LIS recipients to determine if wider price spreads increased the generic dispensing rate (GDR) and reduced total drug use and cost. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found little association between cost sharing and aggregate OHA and statin use. In adjusted analyses, non-LIS beneficiaries who paid 46 percent of total OHA costs had 2.5 percent fewer OHA days supply than full benefit dual eligibles who paid just 5 percent of their therapy costs. For statins, the difference in days supply between those facing the lowest and highest cost sharing was 4.6 percent. Higher cost sharing was associated with filling fewer but larger prescriptions for both generics and brands. CONCLUSIONS: Higher generic and brand copays had little association with OHA and statin use among LIS recipients. This implies that modest changes in required cost sharing for these medicines would have very little substantive impact on generic dispensing or utilization patterns among LIS recipients and thus would have little effect on total program spending. At the same time, any increases in out-of-pocket costs would be expected to shift costs and place greater financial burden on low-income beneficiaries, particularly those in poor health.


Subject(s)
Cost Sharing/economics , Medicare Part D/economics , Poverty/economics , Diabetes Mellitus/drug therapy , Drug Costs , Health Expenditures , Humans , Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use , United States
2.
Health Aff (Millwood) ; 35(9): 1572-80, 2016 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27605635

ABSTRACT

Medicare Part D prescription drug plans must offer medication therapy management to beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions and high drug expenditures. However, plan sponsors have considerable latitude in setting eligibility criteria. Newly available data indicate that enrollment rates in medication therapy management among stand-alone prescription drug plans and Medicare Advantage drug plans averaged only 10 percent in 2012. The enrollment variation across plan sponsors-from less than 0.2 percent to more than 57.0 percent-was associated with the restrictiveness of their eligibility criteria. For example, enrollment was 16.4 percent in plans requiring two chronic conditions versus 9.2 percent in plans requiring three, and 12.7 percent in plans requiring the use of any Part D drug versus 4.4 percent in plans requiring the use of drugs in specific classes. This variation represents inequities in access to medication therapy management across plans and results in missed opportunities for interventions that might improve therapeutic outcomes and reduce spending. The new Part D Enhanced Medication Therapy Management model of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has the potential to significantly increase the impact of medication therapy management by aligning financial incentives with improvements in medication use and encouraging innovation.


Subject(s)
Eligibility Determination/economics , Insurance, Pharmaceutical Services/economics , Medicare Part D/organization & administration , Medication Therapy Management/organization & administration , Quality Assurance, Health Care , Aged , Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S./economics , Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S./trends , Databases, Factual , Eligibility Determination/trends , Female , Humans , Male , Medicare Part D/economics , Medication Therapy Management/economics , Program Evaluation , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , United States
3.
EGEMS (Wash DC) ; 4(2): 1204, 2016.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27141517

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: High quality research regarding treatment effectiveness, quality, and value is critical for improving the U.S. health care system. Recognition of this has led federal and state officials to better leverage existing data sources such as medical claims and survey data, but access must be balanced with privacy concerns. METHODS: We reviewed and catalogued data access policies for a selection of publicly-funded federal and state datasets to investigate how such policies may be promoting or limiting research activities. RESULTS: We found significant variation in data access policies across federal agencies and across state agencies, including variation for multiple datasets available from the same agency. We also observed numerous indirect hurdles to use of data, including complex data use application procedures, high user fees, and prolonged wait times for data delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers and data owners should consider making changes to data access policies to maximize the utility and availability of these valuable resources.

4.
J Oncol Pract ; 11(2): e190-8, 2015 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25563701

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Medicare Part D prescription benefits cover injected medications, normally covered under Part B, when administered outside of physician offices. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) used for chronic anemia management in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are commonly injected in a physician office but can be administered safely at home. In this study, we explored out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and receipt of Part D-covered ESAs in Medicare beneficiaries with MDS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with MDS enrolled in Medicare Parts A, B, and D were identified using diagnosis codes from 100% claims from 2006 to 2008. OOP costs for the mean erythropoietin alfa claim were compared for Parts B and D. Multivariable models examined the effect of low-income subsidy (LIS) and other Part D cost sharing on receipt of any ESA and any Part D-covered ESA. RESULTS: A total of 13,117 (62.9%) of 20,848 patients received ESAs, but only 1,436 (6.9%) had any Part D claim. OOP payment was $348 under Part D versus $161 under Part B. Among patients with ESA use, those with LIS were 4× more likely to receive Part D ESAs (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Few patients with MDS received ESAs through Part D. OOP payments required under Part D were substantially higher than under Part B. Cost sharing, as reflected by LIS receipt, likely affected decisions to prescribe ESAs outside of the physician office. Improved coordination between Part B and D benefits regarding issues of home injection of medications may create incentives that improve patient access and convenience and reduce costs associated with administration.


Subject(s)
Cost Sharing , Hematinics/economics , Medicare Part D/economics , Myelodysplastic Syndromes/economics , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Hematinics/therapeutic use , Humans , Male , Medicare Part B/economics , Myelodysplastic Syndromes/drug therapy , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...