Affordability and adherence gains for Medicare Part D low-income subsidy recipients when low-income subsidy benefits expanded in 2024.

BACKGROUND: The lowest-income beneficiaries enrolled in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program receive "full subsidies" that waive the premium and deductible and impose minimal copayments. Those with slightly higher incomes and assets may be eligible for "partial subsidies." Prior to 2024, individuals receiving partial subsidies faced reduced Part D premiums and deductibles and paid 15% coinsurance. Under provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, recipients of partial subsidies were upgraded to full subsidies beginning in 2024. The objective of this pilot study was to assess whether the new policy is likely to reduce cost-related nonadherence to prescribed medications- a common problem faced by older adults even among those receiving subsidies. OBJECTIVE: To compare cost-related nonadherence among partial- vs full-subsidy recipients with similar characteristics. METHODS: We used 2019 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data for the study. The Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey is uniquely suited for this work because it contains administrative data on low-income subsidy enrollment plus extensive survey-based information on financial resources necessary to establish program eligibility and rates of cost-related nonadherence. Explanatory variables included sociodemographic characteristics, economic resources, work status, and health variables. RESULTS: We found that the partial-subsidy group reported significantly more cost-related nonadherence (39% vs 22%; P = 0.01) arising both from a lower propensity to fill some prescriptions (23% vs 12%; P = 0.03) and to more delays in filling others (29% vs 8%; P = 0.03). The differences were more pronounced for women and racial and ethnic minority groups in contrast to men and majority populations, respectively. Because the study samples were small, we could not conduct a detailed regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of cost-related nonadherence effects associated with partial-subsidy cost sharing suggests that the Inflation Reduction Act policy to expand low-income subsidies may boost medication adherence, most notably among women and racial and ethnic minority groups.

Medicare Part D low-income subsidies expanded in January 2024, but more needs to be done to ensure that eligible beneficiaries enroll.

BACKGROUND: The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 extended full low-income subsidies (LIS) to a small group of Medicare Part D recipients with limited assets and incomes between 135% and 150% of the Federal Poverty Level beginning in January 2024. This policy may result in small enrollment gains among beneficiaries eligible for the new benefits, but the biggest problem with the current LIS program is underenrollment across all eligibility groups. Prior research has shown that underenrollment has been a persistent problem since the LIS program began in 2006, yet little has been done to correct the situation. OBJECTIVE: To identify individual-level factors associated with failure to enroll among low-income beneficiaries eligible for both full subsidies and partial subsidies under the LIS program. METHODS: We used 2019 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data for the study. The Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey is uniquely suited for this work because it contains administrative data on LIS enrollment plus extensive survey information on financial resources necessary to establish program eligibility. We conducted descriptive and multivariate analyses to identify factors associated with failure to enroll when eligible for either full or partial subsidies. Explanatory variables included sociodemographic characteristics, economic resources, work status, health variables, and source of prescription coverage (for nonsubsidized beneficiaries). RESULTS: In 2019, 73% of beneficiaries eligible for full subsidies under pre-Inflation Reduction Act LIS provisions were enrolled, compared with only 25% eligible for partial subsidies. The number of those estimated to be eligible for full subsidies but not enrolled (N = 3.9 million) was more than double that of those eligible but not enrolled for partial subsidies (N = 1.5 million). Factors associated with failure to enroll (older age, male sex, White race, married, higher education, higher income and assets, and excellent/very good health status) were similar for both groups. In multivariate analyses, the single strongest predictor of failure to enroll was receipt of income from work (odds ratio = 5.50; P < 0.001). Among the nonenrolled, 64% eligible for full subsidies and 75% eligible for partial subsidies maintained unsubsidized Part D coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Significant numbers of low-income Medicare beneficiaries are eligible for Part D subsidies but fail to enroll. Common characteristics distinguishing nonenrollees from enrollees include older age with higher proportions of White individuals, married individuals, higher income and assets, and better overall health. Two promising targets for increasing LIS enrollment are evidence of work income and unsubsidized Part D coverage.

Financial incentives tied to Medicare star ratings: impact on influenza vaccination uptake in Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of the star rating bonus payment policy on annual influenza vaccination rates before and after the policy was adopted for Medicare Advantage (MA) plans in 2012. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study using data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey from 2007 to 2015 to test whether the bonus payment policy led to higher flu vaccination rates in MA prescription drug (MAPD) plans vs fee-for-service prescription drug plans (PDPs), which were ineligible for bonus payments. METHODS: Mean preperiod (2007-2011) and postperiod (2012-2015) influenza vaccination rates were compared for enrollees in both types of plans using descriptive and multivariate difference-in-difference (DID) equations. The experimental effect of the MA bonus payment policy was estimated as the interaction between plan type (MAPD plan vs PDP) and period (pre- vs post period) controlling for the main effects of plan type (MAPD vs PDP), timing of the observation (pre- vs post period), and other potential confounders. RESULTS: The study sample included 40,369 person-years of data in the preperiod and 27,703 person-years of data in the post period. Vaccination rates increased by 3.8% in MAPD plans compared with 2.7% in PDPs, leading to a relative MAPD-favored difference that was nonsignificant (P = .31). However, the effect was statistically significant (odds ratio [OR], 1.12; P = .03) in the main multivariate DID model. A larger relative difference was observed among beneficiaries 75 years and older (OR, 1.18; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: The Medicare bonus payment policy led to a small increase in beneficiaries' flu vaccination rates, suggesting that expanding the star measure set could be an effective way to increase uptake for other recommended adult vaccines.

Economic burden of diabetes among medicare beneficiaries with cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Older adults are commonly affected by cancer and diabetes, and an investigation of the economic burden faced by these older adults remains a research gap. Therefore, the objective was to assess the economic burden of diabetes among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer by analyzing annual costs from administrative claims data. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, serial cross-sectional study using the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) from 2006 to 2012. Eligible beneficiaries must be currently or previously diagnosed with cancer (of any type), ≥65 years of age, non-institutionalized and continuously enrolled annually in Medicare Parts A, B and D. Diagnoses of cancer and diabetes were determined through self-report or claims. The primary outcome was the total economic burden of diabetes per capita annually, operationalized as the difference in total direct costs between cancer patients with and without diabetes. Simple linear regression was used to analyze trends of costs across the years. Multivariable regression estimated the effect of diabetes and covariates on total annual spending among beneficiaries with cancer from 2006-2012. KEY FINDINGS: From 2006 to 2012, 4918 beneficiaries included in MCBS had cancer, with over 25% (1275) also having diabetes. From 2006 to 2012, the mean economic burden of diabetes was $7815 per capita annually. After adjusting for covariates, beginning in 2006, diagnosis of diabetes significantly predicted higher total annual spending among cancer beneficiaries in 2007 [coefficient (SE) = 0.5768 (0.1918), P = 0.003], 2011 [coefficient (SE) = 0.4303 (0.1817), P = 0.018] and 2012 [coefficient (SE) = 0.3605 (0.1758), P = 0.040]. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with cancer experienced a higher economic burden from concurrent diabetes.

Osteoporosis Medication Use: A Comparison of Elderly Females Living in Long-term Care Facilities Versus Community Dwellers.

OBJECTIVE: This study compares patterns of evidence-based osteoporosis medication use among females in community and long-term care settings enrolled in Medicare Part D.
DESIGN: Pooled cross-sectional study.
SETTING: Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B, and Part D stand-alone prescription drug plans from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2008, or death.
PARTICIPANTS: Female Medicare Part D enrollees 70 years of age and older with osteoporosis or prior hip fracture.
INTERVENTIONS: NA.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Use of bisphosphonates, calcitonin, teriparatide, and raloxifene was tracked by residential status over the three-year period.
RESULTS: The study sample comprised 96,408 female Part D enrollees with osteoporosis. Prevalence of evidence-based medication use was 42.3% in 2006 and dropped slightly to 40.4% in 2008. In unadjusted comparisons, long-term care residents were significantly less likely to use any osteoporosis medication compared with community dwellers (40.6% vs. 53.1%). After adjustment for differences in individual characteristics, utilization was still lower among long-term care residents (relative risk [RR] = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-0.91). Bisphosphonates were the top choice among medication users, but were prescribed much less often to long-term care residents (RR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.75-0.83) compared with community residents.
CONCLUSION: Prevalence of evidence-based osteoporosis medication use is low in older women enrolled in Part D whether community-dwelling or long-term care residents, but long-term nursing facility residents are more likely to be treated with nonbisphosphonates. Many events that may affect osteoporosis medication use occurred after 2008; therefore, future studies using more recent data are warranted to examine osteoporosis medication use after 2008.

Do Restrictions on Antipsychotic Use Differ Between Medicare Part D Stand-Alone Versus Medicare Advantage Plans?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the type of restrictions and differences among antipsychotic users enrolled in Medicare Part D Stand-Alone (PDPs) and Advantage (MAPDs) prescription drug plans. METHODS: This retrospective study used data from Chronic Condition Data Warehouse, comprising a random 5% sample of the Medicare population in 2008. This study used bivariate analyses and multivariate logistical regression models to study differences in formulary restrictions on antipsychotic use between PDP and MAPD enrollees, adjusting for enrollee characteristics. Dependent variables included type of restriction and antipsychotic therapeutic class. The study sample was restricted to continuous Part D enrollees (N = 1,346,978) stratified by plan type, MAPDs (N = 435,591), and PDPs (N = 911,387). RESULTS: According to the bivariate analysis, antipsychotic users enrolled in PDPs were more likely to encounter restrictions (39.8%), compared with those in MAPDs (30.3%). In the multivariate analyses, antipsychotic users in MAPDs were less likely to face any restriction (odds ratio [OR] = 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.78). Furthermore, atypical antipsychotic users in MAPDs were less likely to face any restriction (OR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.73-0.79), while first-generation antipsychotic users in MAPDs were more likely to face any restriction (OR = 1.87, 95% CI 1.32-2.65). Low-income subsidy (LIS) beneficiaries using any antipsychotic were much more likely to face restrictions compared with non-LIS beneficiaries. CONCLUSION: PDP enrollees prescribed antipsychotics were more likely to face formulary restrictions, as opposed to those in MAPDs. LIS beneficiaries enrolled in PDPs faced much higher risk of restricted access to this "protected" drug class.

Proximal Predictors of Long-Term Discontinuance with Noninsulin Antihyperglycemic Agents.

BACKGROUND: Noninsulin antihyperglycemic agents (NAAs) are the mainstay of treatment for type 2 diabetes, yet persistence in NAA use is suboptimal in many diabetes patients. Most of the research on NAA discontinuance has focused on sociodemographic characteristics and general health status, but such factors are inherently limited in explaining dynamic events such as discontinuance. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative importance of static and proximal dynamic factors in explaining long-term NAA discontinuance among Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes. METHODS: Two sets of probability models were estimated to predict NAA discontinuance as a function of static variables (age, sex, race, original reason for Medicare entitlement, low-income subsidy and dual Medicare/Medicaid eligibility status, and disease burden) and 21 dynamic factors capturing month-by-month changes in drug use, health status, and use of medical services leading up to discontinuance (defined as month 0) and the previous 4 months (designated months -1 to -4) among 71,619 patients with diabetes enrolled in Medicare Part D plans in 2006-2008. RESULTS: Static variables explained just 1.2% of the variance in probability of NAA discontinuance compared with 14% for all variables combined. Key time-related predictors of NAA discontinuance included discontinuation with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs) and statins, hypoglycemia, NAA usage gaps, insulin use, and discharge from hospitals and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). The strongest significant predictors (P < 0.05) of NAA discontinuance were discontinuation with statins and ACEIs/ARBs in month 0 (predicted probabilities of 37% and 34%, respectively). Other variables that significantly increased the probability of NAA discontinuance by 10% or more were hypoglycemia in month 0 (14%) and month -1 (17%), discontinuance with ACEIs/ARBs in months -1 (15%) and -2 (10%), discontinuance with statins in month -1 (13%), and insulin use in month 0 (12%). Experiencing a previous gap in NAA therapy was associated with higher likelihood of discontinuance if the gap occurred in month -2 (10%) or month -4 (6%), but a gap in therapy in month -1 actually reduced the likelihood of discontinuance by 13%. Discharge from a hospital or SNF was consistently associated with higher probabilities of NAA discontinuance ranging between 4% and 10%, with higher probabilities occurring closer to month 0. CONCLUSIONS: A cascade of dynamic changes preceding discontinuance with NAA therapy among Medicare Part D enrollees with diabetes was observed between 2006 and 2008. Understanding that lack of persistence in drug use is a dynamic rather than a static phenomenon opens up new avenues for investigating and ultimately improving adherence behavior in the elderly. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Merck & Co. Huang and Raipathak are employees of Merck & Co. Brandt reports consultancy and speaker fees from Catapult, Omnicare, RAND, HRSA, CMS, and AGS Beers Criteria. Loh is currently employed at Touro College of Pharmacy. All other authors have no relevant potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Stuart, Quinn, and Brandt, along with Shen, Roberto, Hendrick, Huang, and Rajpathak. Shen, Loh, Hendrick, and Kim collected the data, and data interpretation was performed primarily by Stuart, Shen, and Roberto, assisted by Quinn, Brandt, Hendrick, Huang, and Rajpathak. The manuscript was written primarily by Stuart, with assistance from the other authors, and revised by Huang, Rajpathak, and Stuart, with assistance from the other authors.

Geographic Variation in Antidiabetic Agent Adherence and Glycemic Control Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Medication nonadherence is an imperative public health concern. Among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), poor adherence to antidiabetic agents is strongly associated with suboptimal glycemic control. Poor adherence and hyperglycemia greatly increase diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. At a national level, diabetes drug adherence using average proportion of days covered (PDC) is estimated to range between 36% and 81%, with an estimated range for diabetes control between 38% and 47%. At a state level no such studies exist. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the level of medication adherence to antidiabetic agents and of diabetes control, and their association among patients with T2DM receiving medication treatment at the state and the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) levels among the populations covered by commercial insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid. METHODS: The study population included adults with T2DM aged ≥18 years who were identified using ICD-9-CM code 250.xx, who received diabetes medication, and who were covered by private insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid in each state, the District of Columbia, and the top 50 MSAs. Medication adherence was measured by average PDC and the percentage of population that had a PDC ≥ 80%. Diabetes control was identified using ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes. Patients who were not diagnosed with uncontrolled diabetes (250.x2 and 250.x3) were identified as being under control. The administrative claims databases used for this study included the 2012 medical and pharmacy claims from a large U.S. health plan, the complete 2011 Medicare Standard Analytical File linked with Part D claims, and the 2008 Mini-Medicaid Analytic eXtract (Mini-Max). Medication adherence and diabetes control were adjusted for age and sex to allow comparison across insurance coverage, states, and MSAs. RESULTS: For an insured patient population with T2DM that received diabetic drug treatment, average PDC was 79%. However, 35% of patients did not achieve an adherence of at least 80% of PDC. In addition, at least 40% of patients did not have their diabetes under control. Across insurance types, we found that patients insured with Medicare had relatively high average PDC and adherence levels (83% and 71%) in comparison with the commercially insured population (77% and 60%) and Medicaid patients (75% and 57%). In contrast, commercially insured patients had relatively better diabetes control (69%) than those insured with Medicare and Medicaid (54% and 53%, respectively). At a state level, we found that commercially insured and Medicare populations have relatively smaller geographic variation in drug adherence than the Medicaid population. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified gaps in T2DM drug adherence and pinpointed geographic areas that lag in terms of diabetes drug adherence or diabetes control and would benefit from implementing strategies to increase drug adherence.

Incident user cohorts for assessing medication cost-offsets.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and test incident drug user designs for assessing cost savings from statin use in diabetics. DATA SOURCE: Random 5 percent sample of Medicare beneficiaries, 2006-2008. STUDY DESIGN: Seven-step incident user design to assess impact of statin initiation on subsequent Medicare spending: (1) unadjusted pre/post initiation test; (2) unadjusted difference-in-difference (DID) with comparison series; (3) adjusted DID; (4) propensity score (PS)-matched DID with static and dynamic baseline covariates; (5) PS-matched DID by drug adherence strata; (6) PS-matched DID for high adherers controlling for healthy adherer bias; and (7) replication for ACE-inhibitor/ARB initiators. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Subjects with prevalent diabetes and no statin use (January-June 2006) and statin initiation (July 2006-January 2008) compared to nonusers with a random "potential-initiation" month. Monthly Medicare spending tracked 24 months pre- and post-initiation. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Statistically significant savings in Medicare spending were observed beginning 7 months post-initiation for statins and 13 months post-initiation for ACEIs/ARBs. However, these savings were only observed for adherent patients in steps 5 and 6. CONCLUSIONS: Drug initiator designs are more robust to confounding than prevalent user designs in assessing cost-offsets from drug use but still require other adjustments and sensitivity analysis to ensure proper inference.

Increasing Medicare part D enrollment in medication therapy management could improve health and lower costs.

Targeting efforts to improve medication adherence, especially among people with high health needs, can improve health and lower health care spending. To this end, Medicare requires that insurance plans that provide prescription drug (Part D) coverage offer specialized medication therapy management services to optimize medication use for enrollees with high drug costs, multiple chronic diseases, and multiple covered drugs. We analyzed a large random sample of Part D enrollees with diabetes, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, to see whether poor adherence to recommended drugs was associated with higher Medicare costs. We found that beneficiaries with poor adherence had higher costs, ranging from $49 to $840 per month for patients with diabetes, for example. However, such beneficiaries were not uniformly more likely than others to be eligible for medication therapy management services. Aligning medication therapy management eligibility with a metric such as potentially preventable future costs holds promise for both improving the quality of care and reducing spending.

A qualitative study to identify reasons for discharges against medical advice in the cardiovascular setting.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is responsible for the largest number of discharges against medical advice (AMA). However, there is limited information regarding the reasons for discharges AMA in the CVD setting. OBJECTIVE: To identify reasons for discharges AMA among patients with CVD. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus group interviews (FGIs). PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of patients with a CVD-related discharge diagnosis who left AMA and providers (physicians, nurses and social workers) whose patients have left AMA. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: To identify patients' reasons for discharges AMA as identified by patients and providers. To identify strategies to reduce discharges AMA. APPROACH: FGIs were grouped according to patients, physicians and nurses/social workers. A content analysis was performed independently by three coauthors to identify the nature and range of the participants' viewpoints on the reasons for discharges AMA. The content analysis involved specific categories of reasons as motivated by the Health Belief Model as well as reasons (ie, themes) that emerged from the interview data. RESULTS: 9 patients, 10 physicians and 23 nurses/social workers were recruited for the FGIs. Patients and providers reported the same three reasons for discharges AMA: (1) patient's preference for their own doctor, (2) long wait time and (3) factors outside the hospital. Patients identified an unmet expectation to be involved in setting the treatment plan as a reason to leave AMA. Participants identified improved communication as a solution for reducing discharges AMA. CONCLUSIONS: Patients wanted more involvement in their care, exhibited a strong preference for their own primary physician, felt that they spent a long time waiting in the hospital and were motivated to leave AMA by factors outside the hospital. Providers identified similar reasons except the patients' desire for involvement. Additional research is needed to determine the applicability of results in broader patient and provider populations.

Readmissions after unauthorized discharges in the cardiovascular setting.

BACKGROUND: Patients who left against medical advice (AMA) may be at higher risk for a hospital readmission if the unauthorized discharge was premature. The objective of this study is to examine the relationship between discharges AMA from nonfederal acute care hospitals and cardiovascular disease (CVD) hospital readmissions while addressing bias due to potential confounding, selection, and hospital-level clustering. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used hospital discharge data covering the period between 2000 and 2005. The outcome variables captured readmissions for a CVD-related condition following an index CVD-related discharge. The covariate of interest was an indicator for a discharge AMA in the index hospitalization. The relationship between discharges AMA and 7-day, 31-day, and 180-day readmissions was examined using multivariate models with adjustment for clustering and selection bias. RESULTS: The sample included 348,572 patients, of which 7001 (2%), 19,779 (6%), and 48,855 (14%) were readmitted within 7, 31, and 180 days, respectively. The percentage of patients who were readmitted (7 days; 31 days; 180 days) was higher among the AMA group versus the non-AMA group (2.2% vs. 1%, P < 0.002; 1.3% vs. 1%, P < 0.001; 1.2% vs. 1%, P = 0.02). The adjusted odds of a CVD-related readmission to the same hospital within 7 days, 31 days, and 180 days were 154% (P < 0.001), 51% (P < 0.001), and 19% (P = 0.004) higher, respectively, for patients who left AMA. Results were robust in examining readmissions to any hospital as well as corrections for observable selection bias through propensity score analysis. CONCLUSIONS: A discharge AMA among patients with a discharge diagnosis for CVD during the index hospitalization was predictive of CVD-related readmissions. The strength of the association between a discharge AMA and readmission was greatest within the first week after discharge.