Drug Benefit Changes Under Medicare Advantage Part D: Heterogeneous Effects on Pharmaceutical Use and Expenditures
- 117 Downloads
Although Medicare Part D improved drug benefits for many beneficiaries, its impact on the coverage of Medicare Advantage Part D (MAPD) enrollees depended on their pre-existing benefits and whether they had gap coverage under Part D.
To examine changes in prescription drug utilization and expenditures associated with drug benefit changes resulting from the implementation of Part D.
We studied 248,773 continuously enrolled MAPD patients in eight states. Patients whose insurance product or Census block could not be identified or who had atypical benefits, low-income subsidies or Medicaid coverage were excluded.
The main outcomes were changes in prescription drug days supply and expenditures from 2005 to 2006 and 2005 to 2007.
We linked Census data with 2005–7 MAPD claims, encounter, enrollment, and benefits data and estimated associations of the outcomes with changes in drug benefits, controlling for 2005 comorbidities, demographics, and Census population characteristics.
MAPD enrollees whose drug benefits became potentially less generous after Part D had the smallest increases in drug utilization and expenditures (e.g., drug expenditures increased by $130 between 2005 and 2006), while those who potentially gained the most from Part D experienced the largest increases ($302). The differences in benefit design changes had a stronger association with drug utilization and outcomes among patients at high risk of gap entry than among the entire sample.
Although Medicare Part D unambiguously improved drug coverage for many elderly, it led to heterogeneous changes in drug benefits among MAPD enrollees, who already had generic and sometimes branded drug benefits. After 2006, benefits were worse for individuals who had branded drug coverage in 2005 but now had a coverage gap, but benefits may have improved for individuals who acquired branded drug coverage. Commensurate with these differential changes in benefits following Part D, changes in drug utilization and expenditures varied substantially as well.
KEY WORDSmedicare part D benefit design drug and medical expenditures
This project was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cooperative Agreement U58/CCU923527-04-1: The Translating Research into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD) Study (PI: Mangione). Dr. Mangione is partially supported by the UCLA Resource Center for Minority Aging Research (NIA #P30AG021684-06). We would like to thank Ms. Deborah Marshall for manuscript preparation and other support, and the collaborating health plan for permitting access to the data. Dr. Mangione had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Conflict of Interest
In 2006, Dr. Ettner served as a one-time paid consultant for Lilly USA, LLC (“Lilly”) to answer questions about the literature on the cost-effectiveness of antipsychotic medications. In 2010, she served as a one-time paid consultant to Lilly to review the initial study protocol and proposed questionnaires for the Multinational Observational Study Advancing an understanding of the factors associated with differential treatment response and the role of Insulin in the care of patients with Type 2 Diabetes: The MOSAIc Type 2 Diabetes Study.
- 1.Federal Register. Medicare Part D Final Rule, Medicare drug benefit effective CY 2006 (Title 1). Jan 28, 2005. 70: 4193–4585. Available at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-1321.pdf. Accessed June 7, 2011.
- 3.Hoadley J, Hargrave E, Merrell K, Cubanski J, Neuman T. Benefit design and formularies of Medicare Drug Plans: a comparison of 2006 and 2007 offerings. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Nov. 2006. Available at: http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7589.pdf. Accessed: June 7, 2011.
- 4.Summer L, Nemore P, Finberg J. Improving the Medicare Part D Program for the most vulnerable beneficiaries. May 2007. Available at: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=484282. Accessed: June 7, 2011.
- 6.IMS. IMS Special Report, Medicare Part D: The first year, Plymouth Meeting. PA: IMS Health, Inc; 2008.Google Scholar
- 11.Zhang Y, Lave JR, Newhouse JP, Donohue JM. How the Medicare Part D Drug Benefit Changed the Distribution of Out-of-Pocket Pharmacy Spending Among Older Beneficiaries. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. Dec 14 2009.Google Scholar
- 17.HCUP. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Clinical Classifications Software (CCS) for ICD-9-CM.: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2008. Available at: http://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/toolssoftware/ccs/ccs.jsp#download. Accessed: June 7, 2011.